115 28 7MB
English Pages [250] Year 1986
THAI GOVERNMENTAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS An Analysis and Evaluation of the Rural Job Creation Programs in Thailand
1980-1985
VANPEN SURARERKS
Deparrment of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences Chiang Mai University, July, 1986
THAI GOVERNMENTAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS An Analysis and Evaluation of the Rural Job Creation Programs in.Thailand 1980 - 1985
VANPEN SURARERKS and SASIPEN
phuangsaichai assistant researcher
First published 1986
© Vanpen Surarerk 1986 All right reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or other wise, without the prior permission of the Copyright owner.
Printed in Thailand by Chareon Wit Press Co., Ltd. Bang Lam Phu, Phra Nakhon Area, Bangkok 10200 Tel. 282-1994
ISBN 974-87434-0-3
Table of Contents Page Preface
x
Acknowledgements
xi-i
Abstract
xv-xvi
Chapter 1
Introduction
1
1.1 History of the Rural Job Creation Programs 1980 1.1.1
- 1985
6
Comparison
of the Policies,
Objectives
and Guidelines for the
Operation of the RJCP
8
(1) Policies and Objectives (2) Project
Characteristics
8 and Its
Priorities (3)
12
Budget Allocation
{4) Administrative
36
Organization
and
Operation of the RJCP (4.1)
Administrative
50 Organization
and Working Procedures
at the
National or Central Levels (4.2)
Administrative
52
Organization
and Working Procedures 'of the RJCP at the Local or Regional Levels
63
1.1.2 Comparison of the Objectives,
Scope
and Evaluation Methods of the RJCP 1980-1985
77
(1) Objectives
and Scope of the
Evaluation (2)
77
Evaluation Methods (2.1)
84
Sampling Procedure Amphoe, Tambon
at Changwat,
and Project
Levels and of the Interviewees
84
ii
Chapter
2
Page
(2.2)
Data Collection
(2.3)
Data Analysis
105
»
107
Comparison of the Result of the RJCP Evaluation in all Regions throughout the Country from 1980 - 1985
109
2.1 Analysis and Comparison of the Outcome of the Evaluation in Relation to Its Objectives 1980 - 1985
113
2.1*1 .Increase of Income for the Rural People
113
2.1.2 Evaluation
of the Community Public Con-
struction according to the Tambon lopment Plans (Evaluation
Deve-
of the Engineer-
ing Projects)
127
2.1.3 Selection of Income Increasing Projects or Durable Projects 2.1.4
136
Necessity for the Projects to Find Solution for Water Shortage for Consumption and for Agricultural Use
2.1.5 Strengthening
138
the Efficiency of the
Tambon Councils
140
2.1.6 Cooperation of the Tambon the Related Government
Councils and
Agencies
2.1.7 People Participation
146 149
2.2 Analysis and Comparison of the Evaluation of the RJCP Based on the New Policy or the Recent Emphases 1982 - 1985 2.2*1 Comparison of the RJCP 1982
153 and the
So-So Projects 1982 2.2.2 Disbursement
153
and Operation of the
Five Percent Budget Alotted to the Changwat (1984)
156
2.2.3 Outcome of the- RJCP Volunteer Technicians (1984
- 1985)
158
m Chapter
Page 2 . 2 . 4 Roles of the Working Group to Support the Rural
Development at the Tambon Level
(Kho-Po-Td)
upon the RJCP t n 1984
160
2 . 2 . 5 Community P u b l i c Constructions 1984 ( 1 ) Construction Rainwater'
of Jars and Tanks for Storage
161
( 2 ) Multipurpose Centers Centers
161
or C h i l d Care
i
162
2 . 2 . 6 Evaluation of the Opinions
of the
People, the Tambon Councils and Government O f f i c i a l s Concerning
the Incorpera-
t i o n o f the RJCP into the RJCP into Rural
Development System after
the
1986
( i n 1984)
163
2 . 2 . 7 Evaluation of the RJCP Projects Constructed before 1985 2 . 2 . 8 Continuing
Projects
165
Related
to the
Completed Water Resource Constructed (1985) 2 . 2 . 9 Maintenance 2.2.10
Nature
System of the RJCP 1985
of Corruption
2 . 3 Summary and Reconnendations *
i n the RJCP 1985
169 171 173
Resulting from
the Evaluation of the RJCP 1985.
178
2 . 3 . 1 Sunsnary of the Overall Picture of the RJCP 1985 (1)
Income Increasing
178 through the RJCP
178
( 2 ) Problems of Water Shortage for Consumption and for A g r i c u l t u r e ( 3 ) Relationship between Tambon Councils and Related Government Agencies
179 180
(4) Evaluation of the RJCP Construction before 1985 (RJCP 1984)
181
Pag 6
Chapter (4..1) Utilization o f the RJCP which Facilitate the Ways of
(4.2) (5)
Life and Living Condition
181
Durability of the Program
182
Evaluation Based o n the Two New Emphaseses (5.1)
(5.2)
The Continuing Projects Related to Completed Water Resources
182
Project Maintenance System
183
(6)
Nature of Corruption
184
(7)
Volunteer Technicians
185
2.3.2 Recommendations
'
182
185
2.4 Summary of Viewpoints and Suggestions of the Governors Concerning the RJCP Policies .19801985
Bibliography
Appendix
192
215
List of Sample Changwat, Amphoe and Tambon for the Study of the Evaluation of RJCP 1980 - 1985
219-227
List of Tables Table 1
Page A l l o c a t i o n of RJCP Budget Throughout the Country
and Those Given to the Changwat
Separately : Each Region, Each Year 1980-1985 2
P r i o r i t y of the RJCP Projects 1980-1985
3
Proportion of Labor and M a t e r i a l s for Each
4 5
32
Number of Workers by Region 1980-1985
33
Amount of Budget and Actual Expenses i n Each 40-41
Number of Projects Granted
Budget : Each
Project, Each Region Yearly 1980-1985 7
The RJCP Budget A l l o c a t i o n for
I n s t i t u t i o n s Responsible for
44-45 the RJCP 78
Evaluation 1980-1985 9
10 11
42-43
Each Project :
Each Region Yearly 1980-1985 8
15
Project and Each Region Yearly 1980-1985
Region 1980-1985 6
7
Sample P r o j e c t s : Types of Projects by Region Yearly 1982-83, 1984 and 1985
102
Number of People Interviewed
104
Data of Population of the RJCP i n Each Region Throughout
the Country
1980-1985
Outside the Program 1985
and Population 110-111
List of Figures Page
Figure 1
Weir,
Masony Type
Hang D o n g , Chiang 2
Weir R e p a i r , Loose-Stone Type Muang, Nakhon S i Thammarat,
3
20
1985
Head R e g u l a t o r and Farm T u r n o u t , Phrom Phiram,
4
20
Mai, 1985
’ R i n " , Chute
20
P h i t s a n u l o k , 1985 o r Flume „
Mae Taeng, Chiang M a t , 1985 5
Farm D i t c h 21
Wang N o i , Ayutthaya, 1985 6
Irrigation
Canal 21
Chian Y a i , Nakhon S i Thammarat, 1985 7
Check Gate San Pa Tong, Chiang
8
22
M a i , 1985
F l o o d Embankment 22
M a h a r a t , Ayutthaya, 1985 9
Concrete F l o o d Embankment Mae Chaem I r r i g a t i o n
10
C a n a l , Hot, Chiang
M a i , 1985
23
Impractical
Water Conservation Pool C o n s t r u c t i o n 23
H o t , Chiang M a i , 1985 12
Water Conservation Pool Ron Phibun,
13
22
Water Conservation Pool and Submerged Path S i Racha, Chon B u r i , 1985
11.
21
Nakhon S i Thammarat,
1985
23
Water D i v e r s i o n P i p e l i n e from a Waterfall Ron P h i b u n , Nakhon S i Thammarat,
1985
24
vii
Figure 14
Page Water Consumption Terminal the P i p e l i n e i n F i g , 13
in V i l l a g e from
Ron Phibun, Nakhon S i Thammarat, 1985 15
V i l l a g e Waterworks Mae Taeng, Chiang M a i , 1985
16
24
V i l l a g e Waterworks San Pa Tong, Chiang M a i , 1982
17
18
25
V i l l a g e Waterworks
25
H o t , Chiang Mai, 1985
25
Community Rainwater Tank
r
Muang, Phitsanulok, 1985 19
Family
Ayutthaya, 1985
Rainforced Concrete
23
S k y l i n e Ferry
Across the Nan River
Bang Krathum,
Phitsanulok, 1985
27
28
Ricebarn Bang Krathum,
27
27
V i l l a g e Asphalt Road (Improved Road) San Kamphaeng, Chiang M a i , 1985.
26
27
V i l l a g e Concrete Road (.Paved Road) Fang, Chiang M a i , 1985
25
26
V i l l a g e Gravel Road, Connect to Highway Amnat Charoen, Ubon Ratchathani, 1985
24
26
Bridge
Fang, Chiang M a i , 1985 22
26
Rainforced Concrete Bridge Maharat,
21
25
Rainwater Concrete J a r
Det Udom, Ubon Rachathani, 1985 20
24
p h i t s a n u l o k , 1985
28
Phitsanulok, 1985
28
Ricemill Bang Krathum,
viii
Figure 28
Page Rubber Sheet Improvement Factory, Ron Phibun, Nakhon S i Thamnarat,
29
Agricultural Demonstration
1985
Center
29 »
Phrom Phiram, Phitsanulok, 1985 30
29
Nursery Muang, P h i t s a n u l o k , 1985
31
Community Livestock Stable Bang Krathum,
32
30
Phitsanulok, 1985
Multipurpose Center Phrom Phiram,
33
29
30
Phitsanulok, 1985
Tambon Council O f f i c e B u i l d i n g Fang, Chiang M a i , 1981
34
30
Map of Thailand: Budget A l l o c a t i o n for Different Changwat Participating
in the 46
RJCP 1985 35
Administrative Organization of the Rural
Job 53
Creation Program 1980 36
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Organization o f the Rural
Job. 54
Creation Program 1985 37
Operational L i n e o f the Rural
Job Creation 55
Program 1985 38
Operational Plan of the Rural
Job Creation
Program 1985
66
39
Operational Plan o f Tambon Council
75
40
Process of Approval
of the Rural
Job Creation
Program, Example of Changwat Chiang Mai 1985 41
76
Map o f Thailand: the I n t e n s i t y o f RJCP Evaluation i n Different
Changwat 1980-1985
86
ix
Page
Figure 42
Map of Northern Region: Sample Changwat, Amphoe and Tambon under the Study of the 92
Rural Job Creation Programs 1980-1985 43
Map of Central Region: Sample Changwat,
Amphoe
and Tambon under the Study of the Rural Job Creation Programs 44
1980-1985
Map of Northeastern Amphoe and Tambon
Region: Sample Changwat,
under the Study of the Rural
Job Creation Programs 45
Map of Southern
93
1980-1985
94
Region: Sample Changwat,
Amphoe and Tambon under the Study of the Rural Job Creation Programs 1980-1985
95
1
Preface The evaluation of the Rural
Job Creation
over - a l l picture o f the program throughout an extra government project of 1985 entrusted
Program 1985 ; the the country,
s i t y through Associate Professor Vanpen Surarerks, Geography,
Faculty
of Social Sciences.
country.
as the coordinator
Department
of
The researcher's task,
was to analyse and evaluate the n a t i o n ’ s Rural and to act
was
-to Chiang Mai Univer-
Job Creation Program,
of the evaluation work i n the whole
She had to oversee the evaluation work conducted by the
research teams from 4 u n i v e r s i t i e s to ensure that a l l the evaluation procedures, namely the beginning, the research methods, the s e l e c tion
o f the target
areas and the sample s e l e c t i o n e t c . , were carried
out on the same standard
i n a l l regions.
Such c r i t e r i a
will give
the o v e r a l l picture of the RJCP and i t s effects on t h e economic and social systems as w e l l as h e l p i n the comparison of the evaluation r e s u l t of the program of each r e g i o n . ment have been c i t e d i n the l e t t e r
The d e t a i l s of the assign-
from the Secretariat's
Office of
the Prime M i n i s t e r to the Rector of Chiang Mai University #PM/RJCP 932 dated A p r i l 1 7 , 1985. To carry
out the assignment,
w i t h a research
t h i s researcher worked together
a s s i s t a n t , Assistant Professor Sasipen Phuangsaichai
of the Department Mai University.
of Economics, Faculty
of Social Sciences, Chiang
We j o i n e d i n the study and data c o l l e c t i o n i n the
sample areas w i t h the evaluation teams from 4 other namely,
Srinakarinwlrot,
Thamasat,
Kasetsart
universities
and Prince
of Songkla.
I n the North the evaluation was conducted i n Phitsanulok and Chiang Mai ; i n the central i n t h e Northeastern Nakhon S i Thammarat. additional
data
r e g i o n , Ayutthaya, region Ubonratchathani
Kanchanaburi
and Chonburi
;
, and i n the South,
We then did the f i e l d research to gather
and went to observe the RJCP’s that
for the best RJCP program of 1985 i n changwat the S e c r e t a r i a t ' s Office of the RJCP we sent
were nominated
Chiang M a i .
Through
out questionaires to
xi
gather the opinions and suggestions concerning the RJCP policy from 1980-1985 of all the governors, except that of Bangkok, and those of the sheriffs o r
Nai
Antptee
in the sample areas of the
RJCP evaluation 1985. This research o f the evaluation of the overall picture of the RJCP 1985,
which the researcher had analysed to present a clear
picture of the program from 1980-1985, (from April till August 1985).
took 5 months to complete
The time was spent on studying ,
collected data and evaluating it as well as writing up the report.
Vanpen Surarerks September 1, 1985
Acknowledgements T h i s research on "Analysis and Evaluation Creation
Program in Thailand
in book form with
1980-1985"
of the Rural
Job
was completed and f i n i s h e d
the help and cooperation
of many people
involved
i n and interested i n the RJCP, The f i r s t
group of work u n i t s and people
that
I want to e x -
press my thanks and appreciation to are those i n the RJCP S e c r e t a r i a t ' s O f f i c e ; namely the c h a i r person, and the secretary of the program Ms.Renu Tankajiwangkura and Ms.Uraiwan Mahasap.
These people gave
me advice and necessary data as w e l l as f a c i l i t a t e d
the coordination
w i t h the evaluation teams of the 4 u n i v e r s i t i e s and helped c o l l e c t i n g the questionaires of opinions (except that i n 1985. report
and suggestions of a l l
of Bangkok) and a l l
the governors
the nai amphoe i n the sample areas
Another person that helped
expedite the
second study and
of the evaluation of the RJCP i n the whole country
after
the 5 year-interval
Faculty
was Associate Professor Dr.Medhi
i n 1985 Krongkaew,
of Economics, Thammasat University.
I feel grateful members who aided
to the U n i v e r s i t i e s and the faculty staff
and cooperated
with me and my research
i n the t r i p s to j o i n in the study and f i e l d research sample areas of various regions.
assistant
i n different
These were the evaluation teams o f
the program from S r i n a k a r i n w i r o t University, Thammasat U n i v e r s i t y , Kasetsart U n i v e r s i t y and Prince tant
Professor
of Songkla U n i v e r s i t y namely Assis-
Charnwit Thiamboonprasart, Associate Professor Dr.
Medhi Krongkaew, Associate Professor Radom Wongnom, Assistant Professor Charas Suwanmala, Hs.Wanee Santhad, Associate Professor W u t h i l e r t Dhewakul, Assistant Professor
A Wiwat Mek-Arun, Assistant
Professor Dr.Rangsan Prasertsri and a l l of those involved i n the evaluation teams o f the 4 U n i v e r s i t i e s whose names cannot be a l l mentioned
here.
I n d i v i d u a l s who deserve my thanks for providing me knowledge, understanding
and* useful advice concerning
c o l l e c t related data without
the RJCP and helping
whose helps t h i s research would not be
xtit
complete are the governors, deputy governors, changwat nai
amp-hoe and
phuchuai
out the questionaires and gave suggestions. given to the committee of the amphoe tambon
offices,
nai amphoe who gave i n t e r v i e w s and f i l l e d Great thanks are a l s o
councils and those of the
c o u n c i l s , the karnnan and phuyai-ban
and i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e
f o l l o w i n g : Mr.Anake S i t h i p r a s a r t , governor of Nakhon S i Thawnarat; Mr.Wichien Suwathi, deputy governor of Ayutthaya; Major Chai erm Suphamorn, deputy governor of Phitsanulok; M.L. Phaksup Khambhu, goyernor of Kanchanaburi ; M r . P r a k i t Uttamot, governor of Chonburi; Mr.Chareonsuk S i laphan, governor of Ubonratchathani; Mr .Aram Aimarun, deputy governor o f Chiang M a i ; Mr .Thongchai Wongrienthong, head of ehangwat Chiang Mai O f f i c e ; Ms.Bamphen S r i p h i c h i t , Development Personnel o f amphoe Chiang Y a i , Nakhon S i Thannarat; Mr.Somnuk Kaewkheo, kamnan tambon
Khaoprabat, amphoe Chian Y a i ; Mr.Phermsak
S r i p h i c i t , development personnel, amphoe
Ronphiboon, Nakon S i Tham-
marat; Mr .Chieng chitranukul ,• kamnan tambon
H i n t o k , amphoe Ronphi-
boon; Ms.Pranee Pharangkul, community development personnel 4 , amphoe Bangkrathum, Phitsanulok; Mr.Cfaab
Ngernklan, phuyai-ban
village 10,
tambon
Khoksalut, Phitsanulok; Sublieutenant Seri Srisakhorn,
amphoe
o f amphoe
amphoe
of amphoe
Phromphiram,
nai
Phitsanulok; Mr.Kawi Nimwong, nai
Phanomtuan, Kanchanaburi ; Mrs.N i t t a y a Dapan,
phuyai-ban v i l l a g e 10, tambon Sommai Kaewmani, c l e r i c a l clerk
Ranghway, amphoe Phanomtuan; M r s . of amphoe Bophloy, Kanchanaburi;
Mr. Charin Boonto, development personnel, Mr.Thongkham R a k c h i t , kamnan tambon
amphoe S r i r a c h a , Chonburi;
Bangphra,
amphoe S r i r a c h a ;
Mr.Sophon Tophol, development personnel, amphoe
Udomdej, Ubonrat-
chathani; Mr.Khun Sangsawaengphat, development personnel, amphoe Amnaj-Chareon, Ubonratchathani; Mr .Thawin Punyawai , development personnel, tambon
khilek,
amphoe Mae Taeng, Chiang M a i , Mr. Chaleo
Thongsri, develo pment personnel,
tambon
Papae,
amphoe Mae Taeng,
Chiang M a i ; Mr .Sanguan Thurianthong, kamnan tambon Chiang M a i ; Mr.Uthai Nantawarat, nai amphoe
Hang Dong, H o t ,
o f amphoe Sankamphaeng,
Chiang Mai and other people i n s i d e and o u t s i d e the sample study program whom I interviewed and t a l k e d to p e r s o n a l l y .
xiv
The person who was responsible
for
the maps in t h i s research
was Assistant Professor Kawee Worakawin, Department of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, Srinakarinwirot University whose a s s i s tance I g r e a t l y appreciate. I would l i k e to convey my thanks to Assistant Professor Sasipen Phuangsaichai , the research a s s i s t a n t of t h i s project whose great help and efficiency contributed g r e a t l y to the success of t h i s report. The typewritten copies of t h i s research were accomplised by Mrs.Patchanee Voraprecha, Department of Geography and Ms.Anchalee Chomphuyod, Department
of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences,
Chiang Mai U n i v e r s i t y . L a s t but not l e a s t the English t r a n s l a t i o n and e d i t i n g of t h i s research was done by Ajaan Somporn Varnado of the English Department, effort
Faculty of Humanities, Chiang Mai U n i v e r s i t y .
and patience deserves praises and thanks as w e l l .
