Rubber Cash Crop and Changes in Livelihoods Strategies in a Village in Northeastern Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research article aims to explain the changes of livelihoods strategies in a village in the Northeast region of Thailand after the introduction of rubber as cash crop. Northeast region is considered a new rubber growing area of Thailand, the world’s largest rubber exporter. A village in Udornthani province was selected as a case study for a qualitative research conducted in 2012-2013. In order to get a full understanding of these changes, the research studied livelihood changes in the village over the last 62 years or since the village establishment. We have classified livelihood strategies into three periods, based on the dominant mode of production and livelihoods. The first period was the livelihoods before cash crops, in which people were involved in subsistence mode of production. The second period was marked by the introduction of cash crops and market economy into the village in the early 1960s. During this period, subsistence economy had been transformed into market oriented. Forest lands were changed into cash crop farms, so much that the natural capital lost its balance and became less dependable. The third period, starting in 2001, was the rubber period, the focus of this research. Rubber came to the northeastern region as a result of the promotion of the state. Strong research, development and extension supports that used to work well in the Southern region were applied to promote rubber growing here. However, the adoption of rubber was not without problems. People had to adjust themselves to the capitalist standardized farming practices of rubber. In addition, there was a misbalance of and unequal access to capital assets, particularly financial capital. Within the changing socio-economic context and constraining status of capital assets and access, rural households adopted integrated livelihood strategies, including 1) economic diversification or pluri-activities to reduce risks and increase income 2) maintaining rice cultivation to guarantee food security 3) keeping the ownership of agricultural land as an important capital asset 4) investment in higher education of the younger generation of the household. The article also discusses the implication of these livelihood strategies on rural society, and provides policy and research recommendation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".