Development Policy in Thailand: From Top-down to Grass Roots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Top-down industrial development strategies initially dominated the developing world after the second World War but were eventually found to produce inequitable economic growth. For a decade or more, governments and international development agencies have embraced the idea of participatory grass roots development as a potential solution. Here we review Thailand's experience with development strategies and we examine the current focus on participatory approaches. Thai government planning agencies have adopted "people centred development" and a "sufficiency economy", particularly emphasised since the disruptions caused by the 1997 Asian financial crisis. They aim to address the inequitable sharing of the benefits of decades of rapid growth that was particularly unfair for the rural poor. Thai policies aim to decentralise power to the local level, allowing civil society and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) more of a voice in national decision making and promoting sustainable farming practices aimed at enriching rural communities. An example of this change in Thai government policy is the Community Worker Accreditation Scheme which is aiming to develop human resources at the local level by training community based leaders and supporting networks of community organisations. This enables autonomous local development projects led by trained and accredited individuals and groups. The political tensions notable in Thailand at present are part of this modern transition driven by conflicting models of top-down (industrial) development and the bottom-up (participatory) development ideals described above. Once resolved, Thailand will have few obstacles to moving to a new economic level.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".