Vanpen Surarerks J u l y , 16, 1986
Her
Abstract The research study on "An Analysis and Evaluation 3ob Creation
Programs in Thailand
1980-1935"
of the Rural
t$- a study
see the o v e r a l l p i c t u r e of the RJCP work i n the country
i n order
to
and to com-
pare the work of a l l four regions of the country
to see how i t e f -
fects the whole system of economy and s o c i e t y .
The government has
used this lopment
program as an important for 6 consecutive years
i n 1980 until
now (or 1985). with a very
budget of 15,000 m i l l i o n baht yearly.
method for short-term rural since the beginning
The amount of budget
cording to the degree of needs of the areas. i n the communities
high amount of the country's
or no l e s s than 2,000 m i l l i o n
baht
d i s t r i b u t e d to each region v a r i e s ac-
poverty and the b a s i c needs of the b a s i c
The RJCP major objectives are to provide jobs for the rural
people in order
per c a p i t a income p a r t i c u l a r l y during
to increase their
the drought or the slack time
by a l l o w i n g construction of p u b l i c works for ding
deve-
of t h e program
the communities
accor-
to the Tambon Development Plans. The study
shows that the RJCP of the government can help
unemployed rural
people to gain extra income from their
the
l a b o r during
the dry season by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the p r o j e c t s to b u i l d useful p u b l i c works for t h e i r communities.
The top p r i o r i t y
of the projects
i s given to the development o f water resources for a g r i c u l t u r e and for consumption.
The water-related project i s emphasized i n a l l
regions except for the central r e g i o n where more emphasis i s placed on construction of o t h e r p u b l i c works such as roads and bridges which are considered second priority
i n other r e g i o n s . However, the
problem of a l i m i t e d amount of budget to carry out the projects occurs i n a l l regions every year. the RJCP i s considered very l i t t l e ,
Even the increase o f income from that i s an average o f 4 - 5 or
not more than 10 percent increase from the people's regular annual income for each year.
And the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f income throughout
the 6 years of the program i s not s i g n i f i c a n t e i t h e r . ceable .that
It is noti-
the amount o f l a b o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the RJCP has de-
creased every year i n every r e g i o n w h i l e the projects of the RJCP
XVI
are beginning to rely more on the use of machines, technical handbooks and maintenance
systems, in order
d u r a b i l i t y of the projects which w i l l be effective increase o f the rural
people's income whether
a g r i c u l t u r e or n o t .
This means that
and social status of the rural long-term or the future.
their
experts,
to maintain the i n the long-term work involves
the RJCP has upgraded the economy
people both in the short-term
Moreover, the construction
i s useful i n t r a i n i n g the rural
technical
and the
o f p u b l i c works
people to know more about democracy
though the effective management of the projects proposed by the rural people themselves and most of the grass-roots administrators of t h e Council
tambon
The Rural
system. Job Creation
and may be the future p o l i c i e s and operational and evaluation being earnest gether
Programs of both the p a s t , t h e present
has been improved and: changed i n both the methods according to the s t u d i e s , analyses
done each year i n order
with the core objectives
the rural
provide
income throughout
which the year
p e o p l e ) , keep the program operating on a continuing
basis as long as there
are
the needs to develop the country
whether the RJCP has affected country
with the
This to-
of the RJCP from the beginning
remain unchanged, [that i s to help for
to correspond
p o l i c i e s and plans of the national development.
or n o t .
no matter
the economy or the p o l i t i c s of the
1. Introduction I t i s known w e l l that given p r i o r i t y
the Thai government o f every
to t h e rural
because the rural
development of the country.
age has
7
This is
regions, of Thailand a r e the areas where 80 p e r - X
cent o f the population l i v e and the majority of them are involved in agriculture. agricultural
T h i s means 75 percent o f the Thai l a b o r i s the X
l a b o r of the areas.
Moreover,
the population whose
l i v i n g depends on.' subsistence a g r i c u l t u r e are scattered i n a l l regions throughout of a l l the rural
the country. population.
They make an average o f 25 percent
The percentage may vary s l i g h t l y due to
to the advantages and disadvantages of the p h y s i c a l , socio-economic and p o l i t i c a l
conditions of the r e g i o n s .
Such a circumstance i s
c l e a r l y reflected i n the results of the rural development conducted by the government since before the National Development Plan (before 1961).
Economic and Social
Since the National Economic and
Social Development Plan or NESDP came into
existence to the present
(over 20 y e a r s ) , i t appears that the government h a s n ' t been able to r e a l l y reach the goal of rural development which i s to get r i d of the poverty i n the rural areas though i t has applied every method i t
could come up w i t h 1 )
sound
and i t has n o t been able to improve
the o v e r a l l economic s t a t u s of the country.
The government effort
i s considered unsuccessful because i t has been mostly b e n e f i c i a l to the w e l l - t o - d o or the middle class groups and not to the farmers who are the majority o f the country
and the poorer people.
That
i s , i t has created acceptance of the gap among the r i c h and the
Different projects of rural development such as programs or projects oh I r r i g a t i o n , Land Reform, Land Consolidation, A g r i c u l t u ral Cooperatives, Bank for Agriculture and A g r i c u l t u r a l Cooperatives, Resettlement, Integrated Rural Development, High Land A g r i c u l t u r e , Watershed Management, Reforestation, e t c .
-j. •
-2-
2) poor '
particularly
on the r a i n f a l l
the poor whose agricultural
and i s faced w i t h problems of.poor s o i l , topography
obstacles, low production,
debt and short
or commuting to supplement .their third
NESDP (1972 - 1976)
income.
period l a b o r migration Toward the end of the
the government began to use the short-
term approach to solve the problems.
I t began tte
local
rural
development
and create
jobs
for
(Tambon Development Program) .
season Ngoen
level.
started during
3 , 5 0 0 m i l l i o n baht
respectively.
the Tambon Councils.
The rural
the present
in 1978,
during
The budget was a l l o t e d through
- 1985)
in the f i r s t
half
and which had the same of the Fourth
the Government of General
I t was c a l l e d Rural
i n 1976.
was 2 , 5 0 0 m i l l i o n and
Economy
NESDP
Kriangsak Chamanant
Rehabilitation
Program
The program objectives were to provide employment opportunity the rural
help dry
development program which was deve-
RJCP (1980
nature, was adopted again - 1981)
to the
the Government
The program was continued
The amount earmarked for the program each year
(1977
in
I t was known as "Khrangham
I t was f i r s t
of M.R. K u k r i t Pramoj i n 1975.
into
programs
population
or a program which a llo ca te d budget to the rural
Phan”
people at tambon
loped
conduct depends
people during
the drought
(RERP) . for
period or dry season w i t h the
budget of 1 , 6 0 0 m i l l i o n baht, 2) 'For-more d e t a i l s read
the following a r t i c l e s
:
1.
Saneh Chamarik e t . a l , , " 4 Rural Development Policy" chonabot Thai 1980 (National Economic and Social Development BoardXT PP- 1-342 . Khosit Panpiamrat, "Poverty in the Northeastern Rural" Chonabot Thai 1980 (National Economic and .Social Development Board), p p , 3 5 - 6 8 , 3.
. et.al,,
Chonabot
I-San
(ISBN 974-07.-5114-8),
4. . "System of Rural Development Plan" Chonabot Thai (Nation al Economic and Social Development Board], p p , 3 7 - 5 7 , 5. Journal Thai
1981, 1982
/where is Thai Rural Coing?" Economic and Social (Year 19 No. 6 Nov, - Dec, 1 9 8 5 ] , p p . 9.-J3 o r tn Chonabot 1983, pp. 2 3 - 2 6 .
6. , "A Decade, of Rural Development" (Speech o f Prime M i n i s t e r Prem Tirisulanond concerning "Rural Development"} Chonabot Thai 1981 (National Economic and Social Development Board], p p , 1-8. 7 . The National Economic and Social Development Plan 5 1934-298$ (National Economic and Social Development Board-, Office of the Prime M i n i s t e r ) , p . 2 and p p . 336-341.
-3-
As a whole though t h i s method of short-term ment program,
present RJCP and was i n i t i a t e d work for
the poor farmers
suffering kinds
rural
develop-
adopted before 1980 or before the coming of the
with
with
the desire to create or promote
during the dry season or while they were
such natural
disaster
as drought,
of obstacles in the preparation
had to face a l l
of the program,
the approval
of the program and the administration of the program.
It,
acheived many b e n e f i t s as some experts have observed. gave economic benefits in that gain more short
term income,
it
helped
the rural
however,
The program
-population to
though not much in average
income.
This resulted i n social b e n e f i t s i n that
i t helped
from flowing into
the problems of insecurity
of l i f e
the c i t i e s and reduced
and property
r i c h and the poor. decentralize
because i t reduced As far
the p o l i t i c a l
the power from the central
the income gap between the b e n e f i t s , i t c l e a r l y helped government to the Tambon
Councils or the l o c a l government or in another foundation
for
democracy.
Other
stop the l a b o r
succeding
word,
rural
w i l l meet the objectives, i f a l l of the future
i t l a i d the
development plans RJCP’s come directly
from the needs of the people in the target areas. Since ter
1980 to the present
Prem Tihsulanond
NESDP has reconsidered
1S77.
importance
the Government of Prime Minis-
the RJCP which was h a l t e d for
1979 due to the p o l i t i c a l in
time,
which i s in the second h a l f of the Fourth
changes in the country
one year
in
as i t happened
The program was reinstated because the government saw i t s and benefits
for
short
- term rural
development.
Such
a program can directly reduce and solve the hunger problems of the poor rural presented
population as stated in the government's p o l i c y statement to the Parliament
on March 28,
Medhi Krongkaew, e t . a l . , The Program: An Evaluation and Analysts March, 19S1) pp, 2 - 3 .
1980:
Government Rural Creation (Thainnasat University Press,
-4-
" . . . in order to alleviate the troubles caused by the drought in the previous year, the type of work to be created must require a great deal of labor and must meet the needs of the community. It will help reduce the migration or 'aamnuting from the rural areas to the city. Besides increasing the income of the rural population, this RJCP will provide the basic foundation for economic development and other benefits to- -the rural community as well.
Then the government of the Prime M i n i s t e r ratified the approval
of the cabinet, in the
Prime Minister
regarding
The program initiated
the Rural
it with
"Agenda of the office dob Creation
by the sub-committee
of the
Program
1980"
on RJCP was proposed by
the Chairman of the adhoc Committee on Drought S i t u a t i o n (Dr.Anat Arbhabhlrama)
on A p r i l 21,
of May 1, 1980;, existence. short.
1980 and the order
Thus, the Rural
I t was c a l l e d "Xhrongkarn
I t has been t n operation
7th year
this
Therefore,
Job Creation
year
(1986)
for
became effective Probram,
Ko-So-Cho"
as
came into
or the RJCP for
6 years and i s entering
its.
which i s the l a s t year of the F i f t h NESDP.
the government can draw conclusion for the r e s u l t s of the
program- or determine
how much this
valuable
and socio-economicly before it w i l l continue
politically
i t i n the Sixth a b l e to tell country
NESDP (1987-1991).
type o f rural
development w i l l be
The government should a l s o be
i f i t can be improved and practiced throughout
or only
i n a certain areas
replaced with other
or if
methods and so o n .
it
the
should be cancelled or
This researcher
f e e l s that
after the government has c o l l e c t e d the r e s u l t s of the evaluation of the RJCP from the o f f i c i a l s and technical from the jjlea should be able
4
hbid.,
of the people
who directly
to come to a decision.
p.l.
experts involved
or even
share in the b enefi ts, i t
-5-
For t h i s reason the evaluation based on the same system throughout the country can help us compare the r e s u l t o f the analysis, the evaluation and the impact of the RJCP in a l l 4 regions of the country Such a non-bias and technical method must be adopted. The government then assigned a group of committees called the Committee on the Eval u a t i o n o f the RJCP (K0-S0-P0) which composed o f Sub-committee KO-SOPOU), who were technical experts from central t i e s who acted as representatives of different and the Sub-Committee K0-S0-P0(2),
and’ regional administrative
universiregions,
who are technical experts from
the Office of the Prime M i n i s t e r . These 2 groups of sub-conmittees joined together with the sub-committee on the Monitoring and Evaluat i o n o f the RJCP of the Ministry Inspector l e v e l s .
These sub-commit-
tees were responsible for the f i r s t year of the program.
The close
cooperation of the KO-SO-PO(l) and (2) helped the government to see the overall picture of the RJCP and i t s impact on different regions throughout the country. Therefore, when the Secretariat's Office of the RJCP saw the Importance and the needs o f the evaluation and had assigned me as a researcher to be responsible for the evaluation o f the RJCP 1985 of the whole country, I then was glad to cooperate arid help i n the evaluation with no p a r t i a l i t y and w i t h the technical knowledge I acquired to benefit the government and others to use the data for further
who want
analysis and evaluation. The purpose
o f t h i s overall evaluation was to see how the whole structure of the RJCP affected the economic and social
systems, and also to compare
the evaluation of each region which had been done separately by university experts and experts from the government sectors for 4 consecutive years. For the reason's already mentioned, t h i s overall evaluation o f the program throughout
the country
i s aimed a t an analysis and
evaluation of the two major c r i t e r i a to present picture o f the structure o f the RJCP during its, 6 years of operation (from the beginning
to the present, 1985). The first criterian
j s the analy-
s i s , evaluation and comparison of the RJCP i t s p o l i c i e s , objectives and operation to see the s i m i l a r i t i e s differences and emphaseses.
-6-
The second criterion i s the analysis and evaluation o f the overall picture throught
the country
from the report o f the evaluation con-
ducted by the university correlated in each region
as much as the
data can be correlated or as much as i t w i l l allow a comparison. The sunmary of the opinions and suggestions given by a l l the governors of the country concerning the RJCP 1980-1985 i s also included a t the end of t h i s research i n order to help the reader to see a clearer picture.
5
1 .1 History of the Rural Job Creation Programs 1980*1985 During the past 6 years (from 1980 to the present 1985) nobody could say that he does not know anything
about the "Rural
Job Creat-
ion Program" whose importance, the present government has realized and which' the government has supported i n developing the rural areas throughout
the country.
I t s operation i s conducted on short - term
basis.of h a l f a year each (January 1 - June 30 with the exception of the first year of the program which covered only 3 months : May 1 July 31).
The program has been carried
on continually every year,
and i s c a l l e d "Khrongkam kq~so-CHO" or "rjcp"
for short.
Besides
allocating a large amount of budget for the program (see table 1) around 2,000 m i l l i o n baht (except for the first two years in which the budget was as high as 3,500 m i l l i o n baht each) or a total of 15,000 m i l l i o n baht in the 6 years, the government has publicized the program through a l l kinds of mass media. However, many people wondered i f the RJCP i s worth the budget or the large amount of the people's taxes to implement' the p o l i c i e s , the objectives and the operation
as the government has allocated to help the target popu-
lation or the poor rural
population to obtain employment i n t h e i r
areas, to increase t h e i r income and to avoid their unemployment or destruction o f ’ t h e i r products during
suffering from the drought
period of the dry season. This occurs because, so far, the - government evaluation of the RJCP, though conducted by many work u n i t s and technical
experts from the central
and the regional
universities
North
713,180,594
639,170,077
390,020,987
Whole Country
3,500,000,000
'3,600,000,000
1,975,500,000
Year
1980
1981
1982
2,044,000,000
1985
371,100,000
381,549,402
266,893,500
269,400,000
1 , 8 1 8 , 4 3 0 ,820
849,550,000
43,4 (46.9)
o
cn Ch o
§
4 16.8 C18.ll
280,789,124
896,477,075
ro
2.04 (22.0)
3,070,668,937
359,950,000
2,036,000,000
1984
Total
423,054,756
365,292,523
2,000,000,000
1983
398,483,678
Project
Central Budget
the K1ng l s
baht
: 44 m i l l i o n
baht
§
' o »—•
9 2 , 7 (100)
= 13,955 ,543,730 i n p e r c e n t
E x c l u d i n g Central Budget
T o t a l Budget o f 4 Regions
Budget
V o l u n t a r y T e c h n i c i o n o f RdCP
from Central Budget and
B u d g e t : 36 m i l l i o n
Voluntary T e c h n i c i a n o f RJCP
from Central Budget and
from
Projects
Areas P r o j e c t
(Khrongkarn S o - S o ) , R u r a l
presentatives
g i v e n to The House o f R e -
part o f which i s
Central Budget 3 , 5 0 0
from ,baht
278,692,391
921,786,389
389,583,176
Separately :
from Treasury Reserve
Remarks
from Central Budget
343,164,150
South
t o t h e Changwat
379,554,655
1,452,693,152
Kortheast
Given
439,488,044 ; 4 , 5 9 2 , 4 2 0 , 3 1 0
545,894,791
Central
Allocation of RJCP Budget Throughout the Country and Those Each Region, Each Year 1980-1985
1
Table
i
& €0 CM CO CO,
(0*81) VET
X
ID LT) cn CM r—+
LD
in
©
5?
