THE THAI ECONOMY of the 1980s
continued to function much along the open market lines that had
traditionally characterized it. It remained capitalist in orientation,
largely operated by the private sector with supportive infrastructure
furnished by the government, which had some participation in production
and commerce through a limited number of state-owned enterprises.
Commitment to the existing economic system appeared general--none of the
numerous Thai governments of the post-World War II years had advocated
significant changes. In the 1960s and 1970s, Thailand was among the
fastest growing and most successful developing countries in the world.
Rapid growth in production, accompanied by progress in alleviating
poverty, was impressive, especially in the 1970s. By the early 1980s,
however, Thailand's economic performance had slowed, partly as a result
of the worldwide recession. Although its annual growth rate remained
higher than the average for middle-income countries, earlier
expectations had not been met. The targets of the Fifth Economic
Development Plan (1982-86) had not been achieved, and serious
macroeconomic imbalances persisted. The government sought balanced
economic growth and the closing of the income gap, along with
improvement of the inequitable distribution of social services. Social
and economic trends included increasing urbanization, expansion of
industrial activities at a faster rate than agriculture, and growth of
income in the service industries. These trends, often associated with
modernization, produced problems with which the government tried to cope.
Bangkok continued to face serious housing shortages and severe pressure
on such basic services as water, sewerage, energy, and transport
facilities. Although agriculture had been the most important economic
activity of the country with most of the population living in the rural
areas, the area of land under cultivation was unlikely to increase.
Rather, it was projected that any increase in income would have to be
gained through higher productivity of the labor and land now in use and
by the development and diversification of industrial production.
Accordingly, the government promoted enterprises that produced
agricultural products, chemicals, and mechanical and electronic
equipment and those that were labor intensive or export oriented.
Because foreign trade and investment were an important part of the
economy, external conditions greatly influenced the country's economic
performance. Thailand's harvests exceeded domestic consumption, enabling
the country to export large quantities of food each year. The major
agricultural exports were rice, cassava products, rubber, maize, and
sugar; the major nonagricultural exports were textiles, electronics, and
tin. Imports included more than half the country's national petroleum
consumption. Although Thailand was a member of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with preferential trading arrangements,
its principal trading partners were Japan, the United States, countries
of the European Economic Community (EEC), and Australia. Long-term
prospects depended greatly on the effects of international economic
conditions on the Thai economy. In the late 1970s and early 1980s,
rising interest rates, declining demand and prices for Thai exports, and
rising petroleum prices had caused a serious economic slump. Further
growth of the economy depended, in part, on the success of the Thai
government in improving economic efficiency and increasing domestic
savings through development planning. Thailand's vision of a
knowledge-based economy is unique in emphasising the importance of
addressing a wide range of social issues through the use of information
technology (Box 2). It is contained in the 1995 plan on information
technology development entitled Towards Social Equity and Prosperity:Thailand
IT Policy into the 21st Century. The plan addresses the importance of
correcting the imbalance in social and economic development between
urban and rural areas through preferential provision of information
infrastructure in rural Thailand. The issue of social equality is
central, with greater emphasis given to human development than to the
information technology industry itself. However, based on available
evidence, it is difficult to judge the extent to which this plan has
been carried out. The concept of the knowledge-based economy is still
virtually unknown in Thailand. To promote the information industry and
the use of information technology as well as implement the national
plan, Thailand set up the National Information Technology Committee (NITC).
Through a host of new technologies including computers, data
communications and electronic media, Thailand plans to build on
information technology to achieve a well-educated population and
improved quality of life; more effective rural development and wealth
distribution; an improved environment and natural resource conservation;
and new directions for building economic strength and social harmony.
There are three action agendas: Investing in information infrastructure
to empower human ability and enhance the quality of life. Investing in
people to build a literate population and adequate ICT manpower.
Investing in good governance to re-engineer the public sector and
enhance government service. Box 2. Thailand's vision of social equality
Thailand's information technology plan - Thailand IT2000 - states:
Information technology can play a pivotal role, in particular to support
many of the government's policies for better distribution of wealth and
opportunities for rural inhabitants; for equal opportunity in personal
and corporate development, healthcare and other public services; for
solving the chronic traffic gridlock and worsening pollution; for
conservation of the nation's natural resources and environment; in
addition to making the country a regional hub for finance, manufacturing
and trade, transportation and tourism. The government recognises that
strategies for information technology development must be geared to
reduce the substantial gap between the information "haves" and "have-nots",
not to widen it. In most cases, it is easy for the more affluent and
better-educated segments of society to gain most from the use of
information technology while the city-poor and rural residents are
likely to be left even further behind. The overriding objective is one
whereby information technology applications in support of national
development can create equal opportunity and provide benefits for all
segments of society, including the underprivileged, the disabled and
remote rural residents. Only then can national social and economic
development be successful in transforming Thailand into the sustainable
economic power-house of South-East Asia where a high standard of living
is available to all in the Information Age. Source: Thailand National
Information Technology Committee (1995). Information technology
Thailand's IT industry experienced dramatic, double-digit growth for
more than a decade from 1989 to the onset of the Asian crisis in
mid-1997. The IT market in Thailand, broadly defined to include
hardware, software and services, was worth THB 27 109 million in 1998, a
decrease of 39% from 1997 (Figure 6). Hardware accounted for 50%,
software 20%, and IT services 30%, respectively, in 1999 (Figure 7). The
share of hardware fell from 70 to 50%, and those of software and IT
services increased from 15 to 20% and from 16 to 30%, respectively, over
the second half of the 1990s. Telecommunications was estimated to have
increased in Thailand by 42.3%, from USD 1 647 million to USD 2 344
