![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
In Thailand, economic inequality has long been a fact of life. It is a “general inequality of condition” that can be seen to influence all aspects of social, economic, and political life. Yet inequality has not always been associated with political activism. Following the 2006 military coup, however, there has been a deliberate and politicized linking of inequality and politics. The article explores a complex of political events – elections, coup, constitution, and the political ascent of Thaksin Shinawatra – that has given rise to a relatively recent politicization of economic and political inequalities, now invoked in street politics – a rhetoric developed amongst pro-Thaksin red shirts that challenged the status quo and generates conflict over the nature of electoral democracy.
Acknowledgements
Earlier drafts of this article were presented at the International Conference on Inequality, Conflict and Political Regimes in East and Southeast Asia, Vietnam National University of Social Sciences and Humanities and Stockholm University, Hanoi, 22–24 November 2012 and at the Workshop on Challenging Inequalities: Contestation and Regime Change in Asia, Murdoch University and University of Stockholm, 12–13 July 2013. The author thanks Eva Hansson and participants at both events and anonymous referees for their comments and criticisms. The support of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University is gratefully acknowledged.
Notes on contributor
Kevin Hewison is Sir Walter Murdoch Distinguished Professor of Politics and International Studies and Director of the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University. Previously he was Weldon E. Thornton Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Notes
1 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. 1, p. ix.
2 Tocqueville was aware that democracy could lead to majoritarianism and that democracy may not have sufficient political capacity to overcome deeply entrenched inequalities (see Karl, “Economic Inequality and Democratic Instability,” 149).
3 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. 2.
4 Wilson, Equality, 17–18.
5 Ayer, Thomas Paine, 31.
6 Tawney, The Acquisitive Society, 65.
7 See Hewison, “Weber, Marx and Contemporary Thailand.”
8 Ayer, Thomas Paine, 120.
9 Solt, “Economic Inequality and Democratic Political Engagement,” 48. See also Beddoes, “For Richer, for Poorer,” 22.
10 Acemoglu and Robinson, “The Problem With U.S. Inequality.”
11 Schlozman et al., “Inequalities of Political Voice,” 2.
12 For accounts of these conflicts, see Montesano, Chachavalpongpun, and Chongvilaivan, Bangkok May 2010. For an analysis of “cycles” of class-based opposition, see Bell, “‘Cycles’ of Class Struggle.”
13 In 2009, the National Statistical Office's (NSO) official poverty line was 1586 baht per person per month. This varied by province, from a low of 1436 baht in Kampaengphet to 2135 baht in Bangkok. The minimum wage, also variable by province, was about 145 baht per day at the time. Hence, the poverty line was about 35% of the official minimum wage. While the minimum wage is not paid by all firms, the average monthly wage in 2009 was about 8800 baht, making the poverty line about 18% of that wage. If the nationwide minimum daily wage was 300 baht in 2013, as the Yingluck Shinawatra government promised, then the poverty rate would be reduced substantially.
14 Pasuk and Isra, “Poverty and Income Inequality,” 29.
15 The data for 2011 are drawn from the NSO's website, Phon kan samruat phawa setthakit lae sangkhom khong khruaruan pi 2554, http://service.nso.go.th/nso/nsopublish/themes/theme_2–7-3.html, accessed 10 September 2013.
16 Government of Thailand, The Eleventh National Economic and Social Development Plan, 28.
17 Pasuk and Pornthep, Economy of Tomorrow, 16, argue that this trend has been in place for five decades. Preliminary data for 2012 suggest that the Gini has worsened after a period of improvement (National Statistical Office, Botkhwam, 3).
18 Teerana, “Income Distribution,” 12. Pasuk and Pornthep, Economy of Tomorrow, 17, note that wage inequality has increased in recent years.