LD CM m
CM
-8-
including the follow up and the evaluation assigned by the Prime 5) has not yet been conducted elaborately
Minister and m i n i s t e r s ,
and c a r e f u l l y , especially i n the areas concerning investment cost and the s u i t a b i l i t y of location and the needs o f the people i n the target areas for the construction of public f a c i l i t i e s to create employment each year, to see how much the cost benefits of the projects i n terms o f the program u t i l i t y to the poor rural
which w i l l be most beneficial
population economicly, s o c i a l l y and p o l i t i c a l l y
for the longest period. The construction o f the buildings o r permanent structures from the RJCP budget may have already been included i n the Tambon Development Plans.
So i f there
i s a research
of such nature conducted by an experienced expert who has c a r e f u l l y analysed eachvtype of projects i n a l l areas of the country
to sup-
port the study, the government w i l l be able to provide substantial answer to the questions
being raised concerning the program. More-
over, i t w i l l help the government see the way and devise strategies to develop the Thai rural areas i n a short - term project such as the RJCP and to see i f i t i s necessary for the country and i f so i n what way i t should be modified i n order to achieve the highest benefit to the granter or the government and the receiver or the target population: /'the poor rzzrai population
5)
1
'.
'Read details about the working group for the follow up and evaluation of RJCP from the procedure of the Office o f the Prime Minister on Rural Job Creation Program 1980, 1981, 1.982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 and the report on the evaluation o f the RJCP i n 4 regions of the country by the faculty staff of the central and the regional u n i v e r s i t i e s : 1980 (Medhi Krongkaew e t , a 1 . , 1981): 1982-1983 Chiang Mai University, Chulalongkorn University, Khonkaen University, and prince o f Songkla University reports of the Northern Central, Northeastern and Southern regions respectively); 1984 ( S r i nakarinwirot, Tliammasat University,, Kasetsart University and Prince of Songkla University reports of the Northern, Central, Northeastern and Southern regions respectively).
-9-
1.1.1 Comparison of the Policies, Objectives and Guidelines for the Operation of the RJCP (1) Policies and Objectives The main policies of Prime Minister ■present (1985)
and objectives
of the RJCP of the Government
Prem Tinsulanond from the beginning remain
known as "Khrongkarn llgoen.Phan or Remunerative (Program
(1980)
to t h e
the same as when the program of the same nature
to Help Local
Public Works Programs"
Development and Create Jobs for
t i o n i n the Dry Season) was inaugurated during
Rural
Popula-
the Government of
M.R. K u k r i t Promoj i n 1975 and the program c a l l e d RERP (Program to R e h a b i l i t a t e Rural
Economy Affected by Natural
Government of General
Disaster) during
Kriangsak Chamanant i n 1978.
the
All. 3 of these
programs aimed at helping the target population (i.e, the poor rural population) d i r e c t l y because these people tended to suffer greatly from family migration of these
economic problems due to drought, or coimuting
unemployment, debt,
i n t o c i t i e s to seek j o b s , and so o n .
problems a l l three
governments saw the necessity
employ the short - term method to improve the s i t u a t i o n . government particularly
has c a r r i e d out the programs for
and
Because
to continually The present 6 consecutive
years, and each year a d d i t i o n a l p o l i c i e s and purposes have been added to the original I n 1980 1.
In
ones. the p o l i c i e s and purposes were :
To help the rural people obtain employment bi their communities and to gain additional income from that of their regular fob without having to migrate into the cities in the drought period or the dry season particularly when they tend to be unemployed. the following years
some additional
points
to the p o l i c i e s and objectives of the RJCP. to rural
development d i r e c t l y .
The ideas for
have been added
These are points related these points were de-
rived from the basic data r e s u l t i n g from the analysis and evaluation of the RJCP conducted each year
by the o f f i c i a l s
and technical experts
-10-
involved.
(1)
From the evaluation conducted by only
team of the faculty staff parts' of the country et.al.).
for
the first
Four university staff
evaluation i n each region But i n the second year
one research
of u n i v e r s i t i e s in the central
and regional
RJCP evaluation (Medhi Krongkaew
teams have been responsible for the
by each team i n the f o l l o w i n g years
■
as w e l l .
the evaluation of each of the four regions
was conducted by 4 government work u n i t s composed of the Office of P o l i c y and Planning
o f the Ministry
the Office of - the Accelerated Rural of Community Development ;
of Interiors
the Budget Bureau,
Development and the Department
(2) From the r e s u l t s of the study of the
Advisory Board of Program to Develop Efficiency i n Tambon and Amphoe Planning
o r Pho-Po-To
(begun in 1982)
f o l l o w up work o f the RJCP Secretariat ing statistic
:
( 3 ) From the r e s u l t s of the of 7 systems :
data and problems from different
ing and f o l l o w up the operation
of the work
chairmen of RJCP of a l l 4 regions,
by
( 3 . 1 ) report-
changvat
( 3 . 2 ) check-
chairmen and deputy
( 3 . 3 ) from the checking
up work by teams of inspectors from different the f o l l o w up work of the best RJCP i n the
work u n i t s ,
changwat
and f o l l o w ( 3 . 4 ) from
l e v e l by the
Commission to S e l e c t the Best RJCP Project of the year ( s i n c e 1981), ( 3 . 5 ) from the opinions obstacles
and suggestions
and d i f f i c u l t i e s
different
changwat
about t h e
of the work and from the questionaires
asking about the problems and the needs of a l l the Tambon Councils, ( 3 . 6 ) from the pleas and complaints
changwat
and ( 3 . 7 ) from the reports
concerning the RJCP from different of the RJCP volunteer
technicians
( s i n c e 1984) . The additional
p o l i c i e s and purposes yearly t i l l
now (1985)
are as follows :
1981 2.
To provide the people with water resozirces to help increase agricultural production and for general consumption.
3 . To build public roads and other constructions useful for the health of the' people-,, and other public works.
-11-
1982 4.
... To develop the efficiency administration according Remarks:
1983
5.
of the Tambon Councils in their to the democratic government,
This year an additional detail was added to objective (3) of the year 1981 stating the usefulness of the construction to help promote employment and education.
...
To promote the roles and units in both the amphoe ponsible for supporting work of the RJCP of the efficiently . Remarks:
duties of different government and changwat levels to be rescontrolling and carrying out the Committees of the Tambon Councils
This year a detail was added to that of (3) of 1981 that the building of public construction must be based on the Tambon Development Plans. And another detail was added to that of (4) of 1982 concerning the efficiency of the Tambon Councils. It clearly stated the point that there was efficiency of the planning, the decision making the management and the maintenance of the public facilities.
■ 1984 6.
... To encourage the people to participate in pointing out the problems, making, decisions, solving the problems and sharing the ownership of the public facilities which is paving the. way io democracy in the local level. Remark’s:
>.
I. 1
i. '■
This year a detail was added in to item (5) of 1982 concerning the promotion of cooperation between the Tambon Councils and the private sectors. The policies and objectives of 1983 except item (2) and the additional part of item (6), were stated in the procedures of the Office of the Prime Minister concerning the RJCP 1984 but were absent from the RJCP 1984 book of the RJCP office of the Secretary, Secretariat of the Office of the Prime Minister. So the RJCP 1984 Book contains only 4 items of the policies and objectives.
-12-
1985 . . . The policies and objectives remain the same as those of 1984 except items (2) and (3) Item (6} also appears in all F.JCP 1985 Books. In summary the p o l i c i e s and objectives of RJCP 1985 are stated i n 4 points as f o l l o w s :
1 . To augment the income of the rural people by organising construction of public facilities for the communities according to the Tambon Development Plans. 2.
To develop and increase the efficiency of the Tambon Councils in making plans, making decisions, managing, controlling, and executing the operation of the projects and maintaining the public facilities.
3 . To encourage the people to participate in making suggestions and decisions in solving the problems and sharing the ownership of the- public works. 4.
To promote cooperation in work efforts between the Tambon Councils and related government agencies.
After analysing the beginning
the policies- and objectives of the RJCP from
to the present, one can see that besides the o r i g i n a l
p o l i c i e s and objectives for
increasing the income o f the target popu-
the government has also put efforts into strengthening the self-reliance of the people so that they can finally help themselves.
lation,
Such encouragement i s operated through people
in forming
the
the organization o f the l o c a l
"Tambon Councils"
communities to govern and administer
by s e l e c t i n g people i n the
them.
And the government has
a l s o encouraged the members of the Tambon Councils to develop t h e i r efficiency and to cooperate by sharing and so on in order
to develop
i n the i d e a s , m a t e r i a l s , l a b o r
t h e i r communities in t h e correct
Such a practice i s b e n e f i c i a l to the society and the country whole whether i n the economy, the society or the p o l i t i c s . present
The
RJCP p o l i c i e s and objectives c l e a r l y show the d i r e c t i o n of
The major emphasis is on the durability and technolosoundness of the construction of the public facilities as well
the efforts..
gical
way. as a
-13-
as on the continuity of the projects. The l a t t e r p o i n t s may deviate from the RJCP o r i g i n a l objectives i n c r e a t i n g optimum work o r l a b o r i n the community ( t h i s p o i n t w i l l be discussed i n the conclusion and suggestions chapter).- Moreover,
the RJCP p o l i c i e s also focus'on
the people's income.
T h i s p o i n t should be considered more as an
i n d i r e c t r e s u l t rather
than as a direct r e s u l t which has not been seen
c l e a r l y throughout
the s i x years
ties such as the water resource
of the programs. types:
i r r i g a t i o n canals, farm turnouts, cation
and transportation
n u r s e r i e s , rubber
sheet
facili-
check gates,
water reservoirs e t c . ; the communi-
types:
the farm produce storage
The public
dams, weirs; dike's,
roads,
place types
bridges,
p i p e s , walkways e t c , ;
: r i c e m i l l s , animal
stables,
improvement factories e t c . can be beneficial
i n the long run by increasing production and income.
(2) Project Characteristics and Its Priorities. From the study RJCP projects since
of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the p r i o r i t i e s 1980 to 1985,
one can see that
of the
the government has
earnestly t r i e d to make them corespond to the p o l i c i e s and objectives of the programs.
For t h i s reason
the water resources development
projects of all kinds have been given first priority (See d e t a i l s of the orders o f the RJCP projects 1980 - 1985 page 14) . 1982 on the procedures
the RJCP has -tended to f o l l o w the consideratiqnr.of lopment Plans, and i n some areas of the country
the Tambon Devethe water resource
development projects was not considered
important
community to be put i n the f i r s t
of the l i s t ,
development was s t i l l 7).
In the RJCP 1985,
sent orders concerning
the central
o r necessary
to the
the water resources (see t a b l e s 6 and
government has a l s o emphasized and
in different
regions of the country
as can be see from the letter, of the Secretariat’s
Office of the Prime Minister cept the governor
order
considered the most important
to a l l communities t h i s matter
However, from
of the O f f i c e o f the Prime M i n i s t e r concerning
n o . PM/RJCP W.2630 to a l l governors
of Bangkok) dated 0 c t o b e r ‘ 3 0 , 1984,
(ex-
item ’1,4 s t a t i n g ;
-14-
In planning the projects of the RJCP 1985 may the changwat and amphoe tell the working units to try to arrange for the continuing projects or the projects supporting the existing water resources projects so that they can be best beneficial. Such projects are considered the most urgent and necessary... The types
and p r i o r i t i e s of the RJCP projects during
the 6 years
The first priority is the construction and improvement of water resources for agriculture such as weirs, check gate or dikes, drainage structures, storage dams and various types of native dikes or embankments (except earth embankments}. Other p r i o r i (1980
- 1985)
are the same,
t i e s are a l s o almost the
same.
And though sometimes their
priorities
may be s h i f t e d s l i g h t l y , i t has not made any s i g n i f i c a n t changes. Next to the water
resources development for a g r i c u l t u r e and consumption
construction projects to improve public facilities useful to the rural coirmunities such as roads, bridges, water pipes, Walkways, embankments to prevent landslides and so on. The major differences i s the
are the guidelines Used in grouping years 1980 - 1982, three
years (1983
- 1985)
then l e t the
types.
changwat
which
tambon needed
to do which pro-
check and see that i t has corresponded
w i t h the data and problems of the changwatwhich were sent RJCP o f f i c e .
The past 2 - 3
three
In the l a s t
the projects were grouped according to the
Tambon Development Plans ( i . e . ject
the. projects for the f i r s t
which were d i v i d e d into 2 - 3
to the main
types o f projects have been divided i n t o
8 - 10 types (see d e t a i l s i n table 2 ) . The types of projects of both the e a r l i e r period and the l a t e r period
share 3 important characteristics
:
1 . Each must be a project that can be completed within the term of the project, that is within 6 months (January June) except for the first year's RJCP project which was an urgent project and had to be completed in 3 months (May - July) 2. It has to be concluded in one fiscal year. 3 . It must not be the same type of project being carried out by other government agencies. I n . the f i r s t required • p . te).
year
(1980) the RJCP works were the kinds that
70 percent of the budget for hiring
labor
(see table 3
I f i t needed to be l e s s than that i t must be approved by
the Ko-So-Jo (Committee on RJCP of the
Changwat
Level).
However,
types o f n a t i v e weirs
of ditches,
c u l v e r t s , water p i p e s .
ful public facilities
i n the coimunity.
i n o a g r i c u l t u r a l production, p r o d u c t i v i t y and income such as
those outside the
t h i r d type o f projects
such as roads, bridges
public facilities
ful dealing w i t h i n c r e a s -
ful public facilities
i n the comunity
ment and r e p a i r o f useand
gation c a n a l s , d r a i n
Construction, improve-
ment and r e p a i r o f use- improvement o f use-
Construction, improve-
the like.
ponds, canals and
dredging
e a r t h embankments,
ments) r e p a i r i n g
cept earth embank-
and embankments ( e x -
farm d i t c h e s , i r r i -
(except e a r t h embankments) .
i r r i g a t i o n canals,
drainage canals,
w e i r s , n a t i v e dikes
dikes and embankments
i . e . ponds, w e l l s ,
Construction and
storage dams, various
and consumption
ture
Weirs, check gates
1983
resources for a g r i c u l -
Same as 1981
1982
or d i k e s , spillways
Same as 1980
1981
i - 33)
provement o f water
Construction and im-
1980
'Priority of the RJCP Projects 1980-1985 (see fishes
Same as 1983
Same as 1983
1984
Sane as 1983
Same as 1983
1985
-15-
of
(continued)
2 (continued)
Project
Order
Table 2
1980
/
facilities
such as r o a d s ,
ters, public toilets,
ing o r other prothe. p r ovi n-
departments
j ec ts under
o t h e r m i n i s t r i e s , bureaus, v i l l a g e water tanks e t c .
the projects of
s t a t i o n s , c h i l d - c a r e cen-
offices, health
Council
increasing production
bridges, schools , Tambon
r e l a t e d to or support-
h e a l t h or
public facilities
concerning
ful
b a s i n , f i s h ponds.
Water r e s e r v o i r s , p o o l s , ponds, water
Construction or improvements of useful p u b l i c
ment and r e p a i r o f use-
'
s i l k worm hut nurseries etc.
1983
Construction, improve-
etc.
purpose-buildings, fence
c e n t e r s , people m u l t i -
v i l l a g e development
gazebos, news c e n t e r s ,
shelters, libraries,
rest areas way side
t a b l e s , f i s h ponds,
farm produce, animal
for
s l i d e along the r i v e r ,
dock o r ' b o a t l a n d i n g ,
improvement f a c t o r i e s , markets, s i l o or storage
c e n t e r s , f l o o d embank-
ments to prevent land-
w a t e r , jobber-sheet
pumping
windmill for
schools, Tambon Council
1982
b u i l d i n g s , child-care,,
1981
Same as 1983
1984
Same as 1983
1985
rie-
(continued)
3 (continued)
Project
Order o f
Table 2
1980 as i n
for
stables.
nurseries
and animal
o r ceramic f a c t o r i e s ,
guring barns, p o t t e r i e s
curing barns, tobacco
ironworks shop, rubber
r i e s , s i l k spinning h u t s ,
such as silkworm hut nurse-
o f a g r i c u l t u r e production
t i e s r e l a t e d to increase
Construction o f f a c i l i -
panding waterworks e t c .
ing water pipes and ex-
f y i n g b u i l d i n g s , connect-
waterworks, water p u r i -
workers) , water tanks ,
housing f a c i l i t i e s
o f f i c e s ( n o t including
ter houses, midwifary
a t l e t h i c f i e l d s , slaugh-
toriums, playgrounds,
Plans)
(Same order
1984
as p u b l i c t o i l e t s , crema-
1983
Tambqn Development
plant
1982
r e l a t e d to h e a l t h such
c i a l development
1981 1985
2
9
S
4
Project
Order o f
Table
(continued)
1980
1981
1982
Same as 1983
Same as 1983
to prevent landslides
f l o o d embankments
c u l v e r t s walkways public toilets
and
Roads, bridges Health stattons,
duce
s i l o s for farm p r o -
ries, plant nurseries,
silkworm hut nurse-
improvement f a c t o r i e s ,
w a t e r , rubber-sheet
windmill for pumping
1964
Same as 1983
communal animal s t a b l e s ,
storages, r i c e n i l l s ,
S i l o s o r farm product
v i l l a g e waterworks
Ground water w e l l s ,
J a r s , shallow w e l l s
Water t a n k s , water
1983
Same as J984
to silk-worm huts")
r i e s " was changed
worm h u t nurse-
( t h e word " s i l k -
Same as 1983
Same as 1983
Same as 1983
1985
-18-
2
10
9
8
Project
Order of
Table
(continued)
1980
1981
1982
as in
or childcenters
ment Plans)
Tairbon Develop-
Others (as i n
care
tanibcn
H i l t (purpose b u i l d i n g s for
Others (as i n Tambon Development Plans)
c h i l d - c a r e centers
training centers,
things useful to the cormuni ty
Other necessary
1985
v i l l a g e o r tambon
H e a l t h stations
Plans)
Tambon Development
(Same order
1984
o f f i c e buildings ,
Tambon Council
1983
-19-
-20-
Fig. I
Weir, Masony Type Hang Dong, Chiang 1985
Mai,
Fig. 2
Weir Repair, Loose-Stone Type Nakhon
Muang, Si Thammarat, 1985
£
J yh *
3,
!