million, between 1992-97. Despite impressive growth, the information
technology industry in Thailand faces a number of challenges and
structural weaknesses. First, Thailand's national information
infrastructure, especially telecommunications and Internet access, was
under-invested and over-regulated, which led to high levels of user
charges that prevented an increase in telecommunications and Internet
use. Second, the weakness of the Thai education system and the lack of
research and development presents a long-term obstacle to upgrading the
IT industry into a serious player in the global technology market. The
industry faces a shortage of qualified engineers and a lack of
indigenous technological capability. Third, there are legal problems
caused by the lack of progress in amending outdated laws and regulations
and by the delay in introducing new laws to support the development of
electronic commerce. In particular, the protection of intellectual
property rights is weak, and this has hampered the development of the
software sector. Fourth, the government has been criticised for its lack
of leadership and action in addressing these problems and in supporting
the growth of the IT industry more generally. In addition, the
government has failed to embrace IT as a user. Figure 6. Thailand's IT
market, 1995-99 31184 42646 25953 27109 36885 16 -39 4 18 0 5000 10000
15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 (f)
Million THB -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Total IT market Annual market
growth rate (f) = forecast. Source: Association of Thailand Software
Industry and Computer Association of Thailand. Figure 7. Breakdown of
the IT market in Thailand, 1995-99 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 (f) % of total Hardware Software IT services (f) =
forecast. Source: Association of Thailand Software Industry and Computer
Association of Thailand.. Electronics Thailand's electronics industry is
an important growth sector, with shipments of electronic products,
particularly computer parts and integrated circuits, worth an estimated
THB 350 billion a year, making up about 30% of the country's total
exports in value terms. Many major multinationals invested in
electronics in Thailand during 1981-85, and today most manufacturers are
joint ventures or foreign-owned companies, catering mainly to the world
market. Foreign firms play the essential role in research and
development of production technology, procurement and marketing (Box 6).
Box 6. Thailand's hard disk drive industry The hard disk drive sector is
the champion of Thailand's electronics industry. Starting in1983, the
hard disk drive (HDD) sector has expanded steadily for more than one and
a half decades, with Thailand producing 40 million hard disk drive units
a year - 20% of the world market before the 1997 Asian crisis. In
value-added terms, the HDD industry (including parts) was estimated to
be worth some THB 35 000 million, equivalent to 0.7-0.8% of Thailand's
GDP in 1999. HDD is Thailand's leading export industry, with direct
exports of about USD 5.3 billion, accounting for 27% of total exports of
electrical appliances and electronic products or 10% of total exports in
1998. The HDD industry in Thailand has developed based on foreign
capital and technologies. Seagate Technology set up the first HDD
production facility in Thailand in 1983 and since that time, foreign
investment has served as a main source of growth. Prior to the onset of
the Asian crisis, Thailand's electronics industry enjoyed a rosy 1996,
with the Board of Investment approving 138 foreign investment projects
worth THB 64.3 billion in the first 11 months. Consequently, all of the
main players in this industry are foreign-owned firms with the only
exception being Saha Union, a conglomerate involved in labour-intensive
production. Due to a lack of technology and industry-specific experience,
Thai companies, large as well as small enterprises, chose not to enter
the HDD industry. As a result, there are limited linkages between the
HDD industry and the domestic component and supporting industry. In
addition, the Thai HDD industry faces a number of weaknesses, including
difficulty in finding qualified engineers in Thailand, limited research
and development and a shift towards automation and away from
labour-intensive activities where Thailand enjoys a comparative
advantage. Source: Panichapat and Kanasawat (1999). The lack of local
capabilities in technology and marketing has led to structural
weaknesses in the Thai electronics industry, which remains primarily
labour-intensive assembly plants. The lack of skilled labour in Thailand
has added to labour costs. Before the onset of the Asian crisis, workers
in the electronics industry were able to negotiate annual pay rises of
25% due to their strong bargaining positions. Wages increased faster
than prices. As a result of rising labour costs, the electronics
industry is losing its advantage as a labour-intensive industry. Recent
years have seen relocation of the industry to China and the Philippines,
such as the board-assembly testing plant of Hana Microindustry Plc from
Lumphun to Shanghai, China, where labour costs were said to be 40% lower.
It has been argued by Mr. Sompong Nakornsri, President of the Federation
of Thai Industries' Electronics Club, that if the electronics industry
cannot manage to move beyond the assembly stage, it is set to become a "sunset
industry" within five years, following the path of other
labour-intensive industries such as textiles and footwear. Another issue
facing the Thai electronics industry is its low margin of value added.
According to the Minister of Industry, the local content of electronics
products has remained between 20-30%. In spite of improvements made in
the late 1990s, the level of local content was still 29% in 1998 (Table
2). Table 2. Local content ratios of Thailand's electronics industry,
1996-98 Exports (THB billion) Related imports (THB billion) Local
content ratio (%) 1996 460 438 4.8 1997 700 528 24.6 1998 798 566 29.1
Source: Compiled from Bangkok Post (1999/06/01). The Thai Government has
been criticised for its lack of support for the domestic electronics
industry, including improving education and fostering technological
capabilities. The government has tended to intervene at the wrong level,
earmarking specific electronic products for development in the country's
master plan - although a study by the federation of the electronics
industry suggested that completely different products would have strong
potential. The government is now making improvements in several areas,
including education and training for skilled personnel, reducing customs
procedures, and solving double taxation problems. Another government
initiative is to promote local sourcing of electronic components. The
Board of Investment launched an Industrial Linkage Development programme
in 1997 to match buyers and local suppliers of components. However, this
initiative achieved only limited results as the quality and the price of
local Thai components are not internationally competitive. The Thai
electronics industry is faced with other constraints due to its high
degree of reliance on foreign firms. Many Thai manufacturers are branch
plants with limited procurement and marketing authority. Further
difficulties are caused by the lack of transportation and communications
infrastructure in Thailand. Tariffs and trade policy have also affected
the development of the Thai electronics industry. Prior to March 1994,
most electronic components were subject to import duties of 35%, except
for components imported for use in computer and television assembly.