19 The data are from a draft paper by Duangmanee, “Kan krachuk.”
20 Pasuk and Pornthep, Economy of Tomorrow, 22.
21 Ibid., 19.
22 See Mounier and Voravidh, “New Challenges for Thailand.”
23 World Bank, Social Monitor VI, 30. And profits have increasingly been monopolized by the largest businesses. In 2000, the largest 20% of firms gained 81% of the income and this expanded to 86.3% in 2008 (Nidhi, “Sua luang”).
24 Bird et al. Poverty, Income Inequality, and Microfinance, 3.
25 Bell, “Thailand's Northeast,” 54. Not dissimilar debates occurred about the north, where landholding was more tenuous and plots smaller than in the northeast and where political conflict was endemic.
26 Teerana, “Income Distribution,” 1, 8.
27 Ibid., 8, 10.
28 Ibid., 11.
29 See, for example, Kuhonta, The Institutional Imperative.
30 Warr, Thailand's Development Strategy, 7.
31 Huber, “Politics and Inequality in Latin America,” 651–2.
32 Suwanlee, “Female Migrants in Bangkok Metropolis.” Between 1960 and 2010, the workforce expanded by 28 million persons.
33 Hewison and Tularak, “Thailand and Precarious Work.”
34 Huber, “Politics and Inequality in Latin America,” 651–2. The social security scheme has been extended to the informal sector but the level of contribution continues to exclude most in the informal sector.
35 World Bank DataBank, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx, accessed December 12, 2013. For health, the same figure was below 2%.
36 For the 1960s, see Anderson, “Withdrawal Symptoms,” 27; for the 1980s, see Pasuk and Isra, “Poverty and Income Inequality,” 34.
37 See Mathana and Hewison, “Governance and Social Policy in Thailand.”
38 Lam, “Incidence of the Rice Export Premium.”
39 Pasuk and Isra, “Poverty and Income Inequality,” 35.
40 Pasuk and Pornthep, Economy of Tomorrow, 21, 22.
41 Chairat, “Labor Force Structure Change,” 11.
42 Pasuk and Pornthep, Economy of Tomorrow, 19.
43 Brown, Thanachaisethavut, and Hewison, Labour Relations and Regulation in Thailand. Hewison and Tularak, “Thailand and Precarious Work,” 449.
44 See Huber, “Politics and Inequality in Latin America,” 651.
45 Roniger, “Political Clientelism,” 356.
46 See Echeverri-Gent, “New Approaches,” 629.
47 See Hewison and Kengkij, “Thai-Style Democracy.”
48 See Selway, “Electoral Reform and Public Policy Outcomes.”
49 Hewison, “Crafting Thailand's New Social Contract.”
50 Kasem, “Thaksin kap prachathipatai.”
51 Ockey, Making Democracy, 183.
52 Wikileaks, “06BANGKOK3997 PREM ON THAKSIN.”
53 Pasuk and Baker, Thaksin, 160, 228, 243, 257.
54 Rattaphong and Prachak, Thaksino's Model.
55 On the impact of the crisis, see Natenapha, “Companies in Crisis.” On TRT economic policy see Pansak, Facing the Challenge.
56 Pramuan and Yupana, Big Business Owners in Politics, show that all Thai tycoons entering politics saw a rise in their companies' share prices and market share.
57 Jakrapob, “Democracy and Patronage System.”
58 Pasuk and Baker, Thaksin, 80–2.
59 See Hewison, “The Monarchy and Democratisation,” 66–7.
60 UDD/No Pho Cho, Kham tham lae kham dop, 4.
61 For more analysis of these patterns, see Hewison, “Class, Inequality and Politics.”
62 See Glassman, “The Provinces Elect Governments, Bangkok Overthrows Them,” 1317–18.
63 UNDP, Thailand Human Development Report 2009, 78.
64 Bell, “‘Cycles’ of Class Struggle.”
65 Thongchai, “Toppling Democracy,” 25.
66 For details of this royalism, see Hewison and Kengkij, “Thai-Style Democracy.”
67 Anek, Thaksina-prachaniyom.
68 UDD/No Pho Cho, Kham tham lae kham dop, 4–5.
69 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. 1, ix.
70 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. 2.