Fig. 3
Head Regulator and Farm Turnout,
..........
ij 'iUfyr-i,-;
'
S3
Phrom 1985
Phiram,
Phitsanulok,
-21-
Fig. 4
['
Rin , E Chute or Flume *
s* "?■*;
ci-?
1985
Fig. 5
SIBB
Farm Ditch
SUL 3
Wang Not, Ayutthaya, 1985
|- • v ::“ ■>. fc:“
Fig. 6
Irrigation Canal
' os)
Chian Yai Nakhon
Si Thammarat, 1985
’
s
aft ,«s> V
w
• r S«w ‘ --
-22-
f* • :t ' ■-■.’■ ?..< -'■ ‘
t-
-t
1
Ses-
,.j
s yB
ar
Fig. 7
Check Gate San Pa Tong, Chiang Mai, 1985
■ >'> ' % *3 ,j»i »-. '•«i X F [JL“ > l - f
Sy*
HMM
Fig. 9
Concret Ft Mae Chaetr Hot, Chia!
-23-
**
Fig. 10
r
Water Conservation Pool and Submerged Path Si Racha,
Chon Buri,' 1985
Fig. 11
Impractical Water Conservation Pool Construction Hot, Chiang
Mai, 1985
Fig. 12
Water Conservation Pool Ron Phibun,
Nakhon
Si Thammarat,
1985
* - Z•
;
J
4 tefc
(A. V *
sa ■ ■
'•.
8 pr -.
Water Consumption Village
Ron Phibun, Nakhon Si Thammarat, 1985
from the Pipeline in Fig. 13 Ron Phibun, Nakhon Si Thammarat, 1985
SS I I
Water Diversion Pipeline from a Waterfall
t;
Fig. 14
■ ;s
Fig. 13
Terminal in
Fig. 15
Village Waterworks Mae Taeng, Chiang Mai, 1985
-25-
joEB
u kffi " SB?* J site
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Village Waterworks
Village Waterworks
San Pa Tong, Chiang Mai, 1982
A
Fig. 18
Community Rainwater Tank Muang, Phitsanulok,
1985
Hot, Chiang
Mai, 1985
-26-
Fig. 19
Family Rainwater Concrete Jar Det Udom, Ubon Rachathani, 1985
Fig. 20
Rainforced Concrete Bridge Maharat,
Ayutthaya,
1985
X 4 y* V
&
Fig. 21
Rainforced Concrete Bridge Fang, Chiang Mai, 1985
-27-
•»
t*
Fig. 22
Skyline Ferry Across the /Van River Bang Krathum, Phitsanulok, 1985
Fig. 23
Village Gravel Road, Connect to Highway Amnat Charoen, Ubon Ratchathani, 1985
Jntfj s
’. ’i
ft,
Fig. 24
Village Concrete Road (Paved Road) Fang, Chiang Mai, 1985
i
J...
•A , f
■
JI.‘l >
_JS1•• -
.
*■,:«* fBsSg
-28-
«nL ...
Fig. 25
Village Asphalt Road (Improved Road) San Kamphaeng, 1985
... fiwigg
Ricebarn Bang Krathum, Phitsanulok, 1985
g 27 HF' ' Vai Ricemill Bang Krathum, 'iM phitsanulok, 1985
Chiang Mai,
-29-
Fig. 28
Rubber Sheet Improvement Factory Nakhon
Ron Phibun, Si Thammarat, 1985
g* ~>ja| Fig. 29
gj
Agricultural Demonstration Center Phrom Phiram, Phitsanulok, 1985
Fig. 30
Nursery Muang, Phitsanulok, 1985
riLirSair
r ■TlW
fey
-30-
w Fig. 31
Community Livestock Stab Bang Krathum, 1985
Phitsanulok,
i -II I 1
q
V’H
Phiram, 9 ... .
—
Phitsanulok,
1985
rsr /•
\Fig. 33
\Tambon Council O/jffce Building Fong, Chiang Mai, 1981
-31-
1 ts budget for
hiring
total
The rest of the budget was spent on construction
budget.
materials. types
labor
must not be less than 50 percent
I n the following year
(198.1) the. ratio of the three
of projects namely the water-resources
construction health
projects,
and the. promotion
were 50:30:20 respectively.
j e c t s of the RJCP during jects that
required
struction
projects, the
of 'productivity
I t i s ngticable
the f i r s t
public
and good that
the pro-
2 years p u t emphasis on the pro-
l a b o r h i r i n g the most (see table
The emphasis on the durability
of the
4 P.33).
and long term usage of public
began in the third
year
(1982).
con-
And in 1983 t h i s quality
was clearly emphasized though the desire to use as much l a b o r ( o f the unemployed and poor people concern.
i n the communities)
But when it was necessary
for
borrow machines from the government agencies vate
companies or request for
on that nies.
part
of the project
approval
remained a major
durability's
sake they
or rent
from Tambon Councils to carry
by contracting
other
construction
Moreover, from 1982 on i t was added into the f i r s t
the characteristic of the projects projects
included
that
facilities.
"it
There were clearer
I t a l s o put
term usefulness o f the p u b l i c
statements concerning
machines from government agencies and renting firms when necessary as in 1982 - 1983. Cotmittee o f the RJCP a t the amphoe to j o i n the amphoe project, there
compa-
item of
must be the kind of
in the Tambon Development Plans."
emphasis on the d u r a b i l i t y and long
could
them from pri-
the use of
them from private
Besides the Engineering
level appointed
by the changwat
were a l s o volunteer engineers of
the diploma or certificate
l e v e l s ( C i v i l and Construction' Engineers),
two of whom were h i r e d for
each amphoe
people
of whom the nai amphoe
to work together
approved.
with 1 - 2
T h e i r jobs were to screen
and check the correctness of the engineering work of a l l p r o j e c t s . They were a l s o responsible for
training
the members to use the tech-
n i c a l handbooks which have been revised to' make i t engineers
a t tambon
l e v e l s to f o l l o w .
simple
for
the
The scope of the RJCP evalua-
t i o n 1985 emphasized the evaluation of the d u r a b i l i t y of the RJCP projects constructed before 1985. order
to a l l governors
And i n 1985 the RJCP issued an
(except the governor
of Bangkok) concerning
the d u r a b i l i t y of the projects as appeared i n the l e t t e r Secretariat's
Office
of
the Prime M i n i s t e r '
from the
number PM/RJCP
Table
3
Proportion of Labor and Materials (or Each Project
l‘
by r e g i o n
R a » a ? s ?! a
I
S ” ? s « s 5 s
1
im
MH J i d ii nn I i I jm
—
I
Office o f the Prtioe Minister
by region.
|
27:73
22:78
17:83
PuMtc Facilities
£
Source : RJCP Secretariat's
30:70
34:66
Facilities
Resources
53
South
Types o f Projects
d
32:68
Public
Water
S
Northeast
I
Types o f Projects
d 1 No data
I
23:71
facilities
1 Public
5 2
Central
Water Resources
!
No data
1
Publ f c
2
North
I
Facilities
§
Water
Yearly 1960*1985
1
Resources
and Each Region
I »
HU i HU i
s nS £ 5'* o
—
3| | | t
i
I i
-33-
Table
4
Number of Workers by Region 1980-1985
Unit : person Region
North
1980
1981
1982
852,152 (20.9)
(«)
913,238 ' (24.31)
Central
643,423 1,656,374
(%)
(17.2)
(40.5)'
1983
1984
1985
627,018
578,568
391 410
(27,4)
(29.2)
(28.4)
322,374 (25.9)
244,852
205,630
129,042
102,794
(10.7)
(10.4)
( 9.3)
C8.2)
Northeast 1,948,762 1,339,124 1,295,738 1,109,722 (51.9) (32.8) (56.6) (56.1) (%) South (55) Total («)
248,816 ('6.6)
238,312 ( 5.8)
794,678. 785,875 (57.6) . (63.1)
121,527
84,674
64,561
35',’422
( 5.3)
( 4.3)
( 4.7)
( 2-8)
3,754,239 .4,085,962 2,289,135 .(100.0) (100.0) (100.0)
1,987., 591 1,379,691 1,246,470 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)
Source ; RJCP Secretariates Office of the Prime Minister
-34-
W. 2630 dated October 30, 1984, item 1.5 s t a t i n g :
the RJCP has allocated 5% of the budget allowed to each ehangwat so that the RJCP at the ehangwat level can -implement the fund to the lambon Corneils to carry on the useful project or the expansion of a project or the enforcement of the durability and perfection of a project. . . and item 1.6 stating: Tn setting the supervisor's hiring rate, it should depend on the type of work. If it requires' persons with technical knowledge, the rate should be appropriately adjusted, . .
year o f the RJCP (1983) o r the first of the last three years of the programs, some unapprovable or unpermissable projects have been added io the list. Up t i l l now (1985)
Moreover, from the fourth
there are 5 types (The 5th category has n o t been allowed for two years i n this 1.
year) .
They are;
Construction, improvement and repair of fences and. doors of any kinds including
official
or officer housing,
shelters, temple building wvihara, c e l l s , crematoriums,
tennis
wayside
ceremonial h a l l s , monk's
courts, badminton courts.
2.
Projects related to electric supply u n i t s .
3.
Project related to purchase and provision of water pumps, pesticide sprayers, office supplies, seeds, anima] breeders, hoes, spades, woven baskets.
4 . Projects related to purchase of m a t e r i a l s , equipment and supplies used for t r a i n i n g . 5.
Projects
of constructing
shallow water w e l l s , public
toilets.
Another feature added to the RJCP 1985 was the disapproval
a request of weirs;
of for budget to do repair work of all kinds except the repair in this case joint fund from the people will -be required.
(However, i n 1986 RjCP*s budget can be used to maintain RJCP ' s projects which were constructed it is still
giving priority
or repair
not less than 3 years ago, And.
to water resources projects such as w e i r ,
check gate, flood embankment, and then to farm d i t c h and i r r i g a t i o n canal e t c . respectively).
-35-
From the characteristics jects of the RJCP during ment has Based its of various
and the priorities
its
6 years
of operation
o f the programs in order
to help
from the study
f o l l o w up and evaluation
the target
population
can be s u p e r f i c i a l l y concluded that
highly
successful ,
rences
in t h e basic data
economic,
which the govern-
or the unemployed
people to be a b l e to help themselves at the end, one
can see t h a t i t
However, from the thorough o f each area
social and p o l i t i c a l
many areas
for
judgement on the Basic data derived
offices involved in coordination
and poor rural
given to the pro-
the government was
analysis
in each region
of t h e differ
aspects, one discovers
that
where the government objectives of the types
the priorities
there
were
of projects
and
of the projects did not meet the needs and the urgent
quests of the people
in those a r e a s .
be seen i n such a case when there i n the previous
year
An example of t h i s situation
was a need to repair
but was destroyed
Office of the Prime Minister damaged roads
i n amphoe
to reconsider
Phromsri
was when the construction
recan
a road completed
by the f l o o dt i n the following
year (example of Nakhon S i Thamnarat when the governor their
and amphoe
requested t h e
proposal
to repair
Chianyai).
the
Another example
of a new road was planned and t h e y s a w that
should meet the standard q u a l i t y but i t meant higher and the RJCP budget allowed was l i m i t e d .
funds from the people,
Although they
i t was still
it
construction cost t r i e d to sub-
s i d i z e i t with the 5% of the budget a l l o t e d to t h e ehanguat additional
-
on the p h y s i c a l ,
and some
not enough.
Sometimes
the tambon committee of the RJCP received suggestions from t h e ahangwat to change the request to water
for
the budget, ( t h a t i s to change t h e i r projects
- related projects) because the water-related
advocated by the government and the construction
to the amount of budget a v a i l a b l e though those water were not in top the priority
of their
needs.
projects- were
c o s t would be close - related projects
Some areas
were short
of’
l a b o r to work on the projects o f the RJCP and they needed the durable -types
of projects that required
laborers i n their come.
only
areas already had steady
But projects o f such a nature
l i k e t h a t , they would try project i n the f i r s t and third
the help
jobs that
offered a good i n -
seldom received budget.
to deceptively
I n cases
f i n d l a b o r e r s to work for the
stage of the construction,
stages they would bring
of machine because the
in machines.
but then
t n the
second
T h i s type of arrangement
-36-
was found i n the construction of ponds o r pools to reserve water which they wanted to be strong, durable
and meet the standard. This
means they used machined to redo the same job that- human l a b o r had already done though without the human labor same r e s u l t s . money.
Such a p r a c t i c e , then,
they would r e c e i v e the
was a waste of l a b o r , time and
However, i t met the objectives and p o l i c i e s of the RJCP which
emphasized the use of human l a b o r or the provision of income to the unemployed rural people
during
the p e r i o d o f unemployment or hardship.
And they
stood a better chance to receive budget for the development
of« their
cormiunity.
That was better
rejected o r having difficulty
than r i s k i n g a chance of being
obtaining the funds due to proposing
projects that
were not i n accordance w i t h the types
specified for
each y e a r .
of projects
Some areas had been developed
well beyond
the need to use the RJCP budget, or t h e RJCP budget was much l e s s for the they
types o f projects t h e i r communities needed for felt
offer
i t would adversely reflect
or i f
their
development.
on them i f they
rejected the
communities did not receive anything.
were found particularly
But
Such f e e l i n g s
among the l o c a l administrators.
These pheno-
mena should be seen c l e a r l y from the results of the evaluation of each region. these
At the closing of this
report I w i l l summarize and compare
r e s u l t s again along with the suggestions for
solutions
and i m -
provements.
(3) Budget Allocation I t has been mentioned
e a r l i e r that
the government has c o n t i -
n u a l l y supported and encouraged the short-term
rural
development
program known as the "Rural Job Creation Programs" for years .now ( 1 9 8 5 ) .
The budget allotted
sum for each year ( a total
for
o f approximately
The main p o l j c i e s and categories for
15,000 .mill i o n baht).
a l l o t i n g the budget for
ehangwat in each region were not much different concern was to help earning tural
the poor rural
because their
population who faced
t h e i r l i v i n g to g a i n income duringtthe disasters
6 consecutive
t h i s program was a l a r g e
each major
difficulties
occurence of t h e n a -
and drought e s p e c i a l l y . . Therefore the variables
mostly involved were population, Income and size of agricultural ~
-37-
areas. This i s w i t h the exception o f the f i r s t year of t h e program when the committee considered the hardship the drought
i n the previous year
deration of the p o l i c i e s . used only
the people suffered from
(1979) as the base for t h e i r consi-
For t h i s reason, in that
year ( 1 9 8 0 ) , they
2 factors as a means to i n d i c a t e the troubles of t h e people
i n each a r e a .
These were’ ( 1 ) the amount of rainfall indicator or
the amount of rainfall in each changwat and
(2)
income indicator
which refers to the average per capita income of that changwat. However, the c r i t e r i a
for the s e l e c t i o n of the major v a r i a b l e factors
for the RJCP budget a l l o c a t i o n for
each changwat
years u n t i l now have been adjusted to f i t
i n the following
t h e duration as well as the
p o l i c i e s and objectives of the RJCP as f o l l o w s :
C r i t e r i a for Budget A l l o c a t i o n
Order of Importance 1981
1982
1983
1984
2
-
-
-
-
-
A g r i c u l t u r a l income yearly ( p e r c a p i t a i n the changwat)
-
1 (weight 70%)
i
2
-
-
Tambon income
-
-
3
3
S i z e of rural population ( i n changwat)
-
1
-
-
S i z e of population ( i n tambon)
-
1
1
Size of' agricultural areas of the changwat per capita
-
3
•
-
S i z e of a g r i c u l t u r a l areas o f tambon
-
-
2
2
1980 Rainfall Indicator
1
Income I n d i c a t o r (Average per copita income o f population i n changwat)
r
1985
It
Remarks :
I n 1986 c r i t e r i a for budget v a r i a b l e factors at v i l l a g e sources for a g r i c u l t u r e and t i o n and produce , (.3) s i z e structures.
3 3 (functional factor) K
2 (weight 30%) -
-2
a l l o c a t i o n , depends -on 4 major l e v e l as f o l l o w s : ( 1 ) water reconsumption, ( 2 ) income, occupaof population and ( 4 ) infra-
-38-
I t i s n o t i c e d that the 3 main variables used as i n d i c a t o r s for budget a l l o c a t i o n namely the sizes of p o p u l a t i o n , income and a g r i c u l tural
areas were used i n the f i r s t 4 years
the changuat
and for
the changwat
to a l l o c a t e budget to the iambon.
But i n the l a s t 2 years the RJCP national budget to both the changuat from iambon
and iambon
l e v e l as i n d i c a t o r s .
for budget a l l o c a t i o n to committee a l l o c a t e d t h e l e v e l s by using the data
This probably occurred because the
RJCP p o l i c i e s and o b j e c t i v e s were aimed a t the rural people directly through the
Tambon Councils which were the administrative bodies
that were true
representatives of the people.
amount of a l l o c a t e d budget for t h e country
the
ohangwai
For t h i s reason, the i n each r e g i o n throughout
during the p a s t s i x years was very much different
regional l e v e l .
at the
That i s the amount o f budget a l l o c a t e d was d i r e c t l y
correlated to the degree of poverty. the l a r g e r number of poor people® the RJCP and v i c e versa.
This means the r e g i o n that had received the higher a l l o c a t e d funds
I t appears that the northeastern r e g i o n
The rural population or the poor farmers refers to those who own no a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d whose means of earning a l i v i n g i s through l a b o r or those who own a small piece of l a n d and are unable to p r o v i d e for t h e i r f a m i l i e s o r those who have to rent farmland and cannot afford to buy l a n d for themselves. (Vanpen Surarerks "Production and H i r i n g Off-farm Labor i n the Rural Areas of the Lower North of Thailand" November 1981, p . 34) The number o f the poor rural population i n each r e g i o n according to the data o f the O f f i c e of the NESD Committee f o l l o w i n g the Poor Rural Development Plan o f the Fifth NESDP i s shown as f o l l o w s : Percentage of Percent Number of Number of Region the Poor 1975-76 Rural Poor People Population (per capita income) 1979 Northeast North South Central Whole Country {Chonabot
45 (2,615) 34 (3,095) 33 (3,411) 15 (4,619) 33,5 (3,222) Thai
13,372,877
6,017,795
52.3
7,911,038
2,689,757
23,3
4,719,564
1,557,456
13,5
8,339,136
1,250,870
10.9
34,342,615
11,515,874
2983, Office of NESDB/Committee, p«. 165)
100,0
-39-
received the highest RJCP budget every year while the southern region received the lowest every year.