Since then, the import duty on the majority of electronic components has
been reduced to 1% to favour local assemblers. However, this impedes the
development of the electronics industry, as imported parts are taxed at
1% and materials at 20%, which tend to make it more expensive to
manufacture components in Thailand than to import them. Recently the
government has decided to cut import duties on some raw materials used
by the electronics industry as part of a major tax overhaul. Software
The Thai software industry was estimated at THB 7 billion in 1999 and
was projected to grow to THB 53 billion over the next five years (Sribhibhadh,
1999). The Thai Government has identified the software industry as a
sunrise sector and expects it to develop into a main foreign exchange
earner. In 1999, a Software Park was established to promote the
development of the industry. Nevertheless, the Thai software industry
has experienced setbacks in recent years. There used to be more than 1
000 registered software houses, but today less than 500 firms remain in
business, with 90% having around 30 staff (Karnjanatawe, 2000a). Some 18
local software developers have set up at the Software Park, well below
the target of 100 units for forming a national cluster for the software
industry in Thailand. According to the software industry, lack of
support and funding from the government have affected the ability of the
Software Park to attract firms. Weaknesses include inadequate
telecommunications services and poor meeting and training facilities.
Other obstacles include a lack of protection of intellectual property
rights. First, the country has a very high rate of piracy - over 80% -
including both end-users and counterfeiters, despite the introduction of
a Copyright Law covering software in 1995. For the consumer software
market, there was a 90% piracy rate, which dampened the size of this
market from an estimated THB 1.5 billion to a mere THB 200 million (Waltham
and Dasaneeyavaja, 1999). Second, the Thai software industry suffers
from a severe lack of qualified software technical personnel. Third,
there is a lack of R&D activities in Thailand, including on reverse
software engineering. Fourth, it is difficult for software companies to
raise capital from banks. For the development of a healthy Thai software
industry, the government should take the lead as a user of software to
help boost domestic market demand. Government agencies should not
compete with the private sector in providing services such as
professional training. It should help make available market and
technology intelligence to cater for the urgent need for information.
There is a need to create venture capital markets for the development of
software companies. In the initial stage, the government can help by
making available seed capital and soft credits for software companies to
get off the ground. Government assistance might be given to encourage
the use of IT in the restructuring of traditional Thai industry. Finally,
long-term infrastructure support in the areas of R&D, education and
affordable and accessible telecommunications, and better protection of
IPR are necessary conditions for sustainable development of the software
industry. Telecommunications Thailand's telecommunications sector is run
by two state-owned companies, the Telephone Organisation of Thailand
(TOT) and the Communications Authority of Thailand (CAT). TOT controls
all national telecommunications and services to neighbouring countries,
such as Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Malaysia, while CAT is responsible
for all international telecommunications services except countries
covered by TOT. Private sector participation in the provision of
telecommunications services started in early 1988 when Cable and
Wireless signed an agreement with the Posts and Telegraph Department to
provide satellite service. Since then, TOT and CAT have entered into
Build/Transfer/Operate (BTO) agreements with a host of private sector
firms to provide telecommunications services in Thailand. In 1994, a
decision was made to allow for greater private sector participation in
the telecommunications market. A National Telecommunications Committee
was to be set up to replace the regulatory functions of TOT and CAT.
According to the telecommunications master plan approved in 1997, TOT
and CAT would in turn be privatised in 1999. The objective is to open
the market in the form of concessions to operate telecommunications
networks and services in competition with TOT on a zone basis. TOT will
predominately be responsible for long-distance interconnecting
facilities between each zone. The terms of concessions will be shifted
from BTO to BOO (Build/Operate/Own) licences once the regulatory
framework is put in place (TBOI, 1996b). However, the process has been
slow due to vested interests and the impacts of the Asian crisis. It is
estimated that the sale of shares might take several more years than
expected and telecommunications market liberalisation will not be
completed before 2006. Before the Asian crisis, the Thai
telecommunications industry invested heavily in expansion of capacity
mainly through foreign borrowing, which became expensive to repay
because of the devaluation of the baht in 1997. As a result, all
telecommunications companies reported losses and were struggling in
1999. There was debt restructuring during 1999, which proceeded within
the framework of payment rescheduling and the issuance of preference
shares. All but one telecommunications company listed on the stock
market had entered debt rescheduling with their creditors by the end of
1999. The Thai telecommunications sector is thus confronting both the
implementation of the liberalisation programme and the problems of
foreign-exchange-related losses and return to profitability.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the
country's abundant natural resources, an enterprising and competitive
private sector, and cautious and pragmatic economic management resulted
in the emergence of one of the fastest growing and most successful
economies among the developing countries. Between 1960 and 1970, the
country's average annual growth rate of gross domestic product (
GDP--see Glossary) was 8.4 percent, compared with 5.8 percent for all
middle-income, oil-importing countries. Between 1970 and 1980, the GDP
rate of growth was 7.2 percent, compared with 5.6 percent for the
middle-income oil-importing countries. The world slowdown by the late
1970s was mainly caused by the rise in oil prices. The Thai GDP in 1982
was US$36.7 billion. It rose to US$42 billion in 1985 (see table 5,
Appendix). The projected rate of growth for GDP during the early 1980s
was around 4.3 percent as a result of falling demand and prices for Thai
exports despite a drop in oil price. It was apparent that in the 1980s
Thailand had lost its momentum; its Fifth Economic Development Plan
