Thai Governmental Rrural Development Programs. An Analysis and Evaluation of the Rural Job Creation Programs in Thailand 1980-1985 9748743403

Citation preview

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.