As for the northern region,
it re-
ceived a lower budget than the central region except for the last two years, (1984-and
1985).
But as for the total budget of the six years
o f the RJCP, the north was alloted a higher Budget than the central region or almost 550 million baht
(see tables 1,5, 6, 7 and figure 34).
Until now, the RJCP budget allocation in different regions of the country shows no difference except for the total alloted amount of each changwat
mentioned.
However, there are differences in the de-
tails o f each RJCP fiscal year which are summed up below. All the RJCP budget were divided for project budget and project administration budget as follows: 1.
Allocation
RJCP budget to amphoe
of
project
was the allocation of the
budget
and tambon
and other special allocation for the
central budgets. 1.1
Budget
allocation
to
The RJCP committee used
changwat
the criteria for budget allocation already mentioned as the guideline based on the indicators related to the hardship and the degree of proverty from the sizes of the population, the agricultural areas and the per capita income of the tambon
population.
From 1980 to 1983 the RJCP committee alloted the budget to the changuat
to allot it to the Tambon Councils, but from 1984 to the
present the conmittee allocated the money to the Tambon Councils directly and reported the total amount of the budget to the ahangwat 1.1.1
Budget
allocation
to
Tambon
Councils
which are
out of the public health city limits was based on the same criteria as those applied to the changuat.
For the first year special criteria
were set up for the areas suffering from drought and those non-irrigated areas, and the size of population at the ratio of 50:30:20.
In the
following year the consideration was based on the size o f agricultural areas, the size of population, the level of backwardness and the sensitive areas o r areas that faced with problems o f insecurity at the ratio of 50:30:20.
Table
Region
oi m o •n Vl CO • ■—< n •> CM n * t-j f". •—i • CM
Or C3 O, CM
o to kt
CM
m co CTl
cn C"-
—4
CM
- vt cn m • co j*-,
c "o m Or • to r >
T m
lo
"
t
tn
•—1
p
•
m
cm
t
T
to
tcm
n t n
" si
co m CM
CO
•—
to m
o» o in
CM
■—< M r-« co
to to
1,850,000,000
r-4
1,384,871,094
r-4o » CM
o O o
A. J*—-s Oto
93.22
o O o
1,716,465,389
o Q o -1 * rf” *. oo
1,841,148,381
xt r-. • cr CM * • o r-> —
t—i to
•
89.74
— r-
O
239,512,785
xr o CO
M
98.79
Expenses
m n r-i
o
277,388,803
CO cm m 96.46
t—(
798,125,289
r-% co
99.62
CO cr» l~< •
893,089,574
or CM * ,m co m
cm
t's co U2>
2,009,100,348 j 1,972,586,941
896,477,075
Northeast
oi • cTi m co
co •
89,80
92.03
Budget
o O o • o
cm
342,630,826
336,196,489
Expenses
•04 to *—' i m
97,52
97.74
Budget
1985
r> to tn
•
388,611,569
413,496,995
Expenses
1984
.. . , . Unit:balit
oo to O>
Total
398,483,678
Central
1983 Vi
423,054,756
Budget
(continued)
Vi
North
Region
Table 5
74,86
63,27
72.96
74.91
87.95
-41-
North
8
s
8
£
8
ft in
bj.
ft 2
S’
ft
B rn
ft in tn
o..
J o ■o
tn
S
cn
T-f
28,597
Water Resources
(13.5)
(17.6)
2,355
(10.7)
(22.7) 5,846
(26.8)
(39,8)
(60.2)
13,186
(66.4) -(8.7)
(4.4) 8,704
(100)
4,340
Total
(61.6) ;
1
(14.0)
(33.6)
I
1
1 Public Works
1982
from T h e G o v e r n m e n t RJCP b o o k : E v a l u a t i o n a n d A n a l y s i s , M a r c h 1981 from book o n Awarded RJCP O u t s t a n d i n g Projects 1982 from book o n Awarded RJCP O u t s t a n d i n g Projects 1983 from RJCP S e c r e t a r i a t ' s O f f i c e u p to J u l y 10,1985 ( T h e r e were some other projects waiting fo r approval for e x t e n s i o n o f the p r o j e c t s ) o f projects o f a l l types from 1980-1985 total 184,740 projects water-related 116,762 projects o r 6 3 . 2 p e r c e n t and p u b l i c works 6 7 , 9 7 8 p r o j e c t s or 3 6 . 8 ( d a t a up t o J u l y 1 0 , 1 9 8 5 ) .
Prime
(52.1)
31,032
in
Minister,
kO cn th tn
Number
§ o
o g
1980 1982 1983 1984
o
1
the
cn cn tn OOtDO
u
co
m
CM
z
l£>
cn
!
3 I
S m CM
CO ■* CM CM
d K
tn *■ CM r-.
a
S S
s s
3
*
co -r
*
CM
C4
CM
7.0
6.1
6(max.)
5.6
South Whole Country
5.0
4 (max.)
5.7
5 (max J
5.8
5.71 -
5.5
5 . Number of worker per family (person)
. ’t
North
3.0
Central
3.1
-
2.9
3.1
Northeast
3.5
3.0
-
-
-
South
3.0
-
-
-
-
3.3
-
-
-
-
Whole Country
2.9
-IllTable 11 (continued) 1985 Type o f Data
1980
1982/83
1984 Inside
Outside
6 . Size of farmland(rai) North
19.1
1-10
Central
26.0
19. 8 3 '
22.7 Z )
2 9 .8 Z )
3 4 . 8Z )
Northeast
22.3
27.0
2 0 . 02 )
20. 0 2 >
69
South
19.9
'15.5
11.9
15.28( iverage owned)
Whole Country
22.2
5 o r less
-
10 less
10 less 2)
8.58(average rented)
-
11.5
(average illegal)
10,000 or less
10,000 orless
7/ Average family income(baht) North*
17,771
10,000 or less
Central
23,021
24,6994 )
40,526
44,711
63,463
Northeast
16,730
12.104
15,00020,000
46,417
24,786s
South
23,634
15,658
27,005
*
19,061
-
■-
-
Whole Country 8 . Average income from RJCP(baht) North
Central Northeast South
Whole Country
(Figure i n
arenthesis i s 1 of av(•rage fami l y 1 ncome)
707 (4.0)
930
1,124 (4.0)
1,075 (3.7)
1,678 (3.4)
2,196 (4.9)
775 (4.9)
1,015 (8.3)
1,088 (3.9)
1,153 (4.7)
1,182 (7.6)
1,976 (7.3)
870 (1.9) 1,481 ( d a i l y wage) 1,521 (lump sum)
1,050
-
-
876
996 (from 80% ( 9 , 9 ) o f sample population)
-
■ -
9 . Average number of work days for RJCP
/
North
-
-
Central
-
-
16,8
20.7
Northeast
-•
-
South
-
-
26.86
-
-
Whole Co.untry
HemarkB ‘ '
13
7
1
28.2 21.7 -
-
Age average o f the north i n 1980 calculated from the male age since they are the majority of workers. z
kand use through tenure, ownershipoor r e n t i n g . Median Average Income per family o f those who do a g r i c u l t u r a l work Income from RJCP 1980 calculated from a book on The Government Job Creation Programs: Evaluation and Analysis of Table 5-5 page 23 and Table 6 - 2 page 23 (Medhi Krongkaew and team)
-112-
I t should be noticed that of the s i x years of the RJCP evaluat i o n only i n the f i r s t year ( o r i n 1980) did the team select the highest number of interviewees.
The sample population of the following years
are only 20 percent o f those o f the first year or only one fifth. However, the socio-economic conditions o f the sample population in the 4 regions are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y different especially those regarding t h e i r average age (40 years), education (grade 4-6) , family
size (4-6 persons;
always lower i n the north and higher in the northeast), number of laborers from each family (which i s about 3 per family) and so on.
There i s some
economic difference, however; that i s the average size o f c u l t i v a t i o n land, which i s about the same i n the central and the northeast (ranging around 20 yai
or more per family
by the people inside
with the exception of the land owned
and outside the project o f the northeast i n 1985
which seemed t o be unusually high. The people inside the p r o j e c t , for example, "owned as much as 69 ai each when compared to those of the farmland owned i n the region which average only 27 'ra i
each, according
to the agricultural s t a t i s t i c s o f Thailand crop year 1983-1984.
This
might be because some o f the RJCP participants are owners of larger pieces o f land which makes the average higher.
I f there i s no mistake
i n the calculation, t h i s phenomenon should be a caution for the RJCP o f the northeast for the future that t h e i r program in t h i s year has not asr sisted the target popujation ( o r the poor people) to obtain employment and gain income during the unemployment period, but i t instead seems t o help the well-to-do people to gain more).
I n the north and the south
the average size of land owned i s about 20 rat. i t i s mostly not more than 10 rat.
In the north p a r t i c u l a r l y
The average family
income (of a l l
kinds) ranged from the highest to the lowest o f the regions discussed i n the e a r l i e r chapter : that i s the northeast, the north, the central and the south respectively. The data o f the first four years o f the evaluation -show that the families who participated i n the RJCP projects i n the f i r s t two regions never received an average income of more than 20,000 baht each year; i n some years they even received less than 10,000 baht. The families i n the- l a t t e r two regions, however, received an average income per year o f 20,000 baht and in some years they received higher than 30,000 - 40,000 baht. However, unusual phenomenon
-113-
such as the larger size of farmland owned by the farmers 'in the northeast which is larger than the average, i s a very interesting variable which should be analysed i n order to see the effect i t has on the rural people's p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the RJCP i n each region i n the future.
2.1 Analysis and Comparison of the Outcome of the Evaluation in Relation to Its Objectives 1980*1985 2.1.1 Increase of Income for the Rural People The f i r s t and the most important tion Programs during people who suffer the rural
objective o f the Rural Job Crea-
i t s 6 years i s "to augment the income of the rural
hardship during
areas during
the period
them from migrating into
the drought period,
to create
jobs in
when they are out of work and to stop
the cities
to seek employment."
and analysis o f the program i n the f i r s t year
The evaluation
(1980)_, showed that i t i s
possible to increase income and to create jobs o r to solve the unemployment problems during
the dry period although there are some defects.
These defects especially concern the slow start o f the project ( t h e end o f March or end of the dry season and i n the following year the project started during the dry season or early January) which made' the rural workers unable to f u l l y participate towards the end of the project because when the rainy season started they had to hurry
back to work i n
t h e i r r i c e f i e l d s . However, almost 3 m i l l i o n rural workers (2.875 m i l l i o n s ) or 20 percent o f a l l the rural labor participated i n the projects o f the RJCP i n a l l 4 regions o f the country. I t i s i n t e r e s t ing to observe that more than h a l f o r about 54 percent of the p a r t i c i pating labor came from the northeast. The rest of the labor came from the north, the central and the south i n a percentage rati o* of 24, 15 and 7 respectively. Each laborer worked an average o f 13 days and received a wage of around 65 baht
a day; or an average of 900 baht (876 baht
per person for the whole project, which was 10 percent of t h e income they earned from t h e i r regular jobs i n one year (but from table 11 i t was only 4.6 percent).
I t can be seen that when one considers the i n -
come of each worker by region i t w i l l be opposite from the number o f laborers returning to t h a t p a r t i c u l a r region. That i s the average total
-114-
income o f the workers who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the RJCP project i n the
south,
the c e n t r a l , the northeast and the north ranging from the highest to the lowest per person was 1,153 baht, respectively.
1,124 baht,
775 baht
and 707 baht
Or i t can be calculated as 4 . 9 , 4 . 9 4 . 7 and 4 . 0 percent
of the income from t h e i r regular jobs in one year
respectively.
It
turned
out t h i s way mainly because- of the differences i n the d a i l y wage p e r p e r son i n each region since the type of projects of the RJCP i n 1980 were n o t much differentffrpm one another
because 8 3 . 4 percent of the projects
were water-related projects. However, one o f the defects discoverd i n t h e evaluation concerning the increase o f income of the rural
people who suffered from t h e drought,
or' the aim to help the poorest workers f i r s t
had turned
ou.t to be the
opposite or i t could not meet the o b j e c t i v e because i t appeared t h a t the w e l l - t o - d o people were the ones who received the most benefit from t h e RJCP pro jects .
That i s , they earned more extra income from t h e projects
than the workers who were i n the lower economic l e v e l (or t h e poor f a r mers).
This has been a weak p o i n t of the RJCP every year u n t i l now though J there have been improvements and changes for the better i n some a r e a s . The RJCP i n 1980 also helped attract
the cities
to seek employment either
comprised up to half
and half
the workers
who migrated
in Bangkok or other
(50:50) to return
to their
to
provinces which communities.
Around 44,000 o r about 1 . 5 o f a l l the RJCP p a r t i c i p a n t s , returned though the p r o j e c t s of the RJCP i n the f i r s t year happened that
al-
had a l a t e s t a r t .
It
58.9 percent o f the sample people ( 6 , 7 7 1 ) had been doing
other kinds of work- before they
j o i n e d i n the work of the RJCP.
I n the
south and the northeast the number was 77 and 61 percent r e s p e c i t i v e l y w h i l e the north and the central had the same percentage of 5 3 ; 1.3
per-
cent of them had gone to work i n Bangkok, another 1 . 3 percent had gone to work in other
ahangwat.
It
can be observed that the highest number of
the sample workers who went to work i n Bangkok were from the northeast ( 1 . 8 percent of the region
or about 0.5
percent higher than the average),
The central r e g i o n had the second l a r g e s t number of workers working i n Bangkok ( 1 , 6 percent of the r e g i o n ) , and next was the n o r t h ( 0 , 5 p e r c e n t ) . But none of the sample workers from the south were interested i n going back to their
region to j o i n i n the RJCP projects.
This’ i s because the
-115-
l a b o r s h i f t i n the south was mostly the s h i f t w i t h i n the same changwat o r w i t h i n the changwat of the r e g i o n .
There were fewer
laborers from
the south -who went to work i n Bangkok (From the report of the Labor Department 1978 there were only 197 from the south while there were 3,867 from the n o r t h e a s t , 1,326 from the north and 626 from the central)
15
Nevertheless, from the r e s u l t of the evaluation o f t h i s aspect,
one can conclude that the projects of the RJCP helped reduce the migrat i o n of the rural
In 1981
l a b o r i n t o the c i t i e s to some e x t e n t .
there
was no report o f the evaluation of the 4 govern-
ment sectors published i n book form as i n 1980.
There was only t h e
research r e l a t e d to t h i s subject done by the technical experts from Khon kaen U n i v e r s i t y and Thairmasat U n i v e r s i t y . that there was a tendency for tive.
the RJCP f i r s t
The researchs showed
objectives to be effec-
An example from the northeast i n which the data comes from
Khon kaen University shows that the people participated i n the p r o j e c t s of the RJCP because they wanted extra income and wanted to develope t h e i r communities,
Fifty
eight
percent
of the p a r t i c i p a n t s had a job a l r e a d y .
Most o f t h e i r jobs were i n a g r i c u l t u r e ; the rest were i n manual l a b o r work o f a l l kinds
of e i t h e r temporary
of Accelerated Rural
work or d a i l y work.
The Office
Development which was responsible for the evaluation
i n t h i s r e g i o n , gave s l i g h t l y different
reasons s t a t i n g that the RJCP
work helped 60 percent of the sample people who d i d not have a job to g e t employment during ches probably from different
the dry season (The difference of these two resear-
r e s u l t e d from the fact that t h e i r sample population came areas of the northeast where there are the highest number
of the poor p e o p l e ) .
The research conducted by Narong Sinsawat (Tham-
masat U n i v e r s i t y , 1982) concerning
the RJCP 1981 i n the northeast showed
that 8 7 . 0 percent of the households that p a r t i c i p a t e d in the RJCP 1980 also participated i n the RJCP 1981,
and 7 7 . 1 percent of t h e households
t h a t d i d not p a r t i c i p a t e j n the RJCP 1980 d i d not p a r t i c i p a t e i n the
1S )phonphimol Woradilok and Suwannee Sumrong Watthana, "Hural Labor Siring in the South" Socio-Economic Journal ( V o l . 18 no, 14 July-August
1 9 8 1 , ISBN 1025-0892), p , 2 3 .
-116-
RJCP 1981,
either.
Such cases l i k e t h i s can be analysed i n d ifferent
ways: such a s , ( 1 ) the government had r e a l l y helped the target people, ( 2 ) that
some of the poor population were not informed about the pro-
grams o r not encouraged to j o i n i n the programs, or ( 3 ) that the people had income from other r e g u l a r work which p a i d more e t c . The evaluation team discovered that northeast i n 1981,
i n the labor h i r i n g i n the
around three-fourth of the rural people who p a r t i c i -
pated, worked i n j u s t one p r o j e c t .
Those who worked for
2 , 3 or more
than 3 projects were only 2 5 . 8 , 3 . 8 , and 0 . 3 percent r e s p e c t i v e l y . Those who stayed i n the project u n t i l i t was f i n i s h e d were 71.3 percent which was considered- a high percentage.
Those who d i d not stay u n t i l
the project f i n i s h e d were 2 8 . 7 percent; the reason for t h i s was unknown. But
from the information and the experiences of 1980 and 1985 which I
received during
my p a r t i c i p a t i o n , one may assume that the reason for
people's being unable to stay t i l l
l i m i t e d amount of work forced the workers to d i v i d e the work for to work a t a c e r t a i n period and Then l e f t i t to the other over.
And a l s o there
some
group to take
might be some other personal reasons that made
some people unable to stay for the whole p r o j e c t .
However, after the
RJCP project was f i n i s h e d , 7 1 percent of the workers who worked for p r o j e c t went back to t h e i r former changed to other kinds of j o b s . shows that
the
the project f i n i s h e d was because the
jobs.
the
Less than one-third of them
And the data of Khon kaen U n i v e r s i t y
without the RJCP work, the p a r t i c i p a n t s would not have had
any job during
the dry season; these were 35 percent of the sample popu-
l a t i o n in the r e g i o n . The. projects- 'of the RJCP 1981 a l s o had some effects tion or commuting to the cities O f f i c e of Accelerated Rural helped attract
the rural
in Bangkok back to their all
the workers-."
to seek .employment.
Development (ARD) discovered that "the
they comprised 7 3 . 7 percent of
The data from Khon kaen U n i v e r s i t y a l s o supports
the RJCP project;
communities."