targets had not been met because of serious macroeconomic imbalances,
such as decreasing savings and investment rates, increasing budget
deficits, and increasing debt and debt- servicing obligations. Whether
Thailand could regain its former momentum depended on the success of its
Sixth Economic Development Plan (1987-91). Between 1970 and 1980,
investment represented on the average 25.2 percent of GDP, compared with
24.7 percent by the mid-1980s. This proportion was one of the lowest
investment rates in Southeast Asia. The national savings rate had fallen
even more, from an average of 22 percent during the 1970s to around 17.8
percent by the mid-1980s. Hence, the average current-account deficit of
7 percent of GDP during the early 1980s had been caused by a declining
savings rate rather than by an increase in investment rate. This
imbalance was more serious than one caused by rising investment because
rising investment could pay for itself with increased output and,
possibly, increased savings so that debt could be repaid. With falling
savings, foreign borrowing was used not to raise investment but merely
to fill the investment-savings gap, which was mirrored in the external
debt ratio of 39 percent of GDP and 146 percent of exports by the
mid1980s . The total debt service ratio went up from 17.3 percent in
1980 to more than 25 percent by the mid-1980s. The increase was an
important factor in the decision of the government to sharply reduce
authorization for new commitments of public debt.
By the mid-1980s, government revenues averaged around 14
percent of GDP and consumption averaged around 13 percent, leaving a
public savings net of interest payments of 1 percent of GDP. This was
low compared with an average savings of 7 percent for the lower
middle-income countries and 10 percent for the upper middle-income
countries. The financing of public expenditures caused a major imbalance
because of high deficit and low public savings. Although not a new
problem, increases in public expenditure needed to be matched by
increases in revenues. Efforts were made to tackle the problem, and the
public capital expenditures annual growth rate had dropped from 64.7
percent in 1980 to 8.5 percent in 1982 and 7.4 percent by the mid-1980s.
The problem remained serious, however, because of political
unwillingness to raise public revenue to the required level. In fact,
the central government managed to finance only its public current
expenditures with its revenues. Almost all capital expenditures, which
averaged around 3.5 percent of GDP by the mid-1980s, were financed with
borrowed funds, and often even some of the current expenditures had been
financed with borrowed funds, thus increasing the debt-servicing burden.
Total revenue averaged around 13 percent of GDP in the 1970s and
remained at the same level in the mid-1980s. In view of the
disappointing revenue level, a new tax package was instituted in 1984-85
to raise revenues, including an increase in the tax rates on interest
earnings from 10 percent to 12.5 percent, a reduction in the standard
deduction for self-employed persons, the introduction of an estate tax,
the abolition of preferential rates for companies listed on the stock
exchange, the abolition of tax exemptions for selected state
enterprises, streamlined exemptions and deductions for business taxes,
and other measures. The resulting gains in revenue were, however,
partially offset by measures to simplify the personal and corporate tax
system. No effort had been made to reduce legal exemptions and illegal
evasions. The net revenue effect of the package was therefore
negligible. Some experts concluded that a broader tax base, less
complicated tax structure, and lower tax rates needed to be considered
in the tax reform. Also, contributions and taxes paid by the state-owned
enterprises should be increased because they had dropped from 41 percent
of profit in the late 1970s to only 23 percent by the mid-1980s. The
Ministry of Finance required state enterprises to make specific
improvements in their financial condition as a prerequisite for
obtaining guarantees for borrowing. The measures included financing 25
percent of new investment from the state enterprises' own resources,
forwarding at least 30 percent of their profits to the treasury,
privatizing commercial enterprises, introducing corporate-planning
systems, and limiting debt financing. Such measures did not lessen the
burden of state enterprises on the budget, and their capital expenditure
financed by the government had stayed at the same average annual rate of
3.5 percent of GDP in the 1970s and mid-1980s. It was noteworthy,
however, that their performance had improved, with savings rising from
0.2 percent of GDP during the Fourth Economic Development Plan period
(1977-81) to 1.4 percent of GDP by the mid-1980s. With approximately 68
state-owned enterprises, Thailand had fewer than the average in other
Southeast Asian countries, such as the Philippines, with 264.
Nevertheless, the government was very concerned with their performance.
The largest ones in terms of assets were in public utilities, transport
and communication, financial institutions, and petroleum. The smaller
ones were in manufacturing, agriculture, commerce, and services. The
state enterprises did not represent the entire extent of public
ownership in the economy; in the mid-1980s, the government received 75
percent of the shares of 24 troubled finance companies in order to
rescue them from bankruptcy. In addition, the Ministry of Finance held
minority shares in eighty-eight other private firms. All state
enterprises were attached to a parent ministry or to the Office of the
Prime Minister, and there were five core agencies and two committees to
supervise their activities. Some experts suggested that, in order to
improve the efficiency of state enterprises, the enterprises needed to
be more decentralized and exposed to free market competition. The
government spent approximately US$16 billion during the period from 1982
to 1985 (see table 6, Appendix). In real terms, this represented an
increase of about 52 percent over public expenditures from 1977 to 1981,
the fourth plan period. Because an increasing percentage of the budget
was devoted to recurring obligations, fewer funds were available for
capital investment. Close to 70 percent of current expenditure was used
for wages, salaries, interest costs, and defense. Investment in energy,
transport, and communication had taken nearly 64 percent of total
capital expenditure by the mid-1980s. Agriculture received a fairly
constant proportion of about 15 percent of total public capital
expenditure, and industry dropped from 1.3 percent to 0.9 percent
between the end of the 1970s and the mid-1980s. Education, health, and
welfare together continued to receive about 12 percent throughout the
same period.