RJCP
people who went to work in other changwat and communities;
t h i s fact that. "most of the workers joined
on the migra
As i n 1 9 8 0 , the
only
worked in their
2 7 , 5 percent
tambon before
they
of them worked outside their
Narong Sinsawat discovered that
"The work of the RJCP
—117—
1981 somewhat helped reduce the short-term workers
because when they received
temporary
a considerable
the RJCP, they did not move somewhere else. little
effect
on the. longterm
migration
the RJCP work was a short-term so it would not be worth it
migration
But the RJCP work had very
because these
project
of the
amount of income from people felt
which would not offer
that
much money
to come back to work in the RJCP project."
The same was confirmed by the research of Panpiemras, K . and Krusuansomb a t , S. (1982} which discovered that whose members migrated mare if their
temporarily
of the households somewhere else any
they had a job with the RJCP because they preferred
to work in
villages,"
In 1982-1983
the evaluation was based on the f i r s t
objective of 1982 emphasizing ple during
"increasing
truction
on
"providing
the unemployment period and providing
tion to their on
"85,7 percent
would not migrate
regular
earnings,"
important
jobs for extra
the rural-
peo-
income in addi-
and the objective o f 1983 enphasizing
the income of the. rural
of the public works according
people. by arranging
for
the cons-
to the Tambon Development Plans".
Four u n i v e r s i t i e s were responsible for these two y e a r s ' evaluation,
Each u n i v e r s i t y conducted the work i n each r e g i o n and wrote
a report o f the r e s u l t s o f b o t h years for
each r e g i o n .
One can see
that the d e t a i l s of the f i r s t , o b j e c t i v e s e t up since 1980 was changed gradually i n 1983.
That i s , they included
in the o b j e c t i v e the con-
s t r u c t i o n of the p u b l i c works according to the Tambon Development Plans which referred to the c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h i n g s that the people i n the tambon needed and wanted to share and things t h a t would be an important factor that helped increase the income of the people i n the community. The study showed t h a t most of the people i n a l l regions (except for
the northeast which has no data a v a i l a b l e )
participated
in the
projects of the RJCP ( a n average of one person per p r o j e c t ) , and only one more member from the f a m i l y of each p a r t i c i p a n t would be admitted to work i n the project. admitted. for
their
This means that two people per f a m i l y were
And they u s u a l l y worked i n the same project, participation
main reason
was because i t was an unemployment p e r i o d and
they had no other j o b as i n 1980.
The average percentage of the p a r t i -
-118-
cipants in the north, the central and the northeast (the
south not in-
cluded because there was no data available except for the statement saying
"most
of
the
was 58.6 ( o r the percentage of each of
people")
the regions; 54.9, 65.0 and 56,0 respectively). much higher percentage than that of 1980 (34.5 said that this year (1983)
This is considered a percent).
the policy and objective
And it can be
of the government
in trying to help the rural people to have a job during the unemployment period was accomplished.
Other reasons for the people’s participation
in the programs were arranged in the order of importance as follows: (1) They wanted to join in and/or were asked to join by the leader of their community
fkamnan,
phuyai
in the project to participate
ban)
in the community development and for the benefit of the public's sake (north, northeast
and central).
and convenient (central income (northeast).
And
kinds of work (central:
(2) The project location was close
and south).
(3) They wanted money or extra
(4) The wage were higher than those of other most of them were laborers from other regions
who came to work in the farms in the north and the west of the region), etc. As for the
'income
increase
from
the
RJ CP
pro
feats,
it appears
that the participants received about the same amount of income a s in 1980.
Even the average income in the regions was not much different.
Average income of each family in the country was 1,050
(though
baht
some regions such a s the central and the south did not clearly state that the amount was an average income per family, assume that it referred to the family income).
the data seemed to
The average income
per family was arranged from the lowest to the highest (see 1,182
baht
for the south, 1,075
for the northeast, and 930
baht
baht
table 11):
for the central, 1,015
for the north.
baht
The amount of income
from' the RJCP project is considered low when compared to the average income per family of the farmers
in each region and its was not dif-
ferent from the result of- the 1980 evaluation (that
is, not more than
9 percent or around 4-8 percent:
(1) the northeast (8.3)
south (7.5),
and
(3)
the north (4.8)
(4)
(2) the
the central (3,7)
for those'
-119-
whose major
and minor work were- a g r i c u l t u r e or 3 . 9 for those
major work was a g r i c u l t u r e and minor
whose
work or p a r t - t i m e j o b was l a b o r
work) . The evaluation of a l l regions except the north included the study of the difference i n income by u s i n g the G i n i c o e f f i c i e n t method to c a l c u l a t e the value b f i n c o m e d i s t r i b u t i o n . from their
When comparing
the income
r e g u l a r jobs arid the income from the RJCP project, i t a p -
pears t h a t the income from the RJCP could somewhat h e l p reduce the d i f f e r e n c e i n income, or i t could help very l i t t l e
( t h e northeast from
0.4968 to 0.4706, the south from 0.41454 to 0.38697 and the central from 0.54 to 0 . 4 5 ) .
Besides, the report o f the northeast shows t h a t
60.2 percent of the income from -the RJCP project was- i n the hands of the low income group (lower than the- average income per f a m i l y earned from r e g u l a r jobs o r 12 194.32 baht).
This shows t h a t the rural 'deve-
lopment program of the RJCP i n the northeast helped add income to most of the t a r g e t population even though the program could help very little
o f those i n the whole country. There were some defects concerning
from the RJCP i n the 1982 e v a l u a t i o n .
the income the people received For example, in the north 56.6
percent of the p a r t i c i p a n t s received very low wages, that i s l e s s than 600 baht
per person, and o n l y 7 . 7 percent of them received more than
2,400 baht.. (changMt
These high wage receivers were concentrated i n one, area o n l y
Kamphaeng Petch).
A very small percentage of the workers i n
the central region claimed that they d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e f u l l wages or were not sure about i t .
Cases of t h i s k i n d were found i n 1985 i n
many r e g i o n s , b u t most of them agreed to accept the amount offered i n order to share the income or to hurry to f i n i s h t h e work in t i m e .
So, they had
to increase the number of workers and d i v i d e the wages among thsnselves some even worked for f r e e for the p u b l i c ' s good e t c .
However, there was no
problem about delay o f payment as occurred i n 1980 and which caused ’a l o t o f problems to t h e people who had to depend on t h i s k i n d of income.
-120-
As for of
labor
fits migration
of the
er coronating
RJCP workers,
to
the cities
or the transfer
i t appears that the farmers ( i n a l l r e -
gions remained settled i n one place without having to move to o t h e r places or to Bangkok to seek employment,
Only 4 percent o f the far-
mers i n the northeast had to move to o t h e r places or to Bangkok. Most of the people who were free from t h e i r work during to seek a, temporary t i e s or changvat, stop the
farmers
I n t h i s case, the
-the dry season went
RJCP can be -said
from going away from their I n the south there
fob for extra, income. employment.
t
j o b to earn extra income around t h e i r own communito have helped
places to seek a temporary were very few cases of u n -
Those who faced t h i s problem were mostly those who j u s t
f i n i s h e d t h e i r education o r those who ran o u t of temporary
j o b s . Most
of the project p a r t i c i p a n t s , or about 68-100 percent, returned to t h e i r r e g u l a r work after they
f i n i s h e d the RJCP p r o j e c t s .
northeast 17 percent of them seeked o t h e r jobs i n their
I n the
conwunity or
moved to o t h e r places and Bangkok, and 17 percent more d i d n o t do anyt h i n g after they f i n i s h e d the RJCP p r o j e c t s .
In the north 85 percent
o f them returned to t h e i r r e g u l a r work and 9.6 percent d i d n o t do anyt h i n g , the r e s t s t i l l
worked i n t h e i r area.
As i n the c e n t r a l region
and the south, there was no answer from the sample population o f the north saying they had moved to work somewhat else o r to Bangkok, t h i s aspect one can say that the RJCP projects and security munities earn
to the
without
extra
poor rural
having
income
during
slack
of the
that there
rural
'anymore.
o b j e c t i v e of 1984: to increase
people by providing
them with
was not s u f f i c i e n t data about the rural
cipated i n the RJCP projects i n each r e g i o n . were used i n different to compare the r e s u l t s . people participated
com-
or to go away to seek a job and period
From the evaluation of the first income
In
incentive
people to make them stay in their
to struggle the
had offered
jobs,
i t appears
people who p a r t i -
And different
methods
regions to c o l l e c t d a t a , so i t i s d i f f i c u l t However, one can see that in this
in the RJCP projects
an average of 1 person per family
year
fewer
than in 1980 and 1982, Only
p a r t i c i p a t e d , and each person worked
-121-
for 1 project o n l y ( a very
small percent worked for
2 projects e a c h ) .
The r e s u l t of the evaluation in the south gives a c l e a r p i c t u r e of this.
I n the north
each.
The north
of the f a m i l y .
9 0 . 1 percent o f the workers worked for 1 project
only
stated that
most o f the participants were heads
The northeast reported that 20 percent of the sample
people or 3 0 percent o f the people o f the working age participated, in the RJCP projects. higher
The workers
i n the central and the south had the
average of the numbers of work days than in 1980 or .almost
twice the number of the work days as in 1980
( 2 0 . 7 days and 26.86 days).
The workers in the northeast had o n l y h a l f the average wobk days of 1980 or about 1 week or l e s s . The most cipation
important
reason
The north had no data given
by the
workers
for for
this, their
parti-
since 1980 was because i t was the period that they were free
from work or had no other work to do.
The average percentage of those
who gave the reason of the whole country was 39.3 percent. of each region from the highest percent
An average
to the lowest was the south
( 6 7 . 6 ) , the central ( 4 5 . 7 ) , the northeast ( 2 5 . 0 ) and the north ( 1 8 . 9 ) . I t i s can be noted t h a t the percentage of people who gave t h i s reason was close to the percentage of those in 1980 but i t was much l e s s than that of 1982.
That i s , fewer unemployed people joined the RJCP work
i n 1984 than i n 1982, except for projects could not
effectively
the south.
help
T h i s proves that the RJCP
solve or reduce the problem of
unemployment as the government expected.
Or on the other hand, one
may consider that after 4-5 years of the RJCP, there were fewer unemployed workers i n many regions of the country, o r during y e a r s , more o f the rural
these 4 - 5
workers could f i n d work to do a l l year l o n g .
The reason t h a t they j o i n e d in the work of the RJCP to g e t money and to earn extra income would be the second important reason o r i t became the f i r s t
important reason i n the north ( 4 0 . 8 p e r c e n t ) .
Other reasons
were because they wanted to make use of the p u b l i c works ( i n the n o r t h ) , or because they were h i r e d to do the work ( t n the central region) and so on. The income
increase
of the RJCP p a r t i c i p a n t s i n 1984 in. a l l
regions (except the north wh'ich d i d not g i v e the f i g u r e ) was an average of 1 , 5 8 1 baht
for
each household, o r an average of each region from
-122-
the h i g h e s t amount to the lowest the south (1,976 baht), ( 1,678 baht)
and the northeast
i n a l l years o f a l l regions.
(1,088
baht)
the central
which received the h i g h e s t
B u t when comparing the average household
income of the participants in each region
the result
would be opposite.
That i s , the average was l e s s than any other year except for which was not much different RJCP evaluation report Each region
from other years
o f u n i v e r s i t i e s and other
institutions
received between 3-7 percent as f o l l o w s (1)
( 2 ) the northeast
( 3 . 9 ) , and the central
the south
of the programs (see the
(3.4).
1980-1983).
the south
(7.3),
I t i s obvious that
the
RJCP projects d i d n o t r e a l l y help increase the income of t h e households o f those who p a r t i c i p a t e d in the projects because the amount was too little
when compared to t h e i r regular
mary indicator of income inequality coefficient
was derived'
T h i s year
RJCP project was very l i t t l e income i n e q u a l i t y .
of other
i t was done in two regions o n l y .
and the south.
The study revealed that
o r i t d i d not help much in reducing the
The amount was about the same as i n 1982-1983 or
to 0.28 and in the central from 0.5025 to 0.4869), though there
was no’ figures
RJCP p r o j e c t s , there administrators
regions exThey were
the income from the
even l e s s than i n 1982-1983 ( i n the south i t was reduced that
The sum-
from the use of the Gini
as was done i n the 1982-1983 evaluation
cept the n o r t h . the central
income (see table 11).
that
I t was observed
showing the income earned from t h e
were the opinions
proving
of 86 percent of the ehangiaat
the income from the RJCP projects helped
solve the income problems of the rural income during
the unemployed p e r i o d .
percent) felt
that
people because i t was an extra However, the rest o f them (14
the. income from the RJCP was too l i t t l e
the problems and that
from 0.30046
to help
solve
the corruption prevented the target population
from receiving the income.
In >the central
and the south' the regression
method was used to f i n d the relationship between the income from the RJCP1 projects and the economic basis of the people'.
I t revealed that
the people who participated i n the projects were not the target l a t i o n who were really poor.
I t happened that the more w e l l - t o - d o
people (who owned more l a n d and had higher from the RJCP project.
popu-
income) received more income
In the northeast, the evaluation showed that
the RJCP did not increase the amount of l a b o r h i r i n g or did not increase
—123—
the labor
wage rate because it
few laborers.
was a short-term hiring
In the case o f the southern region,
it
and i t involved was stated that
they did not lack the s k i l l e d „ workers or project directors because these people were requested to work by the karnnan and phuyai ban for the p u b l i c ' s benefit though they received lower wages from the RJCP projects than the wage rate o f the community, ‘In some projects or some .areas, the people who worked for be used tn the projects e t c .
the projects even gave their
wage t o
Such a phenomena should help the govern-
ment to be aware of the problems and be able to set a policy
or find
a way' to improve the situation if it is going to continue the objective to increase the income o f the target population or the poor rural people, Concerning the question about whether the RJCP projects had helped reduce or delay 'the rural - urban migration or the labor migration
or not,
the r e s u l t o f the analysis and the evaluation of the RJCP
projects of t h i s year agreed i n a l l regions of the country.
This con-
firmed the r e s u l t o f the evaluation of 1982-1983 that "the outward' migration
or the labor
the RJCP projects
transfer inaany
-of the rural
people had no connection-
with-
way. "
The data of the north
showed that
there was no outward migration
of the RJCP participants e i t h e r before o r after they worked for the projects. The data of the south
showed that
the RJCP work was not, the; crea-
t i o n o f a new kind o f work but i t was j u s t an opportunity for ithe people to switch from t h e i r regular jobs. And after .they finished the RJCP work, they would go back to t h e i r regular a g r i c u l t u r a l work or hired s labor work. The data o f the northeast
showed t h a t the RJCP’ work could not
stop the people from migrating outward o f migration to work i n Bangkok for either" a short period o r a' long period; 1 This was because 'the work1 they could get i n the c i t i e s ' frere long-term work which offered more in-' come. Therefore, i t can be said that the' rural people had l i t t l e i n 1 terest i n the RJCP work because i t was short-term work. l gions.
the south, the data showed- the same r e s u l t as i n other reThat i s , the RJCP projects could not a l t e r the intention of
-124-
the l a b o r workers to work i n Malaysia where they could receive a higher
wage rate.
And the farmers
would remain i n t h e i r community
and would do the same r e g u l a r j o b s .
The analysis and evaluation of the RJCP projects in 1985, which Was the most recent
year,, was based on the first objective
to increase the income of the rural people by constructing works according to the Tambon
Development
Plans which would
direct economic impact of the RJCP o n the rural people.
of trying the public have a
people or the target
The r e s u l t o f the analysis showed as f o l l o w s :
The data which would help one compare the economic impact on each region and the whole p i c t u r e of the country were not complete even though an agreement was made among t h e evaluation teams who would be responsible for the evaluation o f each region before the work was begun(see t a b l e 1 1 ) . However, the a v a i l a b l e data of the c e n t r a l and the northeast regions showed t h a t in 1985 very few people or the fewest number of people p a r t i c i p a t e d in the RJCP projects i n i t s 6 years o f o p e r a t i o n , even though the amount o f a l l o c a t e d budget during different.
the l a s t 4 years was not
I n the central r e g i o n the Tambon Councils were responsible
for carrying o u t . the p r o j e c t s by l e t t i n g the people i n the comunity p a r t i c i p a t e in the work.
Although' the projects were b i g g e r , fewer
workers participated so the average number of work days was h i g h e r . Each of the workers worked for a l e n g t h o f 28.2 days or more than twice the average number o f work days o f the RJCP workers i n the f i r s t year (13 days), o r one week longer than i n 1984.
The data for the
average number of work days of the north i n 1985 showed that t h e i r average length of work was h a l f a month shorter than that i n the s o u t h , o r they had the average lenght of 16.8 days. t h i s i n the northeast. short-term hiring.
But there
There was no, data for
was an increase of 60 percent o f
Most o f the workers ( 2 1 percent
o f the population
in the area where a RJCP project was l o c a t e d o r 43 percent of the people i n the working ages i n the area) were members of t h e rural
house-
holds ( 1 from each f a m i l y ) who never p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the project b e f o r e .
-125-
One member from each faintly
participated in I project o f this
year,
I t i s interesting t h a t the same phenomenon t h a t occurred tn the n o r t h east occurred tn the south.
That i s 63.6 percent of the sample popu-
l a t i o n j o i n e d the RJCP projects for the first was a wider c i r c l e of income d i s t r i b u t i o n The major reasons for the workers regions were not much different
time.
T h i s means there
than tn the p a s t ,
to work i n the RdCP tn a l l
from those of the past years.
The
major reasons were: (1) I t * w a s the period when they were free from doing their
r e g u l a r work or because they had no other work.
wanted to have a share in improving first
reason given
to earn more money,
their
C2) They
community CtFits was the
by the w e l l - t o - d o workers).
And C3) they wanted
The most popular methods for p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
the program Gin the n o r t h , the central and the northeast) were Cl) being resquested, persuaded, or assigned by the leaders o f the- community such as kamnan
and phuydi ban;
( 2 ) by their
own -voluntary consent
or a c t when seeing the announcement or being t o l d to take a turn do the work or do parts of the work and C3) through
the contractors
who h i r e d the 'workers in the community t o . do the work.