Thailand's performance
in managing its money and banking affairs through successful development
and diversification of its financial institutions was impressive in the
1960s and 1970s. However, economic imbalances in the early 1980s and the
rising tendency of governmental intervention put the financial sector
under stress, thus reducing its efficiency in resource mobilization and
allocation. Efforts to remedy the economic imbalances in the Fifth
Economic Development Plan included restructuring monetary, exchange
rate, and interest rate policies; strengthening the open securities
market; and encouraging competition among financial institutions.
Thailand had many types of financial
institutions, subject to different laws and regulated by different
agencies. Most of them were privately owned, but some were state owned.
The primary state-owned facility was the Bank of Thailand, which had
responsibility and authority for monetary control in its role as the
central bank. It served as the fiscal agent and the financier of the
government; regulated the money supply, foreign exchange, and the
banking system; and also served as the lender of last resort to the
banks. Other state-owned facilities included the Government Savings
Bank, the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives, the
Industrial Finance Corporation of Thailand, the Government Housing Bank,
and the Small Industry Finance Corporation of Thailand. By the
mid-1980s, the 30 commercial banks had 1,526 branches handling the
majority of all financial transactions in Thailand. The 16 largest banks
accounted for over 90 percent of assets, deposits, and loans of the
commercial banks, indicating a high concentration and little competition
in the banking industry. Moreover, despite the impressive growth of
banks, entrance by new banks was limited. Finance and security companies
comprised the second largest group of financial institutions with assets
equaling nearly 22 percent of those of commercial banks. Concentration
also existed in the securities industry, the 5 largest companies (out of
112) holding 19 percent of all finance and security assets. The finance
companies were created by many domestic and foreign banks to overcome
banking restrictions. Although they were intended to increase
competition with commercial banks, the objective was not met because
many banks used the companies as an extension of their own activities.
The money and capital markets were
still underdeveloped in the mid-1980s. One striking fact was that the
money market was very rudimentary and there was practically no open
market for short-term securities; the only investors in treasury bills
and government bonds were commercial banks and a few other financial
institutions, which had to hold them until maturity. Certificates of
deposits did not exist, and, for all intents and purposes, promissory
notes issued by the finance companies were nonnegotiable. In order to
increase the liquidity aspect of government bonds, in April 1979 the
Bank of Thailand established the government bond repurchase market. In
reality this was only a brokerage window at the central bank for
institutional investors and, therefore, did not help to achieve the
desired objective of open-market operation. Thus, Thai interest rates
were determined, to a significant degree, by international forces rather
than central bank sales and purchases of government securities. The
Security Exchange of Thailand (SET) had combined the functions of
securities market and securities commission, providing the legal
framework for underwriting and trading of corporation shares of common
stocks and bonds as well as government securities. In 1974 the SET
assumed the functions of the Bangkok Stock Exchange, which never had
been very active. In 1976 the SET had an upsurge because of expansionary
monetary policy. In 1978 the SET collapsed, however, because of massive
speculation, easy margin finance of up to 70 percent of a transaction,
unpreparedness and inexperience of the brokers as well as the investors,
and inadequate regulation and supervision of the market and such
activities as inside trading and manipulation. The government created at
that time two special public funds to purchase securities in order to
limit the negative effects of price swings in the SET. Many investors,
however, held on to their investments that had declined in value in
order to wait for a better price, thus decreasing normal stock market
activity. The hesitation to trade in the market created a surplus
problem for the SET, further damaging investor confidence. Some
economists suggested that more specific regulations and supervisory
systems were needed in order to revive the SET and restore public
confidence.
Beginning in the late
1960s, the government gave top priority to increasing credit
availability to the agricultural sector despite the fact that
agricultural performance had been excellent during the previous two
decades. The emphasis was on providing credit to agriculture at below
market interest rates and channeling credit to poor farmers. In 1975 the
central bank imposed a mandatory credit allocation system, under which a
required minimum of 5 percent of all outstanding bank loans were
allocated to agriculture. This quota was increased to 7 percent, then 9
percent, and finally to 13 percent by the mid-1980s. Moreover, all new
rural and provincial branches of banks were required to lend 60 percent
of their local deposits in the area served by the branch, with one-third
of that amount reserved for farmers. In 1966 the government established
the Bank for Agriculture and Agriculture Cooperatives to supply credit
for the development of the agricultural sector. In the 1980s, it became
the most important single source of credit for farmers, and it had a
wide coverage of 62 branches and 514 field units located throughout the
country; more than 2 million farm families were reached directly and
indirectly via the cooperatives and farmers associations.
Noninstitutional sources, such as agriculture and savings cooperatives,
supplied 50 percent of agricultural credit, and commercial banks and the
agricultural banks each supplied 25 percent. Finance for nonagricultural
activities in the rural sector, which provided 50 percent of rural
income, was largely neglected.