I t i s interes-
t i n g and notable that though the RJCP took part tn creating the rural
people in the communities
varying
only
o f each r e g i o n ,
labor
in the degree of the
seriousness of the problems depending on the socio-economic the difficulty
jobs, for
of a l l r e g i o n s , t h e nature o f
t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n showed t h a t the same problems concerning h i r i n g occurred in a l l regions
to
conditions
These l a b o r problems are ( 1 ) the lack of labor or in acquiring
labor;
(2) the need for a particular kind
of labor or more of the skilled workers;
(3) the decline in helping
the poor rural people to get job during the unemployment son due to the participation
mentioned
time or sea-
earlier.
As f o r the income increase from the RJCP project of t h i s year the evaluation showed that the average increase in household income per project i n a l l regions was 1,390 baht
( o r per each person since
only one person from each family could p a r t i c i p a t e .
And the figure
may n o t be the same i n each region because o f t h e different methods used to c a l c u l a t e the average income which the w r i t e r had to a d j u s t i n order
to be a b l e to compare them to get the overall picture.
tabie. 1 1 ) ,
See
The amount of the average household income nained from
-126-
the RJCP work i n each region arranged from the highest amount was as f o l l o w s :
(1) the central (2,196 baht};
( 2 ) the south (1,481
baht
the lump sum system), (870 baht),
the highest
(3) the north (996 baht)
One can see that
for
and (4) the northeast
the average income earned from the RJCP
work o f the rural people in a l l regions during not s i g n i f i c a n t .
in all years,
tor d a i l y wage system and 1,512 baht
the p a s t 6 years was
So i t can be s a i d t h a t the government RJCP projects
could somewhat help increase the income of the rural
people in the dry
season which was the p e r i o d when most o f the people were unemployed. B u t when one compared t h i s amount w i t h the amount- of the average income from the p a r t i c i p a n t s
1
r e g u l a r job of every
year, one would f i n d t h a t
i t never exceeded 10 percent of the average r e g u l a r income of each family.
Even in the f i r s t
year (1980), when i t was stated that
the
average RJCP income was 10 percent of the r e g u l a r income, one found t h a t the f i g u r e was not accurate.
The average income from the RJCP
i n 1980 was around 4,6 percent o f the r e g u l a r income each year (see t a b l e 11) » I n order to measure the i n d i c a t o r o f income i n e q u a l i t y by using the G i n i c o e f f i c i e n t (as i n some, regions i n 1982) for t h i s year (1985) only available.
t h e r e s u l t of the study o f the central r e g i o n was
The r e s u l t confirmed that the income from the RJCP work
helped reduce very l i t t l e 0.4586.
income i n e q u a l i t y .
I t i s also observed that throughout
That i s from 0.4691 to the 6 years' e v a l u a t i o n ,
o n l y i n t h i s s i x t h year d i d the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the northeast (45 percent) feel that the RJCP owrk affected the increase of wage rate i n the community.
This i s a good sign (though i t i s j u s t the beginning)
t h a t the RJCP work i s helping improve the economic c o n d i t i o n of the rural people The expense o f the income received from the RJCP, which was a small amount since 1980 u n t i l now was n o t rpuch different gions.
It
of l i v i n g .
can be said that
in a l l re-
i t mostly involved the 4 basic f a c t o r s
The major expense was for food, the rest were for
medical care, education and a g r i c u l t u r a l
clothing,
expenses e t c .
One of the aspects observed from the r e s u l t o f the evaluation of the f i r s t
o b j e c t i v e of the RJCP i n 1985 was t h a t other
regions
—127—
except for
the central region
had given up the attempt to analyse
and evaluate the matters concerning the outward m i g r a t i o n or commut i n g of l a b o r before or after the RJCP work as was c a r r i e d out i n 1982-1984.
The reason for the abandonment was explained c l e a r l y when
discussing about, the 1984 evaluation and i t was again stated c l e a r l y i n t h i s y e a r ' s evaluation of the central r e g i o n t h a t "recently RJCP projects
could
not
very effectively
to work in other places to return son i t
attract
to their
should b r i n g a h a l t to any attempt
concerning this
the
the workers who went
cotmunity."
For t h i s rea-
to evaluate the RJCP work
aspect i n the next y e a r ' s evaluation or the l a s t r
year of the F i f t h National Economic and Social Development Plan.
2.1.2 Evaluation of the Community Public Construction according to the Tambon Development Plans (Evaluation of the Engineering Projects) From 1982 on another
k i n d o f evaluation was added,- T h i s was
the evaluation of the engineering
aspects: the problems and the
factors that brought success to the project after one year of i t s completion.
The evaluation of t h i s type was done by engineers.
And i n the f o l l o w i n g year from (1983 on) i t was clearly, s t a t e d that t h i s was the evaluation o f the community p u b l i c construction accordi n g to the Tambon Development Plans.
Beginning in 1983 the RJCP
p r o j e c t s were no longer d i v i d e d into 2-3 types, b u t they were arranged by f o l l o w i n g the Tambon Development Plans ( t h e f i r s t considered e q u a l l y urgent tioned i n the f i r s t
and i n need by the tambon),
10 p r o j e c t s ' w e r e I t was men-
chapter and i n the s e c t i o n about the f i r s t
objec-
tive of the RJCP 1983 to the present that the o b j e c t i v e was to "increase
the income
tion of the
public
of the rural
people by arranging
works according
for the construc-
to the Tambon Development Plans."
For t h i s reason, i t was necessary to conduct an e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e engineering aspects of the projects for
the b e n e f i t of the rural
-com-
munity. The evaluation of the community p u b l i c , c o n s t r u c t i o n according to the Tambon Development Plans emphasized two major aspects : (1) t h e ' evaluation
of the
engineering
aspects;
from the s e l e c t i o n
-128-
of the project, the l o c a t i o n , the engineering of construction
materials, the construction
construction, i t s use, i t s durability,
public works of the program before the project was started,
design, the q u a l i t y and the control
of the
and (2) the use of the
which consisted of the conditions the benefits derived from the con-
struction and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the benefits. Only a summary of t h i s evaluation for each region to. 1985 w i l l be presented i n order that picture.
from 1982
the reader might have a clear
An interested person can read the d e t a i l s of the evaluation
of each type o f projects i n the report of the evaluation for each region written by the team o f the university experts' who conducted the evaluation. Most of the RJCP projects constructed before 1984, or in 1982 u especially when the engineering evaluation was begun, were of water resource development type or the water - related type.
In the e a r l i e r
years, when the emphasis was on helping the rural people to obtain employment and to distribute the income, most of the projects were constructions of earth work which were not durable and could not be of f u l l use, or which could be used for only a l i m i t e d length of time. And although i n 1981 another objective was added concerning the b u i l ding of the public works for agriculture and for the community along with the arrangement to have some technical handbooks and to train the i n 1982, the evaluation of a l l regions showed that
tambon technicians
the projects of the RJCP s t i l l
lacked durability.
The most important
problem found i n a l l regions
was that there were -not enough technical experts to help in the projects. There were only a few Ko-So-Jo and Ko-So-Or technicians
when compared to the number o f the projects
each tambon-amphoe-ehangwat of each region these technicians
had their
(.see table 6 ) ,
in
And
hands f u l l , especially during’ the dry sea-
son, so one could not expert to get enough help from them to devote their
time to the projects or to help prepare the project or give ad-
vice and suggestions or to check the construction, to the following situation
:
This problem l e d
-129-
1. The Tambon Council had to be responsible for selecting the projects and the locations. There was not much problem i n selecting the projects because they could use the data from the need of the people and the Tambon Plans. But the selection o f the location caused some problems depending on the types of the p r o j e c t s . For examp l e , when they d i d not have a technical expert to plan and survey the location to dig a w e l l , after the well was dug, they could not get any water. Or sometimes the location that they selected was determined by other factors that were n o t engineering factors. For example, the lack of budget to buy a suitable place forced them to use a p u b l i c land o r donated land. 2 . The construction design, the selection of materials and the construction work of the RJCP project were l e f t mostly to the Tambon Councils.
So the same problems arose as i n the selection of the pro-
jects and the project l o c a t i o n . Even more problems occurred i n a l l regions that had the projects that required high o r rather high technology. These were the water-rel ated projects such as weirs, storage dams, barrages e t c .
The degree of seriousness of the technical pro-
blems arose when the Tambon Council committee handled a l l the work without assistance from other government sectors.
One committee which
had no technological knowledge, had an art teacher from tljp community school help w i t h the people who had some meager experience i n construction to design the construction plan (an example’ from the n o r t h ) . Another issue was that sometimes they had a l i m i t e d budget so they could not use suitable construction materials or they had to use mat e r i a l s that lacked sturdiness as i n a case o f a road construction. According to -the p r i n c i p l e , when the budget was low, i t meant constant maintenance and repair was required to prolong the lenght of use (as i n a case of the south where a RJCP road cost 40,000 - 60,000 baht per kilometer i n compare w i t h the ARD ( O f f i c e o f the Accelerated Rural Development) road cost 500,000 baht per kilometer). Another problem found i n a l l regions was the lack of a q u a l i t y or standard check on construction materials (low q u a l i t y and cheap materials were mostly used as i n the central region). This problem was related to the lack
-130-
o f checking equipment and the lack of knowledge .in t h i s f i e l d . I n some areas when they lacked technical experts to oversee a highly technological construction p r o j e c t , they might ask for assistance from a contractor. Such problems were less serious when the Tambon Council could obtain help from changwai
or other government sectors and tried to
use a standard design (60 percent i n the north and 37 percent in the c e n t r a l , other regions had no data). However, they had to r e a l i z e that
these assistants acted as advisors only and could not be f u l l y
involved in the projects and that the standard design available i n the technical handbook prior to 1984 had many defects and weak points that needed improvement as c i t e d i n some evaluation reports (example o f the north).
Another problem related to the projects that required
high technology was t h a t i t made the RJCP projects become the projects that required s k i l l e d workers and caused the RJCP projects to have such special characteristics t h a t they no longer allowed a l l the poor rural
people to participate which was contrary
to the f i r s t major po-
l i c y and objective of the RJCP. 3. The problems concerning the use of the projects occurred in most projects whether they required high technology of construction or not.
They were such problems as the flumes that
could not carry
water, the overflowing weirs that l e t water leak through .the lower part, the i r r i g a t i o n ditches that had no water ( t h e n o r t h ) , the storage places t h a t were too far away from the v i l l a g e s (the c e n t r a l ) , waterworks system, with broken pumps, embankments whose, top parts were washed away and could not retain water, and ponds that could not contain water because of high leakage rate and along w i t h the problems of small projects with small budget allocation that could not offer broader use (northeast) and so on. 4 . The d u r a b i l i t y o f the RJCP project during the f i r s t 3-4 years was not satisfactory, e i t h e r . For example, i n 1982 i n t h e north i t was discovered that only 42 percent of the projects were durable and only 65 percent of those i n the south were satisfactory.
An i n t e r e s t -
i n g f i n d i n g from the cases o f the northeast and the south was that
-131-
the durable projects were the building
construction types which the
people were f a m i l i a r w i t h and the projects constructed with concrete, steel and wood. The l e a s t durable were those of earth work. 5 . The evaluation o f the constrution
projects i n 1982 concerning
the public use o f the projects i n the rural cotununity proved to be satisfactory (71 and 97 percent i n the north and the northeast r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . In other words, most of the people agreed to share the use of the projects.
There were, however, some problems such as the
dispute over water for consumption i n the n o r t h , the, feelings that one had not received as much benefit from the projects as h i s neighbors had, and that cominity
the projects were located too far away from the
as in the south.
Another related problem found i n a l l re-
gions of the country that no preventive measure or improvement had been forseen was the maintenance of the constructed p u b l i c projects. The problems came from the people's lack of consciousness of sharing ownership. This made then pass the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the Tambon Cou n c i l s or the government, o r making an excuse that, they d i d not have money or budget for i t . The recent evaluation the engineering
of the community public
construction
on
aspects and the use of the public zx>rk of the program
in 1984 and 1985 shows a much different r e s u l t from that o f the earl i e r evaluation i n a l l regions. The cause o f the difference came from the adding o f the RJCP p o l i c y emphasizing the technical support (begun i n 1984). The addition helped the engineering work of the project a great deal i n that i t increased the technical soundness to the project construction p a r t i c u l a r l y the increase o f the volunteer technicians at amphoe level to 2 per amphoe to inspect and check the engineering correctness o f every project.
Moreover, there was t r a i n -
ing for the technicians to use the revised technical handbook so that the tambon technicians could use i t effectively.
For these reasons,
the evaluation o f the engineering aspects i n the l a t e r period shows that:
-132-
1, In selecting the projects and the project location tn 1984, though there were some technicians and the volunteer technicians personnel participating
such as the Ko-So-Or technician
as well as the amphoe development
to check the appropriateness
gestions concerning other related .’components for Tambon Councils
still
and give sug-
the selection,
had the major r o l e because it
the
concerned the
selection of the projects proposed i n the Tambon Development Plans' and the selection of the best location
-available
which was public
land rather than a place that had the engineering or the technical s u i t a b i l i t y . I n this respect the procedures and the methods adopted were the same as in the previous
years (19841,
However, in 1985
the r e s u l t of the evaluation showed that though the Tambon Council still
played a major r o l e in selecting the projects and the project
locations, the Ko-So-Or technician were also invited
and the volunteer technicians
to check the location and the possibility
of many
o f the projects before the projects were proposed. The percentage of the involvement i t i s unfortunate
of the technicians
was higher
than tn 1984 (though
that there i s no data o f a comparative study o f
each region available). 2 . The construction design, the quality
o f materials, the actual
construction and the control of the construction of the RJCP projects i n 1984 i n a l l regions were different from the previous year i n which the Tanion Councils took the most r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and many technical defects were found.
I n 1984 most of the construction methods were
improved a great deal because they adopted the standard designs of the RJCP technical handbook which contained the models of specific types of construction designed by other o f f i c e s . For example, they used the models of the Royal I r r i g a t i o n Department to b u i l d dams, weirs, embankments to prevent 1 ansi ides and they used the model s of the Public Health Department to b u i l d the rainwater
tanks, There
were some other kinds o f project construction for-which
the volunteer
technicians drew the design themselves, or the Tambon Councils drew the design for the construction under the cooperation from other amphoe offices in order to create the best models suitable
for
the
-133-
area and to get the most benefit from the p r o j e c t s . However, there were some projects i n which sub-standard materials were used due to miscalculation, the substitution o f m a t e r i a l s , the use of cheaper materials available i n the market and the negligence to fix the standard o f the construction materials to be used and so o n , which means a decrease of t h e i r d u r a b i l i t y . the control
The labor for the construction and
o f the construction came mostly from the labor workers
i n the community. I f machines or s k i l l e d workers were needed, i t might be necessary to h i r e workers o r contractors from other places while the Ko-So-Or tecnnicians and the volunteer technicians helped inspect the work. I n the case that involved higher technology, there should be an extra training o f the volunteer technicians for better quality
work.
The report o f the evaluation of t h i s type of project i n 1985 throughout
the country yielded similar results to those i n 1984. I t
can be summarized that i t was improved i n a l l aspects of each sample project and each type of projects i n a l l regions (read reports of the RJCP 1985 evaluation o f the n o r t h , . the c e n t r a l , the northeast and the south).
Some of the defects which existed involved n e g l i -
gence i n f i x i n g the standard q u a l i t y of the construction materials or negligence to check the standard due to the lack of equipment and personnel, so the materials used i n the construction were the cheap kinds of low q u a l i t y available i n the market. Moreover, there were some defects i n the standard models o f the RJCP discovered by the Ko-So-Or technicians, the volunteer technicians and the engineers who evaluated the projects i n each region. Such defects were the imperfectness of the model for public buildings e.g. the multipurpose building that lacked a t o i l e t room or other d e t a i l s , or the standard road of the RJCP which was not suitable for some rural
commu-
n i t i e s i n which there jvas no need for a road of that width (read the report of the RJCP evaluation 1984 and 1985 o f every region).. Nevertheless, the evaluation data confirmed the r e s u l t of the years before 1984 that i f i t was a small project that was not complicated and i f i t was the kind of construction that the rural people were
-134-
f a m i l i a r w i t h , i t would usually be successful i n every way ( i n the design, materials, construction and' control of the construction). B u t , i f i t was a project that required p l i c a t e d , there must be additional ledge and understanding
high technology or was com-
training
to increase the know-
of the volunteer technicians, and also they
must allow more use o f machines to replace the human labor for the f u l l benefit and the d u r a b i l i t y of the project even though i t opposed to the objective and the policy of the government i n trying to help. the rural
people to obtain employment.
3 . The benefit from and the d u r a b i l i t y of the projects i n 1984 were satisfactory i n a l l regions because of the standard patterns set for the RJCP work as mentioned e a r l i e r .
These were the road
construction which was the means of comunication, and the transportation of agricultural products to the market, the construction o f weirs to provide adequate water resources for c u l t i v a t i o n ( i n the north and the central) and the construction of multipurpose b u i l d ings and c h i l d care centers ( i n the northeast). Problems arose i n the projects where the people d i d not truely understand how to u t i l i z e them (such as the multipurpose buildings in the central region) or those which were constructed too far away from the community o r those of sub-standard q u a l i t y and which were not durable enough especially those involving concrete mixing, wooden frame and earth packing ( i n the north) and such works w i t h miscalculation o f construct i o n materials r e s u l t i n g i n substitution
o f other materials (such as
the improvement of canals and pools i n the c e n t r a l ) . In 1985 the engineers who evaluated the projects i n these aspects i n a l l 4 regions admitted that the overall use of the projects and the d u r a b i l i t y of the projects were generally as good as i n 1984. This i s because of the help of the RJCP technical handbook and the arrangement for checking. The problems related to the use o f the projects were also the same as i n 1984. That i s , they were problems o f the lack of understanding on the side of the people and the inconvenience of the l o c a t i o n . The problems related to the d u r a b i l i t y of the projects involved the substitution o f construction materials or the use of the wrong types of materials, the b u i l d i n g construction which was different
from the model and was not perfects, big projects
-135-
involved high and complicate technology beyond the experience of the workers, the lack of a standard model for the project.