The government did not use a mandatory allocation
system or interest controls to affect the distribution of credit among
industrial subsectors or regions or classes of industrial borrowers. The
interest rate ceiling, however, did limit credit availability to small
and medium industrial firms. Therefore, most credit went to the larger
firms, which were mainly engaged in import substitution and were
concentrated in the Bangkok metropolitan area. Commercial banks, finance
companies, and the Industrial Finance Corporation of Thailand (IFCT)
were the main suppliers of credit to the industrial sector. Commercial
banks accounted for nearly 70 percent of the total credit granted to the
manufacturing sector by the mid-1980s, the finance companies 24 percent,
and IFCT the rest. Although the share of the IFCT was modest, it was the
only one that offered extensive term-financing on a project basis. It
was a private institution, but its mandate was to grant loans for
projects having a low financial rate of return, which were unacceptable
to commercial banks but were important to the economy as a whole. Such
loans were possible because of the government guaranty for liquidity
assistance to small borrowers and soft-term loans. The activities of the
IFCT were hampered, however, by its being limited to fixed assets
financing and by the lengthy project-evaluation procedure. Finance
companies tended to deal with smaller borrowers than did commercial
banks in their lending to manufacturing firms because they were allowed
to charge higher rates to offset the higher risk associated with smaller
borrowers. Yet, because of the limited regional spread of their branch
networks and their limited resources, they could not fill all the gaps
left by commercial banks, such as the supply of long-term loans.
Commercial banks provided the widest range of services. Besides credit,
they offered checking services, short-term trade credits, guarantees for
third-party borrowing, foreign exchange services, and letters of credit.
The breakdown of bank loan portfolios showed 19 percent for discount of
trade bills, 58 percent for overdrafts, and 23 percent for loans.
Because discounting and overdrafts were short-term activities, the 23-
percent share for loans meant that long-term financing was scarce
relative to short-term financing. Because fixed assets such as land and
buildings represented the preferred collateral for banks, smaller
borrowers with fewer fixed assets tended to be limited in their access
to loans. Once a borrower had pledged its assets to banks for short-term
financing, it could not use the assets for collateral with another
institution, such as the IFCT, for long-term loans.
Monetary policy was traditionally passive. Control
over the rate of credit extension was the primary means for supporting
growth, maintaining price stability, and monitoring the balance of
payments. Interest rates were allowed to adjust to the rate of credit
expansion and were very much affected by international rates as a result
of the Thai open economy. Low returns tended to discourage private
savings and encourage high demand for consumer goods. Domestic prices
also were largely determined by world price movements as a result of the
country's open economy and minimal domestic price controls. In fact the
oil price increases in the early 1970s caused inflation to rise from 4.8
percent in 1972 to 24.3 percent in 1974. The deceleration of world
prices in the early 1980s caused domestic inflation to decline from 13
percent in 1981 to 5 percent in 1982. Measuring by the price indexes,
with 1972 as a base of 100, price increase was less for agricultural
products, going from 130.2 in 1973 to 227.7 in 1983 compared with 115.7
to 276.3 for nonagricultural products. The highest increase among
agricultural goods was for forest products, which went from 122.9 to
403.2 during the same period. Among nonagricultural goods, mining and
quarrying showed the highest increases. The consumer price index, taking
1976 as the base of 100, showed the highest increase in transportation
prices with 231.2 in 1982, while the rest of the consumption basket had
an increase of about 180 between 1976 and 1982. The Bangkok metropolitan
area had the highest increase with 194 in 1983, compared with 188.4 for
the Northeast region, 181.6 for the Center, 180 for the North, and 178.4
for the South (these being Thailand's four geographic regions).
The average annual rate of employment
growth in the 1970s was 2.7 percent, compared with 2.9 percent in labor
force growth caused by rapid population growth in the 1950s and 1960s.
As a result, unemployment reached 1.7 million in 1985, which
corresponded to an unemployment rate of around 6.3 percent. Agriculture
was the major employer with about 69 percent of total employment in the
mid-1980s, a decline from 84 percent in 1960. Between 1970 and 1983
manufacturing increased its share of the total employed labor force from
4.1 percent to 7.4 percent. Commerce increased from 1.6 percent to 8.7
percent, and services from 7 percent to 10 percent during the same
period. The work force had gone through some structural changes in terms
of age and sex. The fastest growing age-group in the 1960s was eleven-
to fourteen-year-olds. In the 1980s, that age-group dropped as a result
of a falling birth rate in the early 1970s and increasing primary and
secondary school enrollment. By the mid-1980s, the fastest growing group
in the work force was aged between twenty and thirty, with increasing
participation by females. The proportion of women employed went from 66
percent in 1971 to around 70 percent by the mid-1980s. Female employment
was highest in commerce with 54 percent in 1979, followed by 50 percent
in agriculture, 43 percent in industries, and 36 percent in services. In
terms of regional distribution, the North had the lowest rate of labor
force growth, with 3 percent between 1971 and 1985, followed by the
Northeast, with 3.3 percent as a result of limited job opportunities and
migration. Bangkok had the highest labor force growth with 6.9 percent.