For ex-
ample, the construction o f a large size weirs required d i r e c t assistance of the work u n i t s that
had that kind o f experience,
4 . The use of public works of the RJCP projects has a d i r e c t relationship w i t h the usefulness of the projects. In 1984 most o f the rural people (89 percent i n the c e n t r a l , and 73 percent i n the northeast; the rest have no available data) shared the use o f the projects with other people, and they admitted that those construct i o n s met the needs of the people i n the community. So i n some projects when the budget was not s u f f i c i e n t , the people were w i l l l i n g to work enthusiasticly and they did not charge for l a b o r , particularly for the construction of the water-related projects for a g r i c u l t u r e , roads, bridges and other major communication means t h a t were important and convenient for transportation of products to the market and so on, which were the projects that helped improve the' social foundation. I n t h i s current year (1985) there was no s p e c i f i c evaluation o f the engineering aspects. However,, a discussion of each type o f the selected project of each region can be pursued. From the survey and observation i n many areas o f the four regions with t h e - r e search teams, I discovered that i n every region there was a tendency to make the public work projects as useful as possible, and they seemed to conduct only a few projects of this type but made them l a r g e , durable, sturdy, and beneficial to as large a number o f people i n as large an area as possible. For example, they would try to arrange for construction of only one or two projects i n a tambon o r take turns doing one i n a v i l l a g e each year. Or i f poss i b l e , they would make them amphoe level projects (such as the proj e c t to develop the water resource by' dredging the Rajanok pond in tambon Wangthong, amphoe Wangthong, ahangiiat Phitsanulok, which was made a t o u r i s t a t t r a c t i o n as well as a water resource for a g r i c u l t u r e ) . However, there i s a caution w i t h regards to such a practice
-136-
that I t should not turn to be a matter
of someone’s making use of
h i s influence or taking advantage of the others.
The decistion
should be based on the necessity the urgency of the troubles and the benefit for the public.
Another good thing that occurred in
a l l the project s i t e s of the RJCP i n 1985 was the fact that the community leaders at taniban level tried to persuade t h e i r people to render help e i t h e r i n t h e f o r m of donating labor or money for the projects that would be beneficial to the public or the communities because the RJCP budget alone would not be enough for the p r o j e c t s , or they could not be certain when the projects would be started i f they waited for the budget from the community tax or the budget from t h e i r cfangwat.
The kamnan af tamton Nongkham, amptoe Si Ra-
cha, ehangwat Chonburi, for instance, had the p o l i c y of having h i s people put i n 50 percent 'of the RJCP budget for every project.
For
example, when they received a budget to construct a 2 kilometer road, the people o f t h i s iambon would add t h e i r money to the budget to extend the road to 3 kilometers. Such a practice i s a good trend to benefit the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the RJCP projects i n the future as well as helping the growth of ownership consciousness i n the people. Therefore, they would take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to maintain the projects that they took part in b u i l d i n g .
2.1.3 Selection of Income Increasing Durable Projects
Projects or
After having conducted the evaluation of the construction o f community public works according to the Tambon Development Plans i n the engineering aspects and the use o f the projects from 1982 t i l l now (though t h i s year no emphasis was put on any p a r t i c u l a r aspects as in 1982 and 1984) i n order to make sure that the f i r s t core objective of the RJCP, to increase income o f the rural people, was achieved, t h i s year (1985) the RJCP set up an additional basis for the evaluation c i t i n g ,
-137-
"Hov> much necessity is there in the- objective of t& PJCP ip increase the peoples income when compared to tfie construction of move.-dupable preJeatsTV The. evaluation
e f every region
tn the country gaye the sanje
answer as that of most o f the project participants
er 60,6 percent
o f the country Ctn the decendtng order of percentage r, the central 77,8, the northeast 69,8, the north 52,4 and the south. 42,4), who preferred to see more use of human labor than machines. Tambon Councils' gave the same opinions is they f e l t that
the proportion
Even the
as those of the people,
of human labor
that
to machines should
be 70:30 for the north, and 67:33 or two third for the ’central, When asked about their need: whether they needed the projects that required the use of human labor that would increase projects that required
their
the us*e of machines that
Income or the
would assure durabi-
lity, roost o f the project participants and the Tambon Council committee in the central and the northeast regions- still preferred the projects that required human labor that would Increase the people's income to the projects that required the use of machines- that would not help Increase their
Income very much. The northeast
also insist-
ed that they would use the laborers in the community rather
than
l e t t i n g the contractors get the contract. They also suggested thatmachines could be used for the road construction projects, but the dredging o f streams and ponds should be done by the human labor avail a b l e i n the community. On the other hand, i n the north and i n the south both the people who participated in the program and the Tambon Council committee or even the volunteer
technicians f e l t the same
way t h a t i t would be better to emphasize the use of machine for sturdiness or durable projects, or permanent structures for
the community,
rather than to b u i l d those that would not be q u i t e sturdy j u s t so that the people would have work or income. The south however, emphasized both the use of human labor and machines.
Another interesting
observation i s that in the south, those who were poor tended to prefer a more durable and permanent type of construction while those who were more well-to-do or not poor would agree with the income
-138-
increase. This- seems to be natural
though, because the people
would gain income from the project anyway, so if have more useful and durable public works, it for their
they could also
would be beneficial
neighbors as well as for themselves.
s
And those who were
w e l l - t o do probably looked a t i t w i t h-a more sympathetic feelings wanting the poor people to earn more income from the projects. I n t h i s aspect i t can be summarized t h a t s p e c i f i c considerat i o n should be given to each region. There should be a thorough study analysing a l l the variables of the physical, economic, soc i a l or even p o l i t i c a l aspects before making a decision to select or approve certain projects i n the future rural
development i s s t i l l
as long as t h i s type of
i n operation.
2.1.4 Necessity for the Projects to Find Solution for Water Shortage for Consumption and for Agricultural Use This year (1585) the scope o f the RJCP evaluation also included the same objectives as i n 1981 and 1982 t h a t was to help the
r
people to have water resources for increasing a g r i c u l t u r a l product i o n and for general consumption respectively (The objective o f 1981 and 1982 were for consumption and for' a g r i c u l t u r a l production). The evaluation of the RJCP since 1980 u n t i l now shows that the water-related projects had a higher proportion than the public works projects ( a maximum ratio of 84:16 percent and a minimum of 52:48 percent).. Even 'in t h i s current year (1985) the proportion o f the water-related projects w a s . s t i l l higher
about 70:30 percent.
Only
i n 1982 d i d the public works projects receive a higher proportion than the water-related projects around 60:40 percent (see table 6 ) . The d e t a i l s and explanation for this 1.1. 1 . ( 3 ) .
were discussed in chapter
From the evaluation of each year one discovers that
some areas could not carry out the projects that t h e i r communities needed the most because they, could not get enough budget, or beca:>c.e they were projects that the RJCP d i d not promte, or .because the project proposal was not correct. switch to other
types o f projects.
These reasons made them
Sometimes i t was because the
administrator a t the conohoe level o r the changmt
suggested them
-139-
to select the water-related projects, or because the Ko-So-To gave priority to the water-related projects in order to correspond w i t h the emphasis or the core objectives of the RJCP and so, on.
For
these reasons, the RJCP set up the objective for t h i s year's evaluation to see "if the water shortage for general use and for agriculture is still a major problem."
The r e s u l t o f the evaluation of a l l four regions shows an i n teresting and surprising fact that
the water - related projects
for agriculture and for general consumption s t i l l received p r i o r i ty i n a l l regions even though the RJCP had conducted and given p r i o r i t y to t h i s type o f projects for only f i v e continuing years. The n o r t h , the northeast and the south had problems of water shortage for both general consumption and for agriculture especially i n the dry season and during
the drought.
They also had problems
of flooding in the rainy season. The central
region had the pro-
blem of the q u a l i t y of water for cosumption and the problem o f water shortage for agriculture during the drought and the dry season.
They also had problem of flooding i n the rainy season as i n
other regions.
The south, placed strong emphasis on the problems
and obstacles of water shortage for consumption due to the geographical conditions such as i t s being highland area, having s a l t water and being located near the sea or the s a l t water lakes and so on.
The north had interesting data t h a t showed the reasons for
i t s i n a b i l i t y to arrange for the projects of t h e i r p r i o r needs. They usually selected the projects that were suitable for the allocated budget first. important
They
listed necessity as the second, most
factor and the usefulness
of the projects the third rank.
However, there were some projects that met t h e i r necessity f i r s t i f they received enough budget.
,
The projects that received the next highest p r i o r i t y higher than other p r i o r i t i e s discussed were projects related to cotmunication such as roads, bridges and so on.
-140-
2.1.5 Strengthening the Efficiency Tambori Councils The government his
of the
the p o l i c y and the o b j e c t i v e to strengthen
the lowest organization or the Tambon Council, which i s the s e l f governing organization of the grass-roots level , so that they conduct the .administrative work a t the muban and tambon t h e i r conminity
by themselves.
Such a p r a c t i c e w i l l help release
the burden from the government i n both term rural
development.
can
level in
the short-term and the l o n g -
Therefore, the government gave the Tambon
Councils the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of an operational u n i t o f the Rural
Job
Creation Programs since the beginning i n 1980 u n t i l now ( 1 9 8 5 ) . T h i s means the RJCP d i r e c t l y helped develop for that the basic democratic government for 6 years.
the committee of the Tambon Councils for
I t was included i n one of the basic objectives of the
program in the t h i r d year the Tambon
( 1 9 8 2 ) : "to develop the efficiency of
Councils in administration
and democratic government".
I n the following year the objective was adjusted in order to promote-the r o l e of the Tambon Council more c l e a r l y , and the objective was given the second p r i o r i t y sing income of the rural people.
next to the o b j e c t i v e on increaThe statement announced the ob-
j e c t i v e of trying to "develop and promote the ability of the Tambon Councils to be efficient in planning, making decisions, managing, monitoring the work and maintaining public property (to promote basic local democratic government)"
The analysis and evaluation of the administration or operation
of the RJCP projects of the Tambon Councils in 1980.
the projects were conducted i n a very months
Though
rushed manner of o n l y 3
period and had a very slow start after
an appropriate t i m e ,
the evaluation shows that there is a great possibility for the continuing improvement through
the Tambon
of the administration Councils.
or the local development
The Tambon Councils may not yet be
accustomed to making plans and conducting the administration o f the projects at the l o c a l l e v e l such as the RJCP p r o j e c t s , but the
-141-
evaluation of the RJCP in the l a s t 4 years (1982-1985)
) has
revealed an increase i n the efficiency of the Tambon Councils. In many parts of the country
at present, many Tambon Councils
have been accepted and recognized by the higher
administrative
u n i t s a t the amptoe and ohangwat levels and by the people i n the communities for being efficient and able to be s e l f - governing or s e l f - sufficient without having to depend on the support from the upper administrative units as i n the past. However, there are s t i l l many Tambon Councils that need advice and help from those at the Ko-So-Or and Ko-So-Jo l e v e l s as appears i n the eval u a t i o n of the efficiency of the Tambon Councils i n the four regions of the country as follows: (1) Efficiency 1n Planning and Selecting the Projects I n 1982-1983 most o f the Tambon Councils i n a l l regions were e f f i c i e n t in planning and selecting the projects democfaticly by allowing the people to suggest ideas and propose the projects i n the mitban meeting (Ko-Mo) i n order to be voted again in the Tambon Council Committee (Ko-So-To) and then included
the selected pro-
j e c t s i n the Tambon Development Plans according to their
prioriti-
es. Nevertheless, some problems occurred as i n the northeast where they lacked publicity
to get the people to go to the meet-
ing to select the project.
So the projects that were; granted, the
budget were sometimes not the ones in priority
needs, but were
projects approved because of the influence o r the lobbying
o f the
16) For 1983 the RJCP office assigned the evaluation work to the teams from u n i v e r s i t i e s to conduct the region-by- region e v a l uation according to the p o l i c i e s , objectives, procedures and steps indicated i n the RJCP regulations of 1983 in a l l 4 regions. There were 4 aspects of evaluation namely, the planning, the operation, the f o l l o w up and a t t i t u d e toward the RJCP regulations of 1983 of those who were responsible for the administration and operation of the -projects at the changwat, amphoe and tambon l e v e l s , ‘which w i l l not be covered i n t h i s study. An interested person may read about the d e t a i l s of the evaluation of the efficiency of the Tambon Councils from 4 reports on the 1982-1983 RJCP evaluation of each region (north, central, northeast and south)., which w i l l give the guidelines and basic data for a better analysis o f the Ko-SoTo.
-142-
committee at .the muban l e v e l .
There was no c i r c u l a t i o n of the
projects among the muban according to the u n o f f i c i a l agreement as practiced i n the central region. I n the south the people i n the communities did not receive enough opportunity to express t h e i r ideas about the planning and selecting of the projects. There should be improvement in the meeting procedures. In 1984 i t was discoverd that the efficiency i n the planning of the projects i n the Tambon Development Plans was better democraticly.
Some Tambon Councils s t i l l held meetings for the peo-
p l e to express t h e i r opinions and help make decisions i n selecting the projects i n the Tambon Development Plans and the needs of the conmunities ( i f it was a new p r o j e c t , i t could be included in the plans). Mostly, i n the case that the projects were not seleced according to the plans, i t was due to the budget problems, not a case o f l e t t i n g the kamnah or phuyai ban or the committee of the Tambon Council make dtcisions about selecting a p r o j e c t . Except for the central region whose Tambon Councils were considered to be very e f f i c i e n t , the Tambon Councils i n other regions were low i n efficiency and faced many problems.
One of the problems
was the fact that the Tambon Councils s t i l l r e l i e d much on the government system, e i t h e r i n selecting project l o c a t i o n , prepari n g or proposing and designing
the p r o j e c t s , or calculating the
cost of materials and the cost of the projects. The consideration of every step o f the projects tended to come from the estimation o f the committees o f the Tambon Councils p a r t i c u l a r l y from kamnan (chairman of the Council) and phuyai ban (committee). Such a practice mostly yielded a bad r e s u l t especially when the committee o f the Tambon Council had low education or were i l l i t e r a t e as i n a case of the south (changtxii Narathiwat), However, i n some places, the Tambon Councils had a very good plan: finding out the problems, setting up the expected goal, studying planning the solution.
the facts and
Only the operational plan and the evalua-
t i o n plan were not carried out systematicly such as the plans concerning labor and the working schedule o f the project.
-143-
I n 1985 though there was no clear r e s u l t of the evaluation of the efficiency of the Tambon Councils as i n 1984, a conclusion can s t i l l
be made t h a t the project operation were mostly
conduct-
ed according to the Tambon Development Plans under the d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the Tambon Councils. Those which deviated from the plans did so mainly due to inadequate budget.
Only i n 5-6
percent of the cases did the problems come from the incorrectness of the design (as i n an example of the central region), (2) Efficiency i n the Planning
and Monitoring
the Project
Operation I n 1982-1983 there was very l i t t l e
evaluation o f the e f f i c i -
ency o f the Tambon Councils i n t h i s respect.
I n some regions
there was no evaluation of t h i s kind a t a l l .
Over 95‘ percent, of
the participants
in the north
and the south (no data from other-
regions) stated t h a t the Tambon Councils had fairly divided the work and monitored the operation of the projects very-well"? There was no dispute or protest during the .operation throughout that period. A d i s t r u c t i v e problem was the use o f labor which did' not quite "
correspond with the government p o l i c y i n trying to
help the poor f i r s t .
Most of the labor work was on a voluntary
b a s i s , so the very poor people would not be w i l l i n g to o r were not able to participate i n the RJCP projects.
One reason for
t h i s was because of the delay and complicated process i n r e c e i v i n g the payment for t h e i r work because they could hardly -receive the' pay every day as they could i n other kinds of jobs. I n 1984 there was a more elaborate evaluation i n t h i s respect.
I t was found t h a t the'Tambon Councils had l a r g e l y been
responsible for the management. They were i n charge o f account i n g , p u b l i c i t y , reporting the work to the amptee, ahangwat and "
the-public, coordinating and submitting
requests for help from
other related government bodies and from the people as well as dividing the work for the p a r t i c i p a t i n g workers.
A l l of these
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were moderately taken by. the Tambon Councils i n a l l regions. Some problems occurred because the Tambon Counc i l s i n certain areas were not quite
efficient in doing the
-144-
office work and assigning and dividing was also a negligence
the work c l e a r l y .
There
i n attending t h e ,meetings o f some Tambon s
Council cosmrittees, some Tambon Council cormiittees had very low education, and they tended to lean too much on the government system. On the other hand, some Tambon Councils were successful, i n managing and c o n t r o l l i n g the project operation. They had a clear job description, and had made an improvement each year from the past experience. They worked d i l i g e n t l y and were responsible toward t h e i r duties. They also had the s p i r i t o f s o l i d a l i t y and were w i l l i n g to l i s t e n to the people’s views. Moreover, they had creativity and adequate understanding of the work. Mostly, the Tambon Councils closely conducted and supervised the RJCP projects from the: beginning t i l l the end. They worked together w i t h the Muban Coninittee (Ko-Mo) , the Conmittee o f the Village Volunteers for Development and Self-Protection (OrPho-Po) and the Working Group to Support the Rural Development a t Tambon Level (Kho-Po-To) and so on. The chairman -of the Tambon Council usually carried out the checking w i t h the project c o n t r o l l e r who had knowledge i n technical ject).
There were some complaints
work (one for each pro-
about the corruption which
was mainly related to buying materials o f a different price from that
specified by the Ko-So-Jo,
Or sometimes they had to switch
to another brand of materials i n order to be able to buy them at the specific- price, but a t the same time i t also meant a difference i n q u a l i t y . I n the current
year (1985),
many regions did not evaluate
the e f f i c i e n c y of the Ko-So-To as mentioned e a r l i e r , some data available from the central
and the north.
There was I n the cen-
tral , the problems i n the operation of the projects came from the fact that most o f the Tambon Councils followed the suggest t i o n s of the Ko-So-Or and the Ko-So-Jo so much that they neglected to consider the needs of the people i n t h e i r communities". Only 11 percent of the Ko-So-To i n s i s t e d on selecting t h e i r projects and requested the Ko-So-Or o r the Ko-So-Jo to reconsider
-145-
their
proposals.
and strength
T h i s phenomenon reflected
the l a c k of firmness
of many of the Tambon Councils.
( 3 ) The Efficiency i n Maintaining The 1982-1983
the P u b l i c Works
evaluation shows t h a t there was very l i t t l e
or almost no p u b l i c works maintenance.
The f i n i s h e d projects of
t h e RJCP were neglected though most of the people -agreed the f i n i s h e d projects needed maintenance. negligence
that a l l ’
The reasons f o r > t h e
of t h i s part stemmed from the l a c k of money and coope-
r a t i o n , and the l a c k of p u b l i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as w e l l . the maintenance work was left
to the Tambon Council
Therefore,
Committee rat-
her than to the people i n the community.