Regional growth of the labor force depended partly on the level of
education. An increasing (although still small) number of new entrants
in the work force had received a higher education. In 1971 the
percentage of the total labor force that had an elementary education was
90.2. This figure declined to 72.6 percent in 1985. For people with
lower and upper secondary education, the share went from 4.8 percent to
10.4 percent during the same period. The percentage of the labor force
with vocational training jumped from 1.9 percent to 10.4 percent between
1971 and 1985. Yet unemployment in Thailand for those with a college or
vocational education rose from 8.4 to 9 percent by the mid-1980s, mostly
because of an average increase of 13.7 percent per year in the educated
work force between 1977 and 1985. The real wage rate between 1978 and
1985 remained the same for most of the country, but in some regions,
such as the North, it dropped from B1.81 per hour to B1.66 (for value of
the baht--B--see Glossary). Only in Bangkok did wages increase--from
B3.64 to B4.20--during the period. Real wages were stagnant because
minimum wage adjustments were not always closely linked to inflation
rates, and compliance with the minimum wage laws was not observed by the
various sectors of the economy and regions of the country. Minimum wage
laws were first introduced in April 1973 after the legalization of
unions in 1972. At the outset, the laws covered only Bangkok. They were
subsequently applied to the entire country, which was divided into three
regions with three different scales for various types of activities;
agriculture and government administration were exempted. By 1982 minimum
wages in Bangkok had been raised by 100 percent; those in other regions
had been raised by 50 to 70 percent.
Thailand sustained a trade
balance deficit from the early 1970s to the mid-1980s. Although the
trade balance had improved during the first part of the 1970s, it
worsened after the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979. In fact the net value of
oil imports went from US$52.5 million in 1970 to US$684.7 million in
1982, with dependence on foreign oil reaching 75 percent in 1980 and
declining to 50 percent by 1985. Although there was a general decline in
the export performance of developing countries in the early 1980s,
Thailand's recovery from the oil shock was further delayed by a loss in
export competitiveness, a slowdown in the economies of major trading
partners, and a growing debt service obligation resulting in part from
rising interest rates. The current account balance deficits were not as
severe as the trade deficits as a result of improving service balances.
By 1986 the balance of payments had moved into surplus on current
account (see table 7, Appendix). The major contribution to the service
balance surplus was tourism, which increased from 630,000 tourists in
1970 to 2.6 million in 1986. Tourism was the top foreign exchange earner
from 1981 to 1986. The trade deficit was caused in part by a decreasing
growth rate of exports between 1980 and 1983, which improved slightly by
1985. The growth rate of imports also declined, but at a slower rate.
Despite an increase in tourism, the trade deficit reached a peak in 1983
of US$3.9 billion. In 1985 exports totaled US$7.1 billion and imports
US$9.2 billion, leaving an unfavorable trade balance of US$2.1 billion.
By 1986 the deficit had decreased even further, with some of the
reduction a result of the lower cost of imported oil. The composition or
structure of merchandise exports changed substantially between 1965 and
1985. Primary commodities accounted for 95 percent of Thailand's exports
in 1965, and manufactured exports accounted for only 4 percent. By 1986
manufactured products comprised 55 percent of total exports, with
textile products increasing from less than 1 percent in 1965 to 13
percent by 1986 (see table 8, Appendix). Other major manufacturing
exports in the mid-1980s included rubber products, processed foods,
integrated circuits, metal products, jewelry, footwear, and furniture.
Although agricultural exports as a percentage of total exports declined
during this period, rice and other agricultural exports remained
important for the Thai economy. By the mid-1980s, rice took the highest
share of total agricultural exports. Cassava products, maize, sugar,
rubber, fruit, and marine products were the other main exports in this
category. Between 1965 and 1985, the destinations of merchandise exports
shifted from 54 percent of 1965 exports destined for developing
countries to 56 percent of 1985 exports going to industrialized
countries. This increase in the percentage of exports to industrialized
countries, in combination with the changing structure of merchandise
exports from predominantly agricultural to manufactured products, has
fueled Thailand's economic growth (see table 9, Appendix). Thailand's
major industrialized trading partners included the EEC, the United
States, Japan, and the Netherlands. Furthermore, Thailand has developed
significant trade relations with the newly industrializing countries
(NICs) of Singapore, Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea (South Korea), and
Taiwan. Additionally, Thailand has developed trade relations with
Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and China (see table 10,
Appendix). Tariff barriers on imports from the developing countries had
dropped with the implementation of the Tokyo Round (1973-79) of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ( GATT--see Glossary). Rising
nontariff barriers, resulting from domestic and international economic
conditions in industrial countries, had more than offset the tariff
reductions. In the United States the proportion of imports subject to
such barriers more than doubled, and in the other industrial countries
it rose by as much as 40 percent. Examples of nontariff barriers were
quotas, voluntary exports restraints, the Multifiber Arrangements,
sanitation rules, and subsidies. Thai rice exports encountered the
stiffest barriers in Japan, where the tariff rate was 15 percent and a
global quota was in force. In the United States, tariff on rice was only
2.6 percent, and no explicit nontariff barriers existed except for
stringent controls by the United States Food and Drug Administration. In
the other industrialized countries, Thai rice exports faced varying
levies. Thai agricultural exports to the developing countries met with
stiff competition from subsidized United States cereal exports. Thailand
entered into a voluntary export restraint with France for its cassava
exports because of strong resistance to imports from the French
producers of cereal-based animal feed. Rubber did not face major
barriers except for quotas imposed by Japan. Maize exports did
relatively poorly because of subsidized production and high tariffs in
the industrialized countries. Sugar exports also faced subsidy problems
in Western Europe and a 50 percent quota reduction by the United States.
Despite nontariff barriers, Thai agricultural and manufactured exports
faced less protectionism than the NICs in the early 1980s. Of Thailand's
manufactured exports, textiles were most affected by barriers because
Thailand had to enter into bilateral agreements with industrial
countries, which were similar to the voluntary export restraints under
the Multifiber Arrangements. In addition, tariffs escalated with the
degree of processing. For example, in the United States the average
tariff for cotton fabrics was 9.6 percent, whereas it was 18 percent for
garments. The United States imposed countervailing duties on Thai
textile exports in protest against Thai government subsidies to textile
exporters in the form of export packing credits, rediscount facilities
for industrial bills, electricity discounts, and tax certificates.
Tariffs in Thailand before the 1970s were primarily used to generate
revenues rather than to influence domestic production. The rates ranged
from 15 to 30 percent, with higher rates applied to finished consumer
goods imports. In the 1970s, however, tariff rates on finished consumer
goods imports increased 30 to 50 percent. Rising protectionism continued
in the late 1970s and early 1980s, with high tariff rates and the
application of surcharges, quantitative restrictions, price controls,
and domestic contents requirements (see table 11, Appendix).
The Thai total long-term public and private debt
grew from US$728 million in 1970 to US$13.3 billion in 1985. The
external debt was increasing at a faster rate during this period than
the growing gross national product ( GNP--see Glossary). In 1970 the
external debt was 11.1 percent of GNP, increasing to 36 percent of GNP
by 1985. The ratio of debt payments or debt service to the total export
of goods and services, one indicator of Thailand's ability to meet debt
payments, increased from 14 percent in 1970 to 25.4 percent in 1985. The
growth of external indebtedness averaged 25.2 percent between 1970 and
1980, compared with an average of 21 percent for Southeast and East
Asian middle-income oil-importer countries. Public debt as a percentage
of exports went from 47.9 percent to 75.9 percent between 1980 and 1983,
but the proportion of public borrowing from foreign sources dropped from
52 percent to 42 percent during the same period. This was indicative of
the growing concern of the public sector with the enlarged foreign debt
and hence a higher reliance on domestic borrowing, which went from 48
percent to 55 percent during the same period. In the early 1980s,
Thailand was characterized by high competition between the government
and the private sector for scarce domestic savings, which forced private
firms to rely more on external borrowing. The composition of Thai
indebtedness in terms of interest rates, maturity, and currency
structure appeared to be better than that in most other developing
countries. Because of its high credit rating, Thailand could borrow at
about 8.4 percent in late 1983, compared with an average rate of 10.1
percent for other middle-income oil-importer countries. It had also the
longest loan average maturity, 17.2 years compared with 12.2 years. In
terms of currency denomination, the Thai external debt consisted mostly
of two currencies: the United States dollar and the Japanese yen, with
increasing reliance on the yen because of the willingness of Japanese
banks to lend at a lower spread than the other banks. Thailand was
exposed to the risk of yen appreciation in the early 1980s because Japan
received only 14 percent of Thai exports while accounting for 26 percent
of imports. Meanwhile, the value of the yen had appreciated
substantially relative to the baht. The baht was pegged to the United
States dollar until 1984 when it had a fixed exchange rate of B23 per
US$1. Thereafter, the baht was pegged to a basket of currencies and
devalued by 14.8 percent against the dollar. According to some
observers, Thailand needed to revise its external debt portfolio as well
as limit its reliance on external debt.
The industrial sector in Thailand contributed considerably to economic
growth during the 1970s and 1980s. As a percentage of GDP, industry
accounted for an average of 25.7 percent in the 1970s and about 29
percent in the mid-1980s. The average annual growth rate was 9.3 percent
for the 1970s, with a slowdown to 6.7 percent in 1985, which was still
very respectable by international standards. Manufacturing constituted
the most important industrial subsector, providing an average of 17.9
percent of GDP in the 1970s and about 19.8 percent in the mid1980s .
Construction accounted for an average of 4.8 percent of GDP during the
1970s and rose to 5.1 by the mid-1980s. Mining and quarrying represented
an average of 1.8 percent of GDP in the 1970s and remained fairly
constant. The annual growth rate was the highest for the public
utilities industrial subsector in the 1970s and mid-1980s, 13.1 percent
and 8.8 percent, respectively. The annual growth rate for manufacturing
dropped from an average of 10.1 percent in the 1970s to 7.3 percent in
1985. A decline in the growth rate of mining and construction occurred
during the same period.
Manufacturing was
the most important industrial subsector in Thailand, comprising on
average 25 percent of each addition to GDP (incremental GDP), or 70
percent of all industrial value added during the 1970s and mid-1980s.
Manufacturing was characterized by a high reliance on agricultural
products, including rubber products, textile products, food processing,
beverages, and tobacco. Thailand's food and agriculture share of
manufacturing value added was about 36 percent by the mid-1980s,
compared with 20 percent for South Korea and 22 percent for Malaysia.
The next most important area of manufacturing was textiles, clothing,
and leather products, produced mainly for export, with 23 percent of
manufacturing value added. Machinery and transport equipment, which
consisted mostly of repair and assembly of motor vehicles, accounted for
11 percent, and chemicals accounted for 7 percent. The remaining 23
percent included processed minerals, wood, rubber, carpets, batteries,
rope, gunnysacks, plastic goods, tires, footwear, and an expanding
domestic small arms production. The composition of Thai foreign trade
reflected the manufacturing sector of the Thai economy. Exports of
processed food, leather, wood, rubber, and basic metals represented a
considerable share of manufacturing output. The capital and intermediate
goods industries were less developed, however, necessitating high levels
of imports of those products. Exports of manufactured goods grew from
5.5 percent of total exports in the 1970s to about 30 percent by the
mid-1980s. Textiles and garments were the most important contributors in
the 1970s, accounting for almost half of the total manufactured exports,
but by the mid-1980s they had dropped to about 13 percent because of
rising foreign protectionism of textiles. Exports of manufactured goods
that grew rapidly during this period were wood products, nonmetallic
minerals, electronics, electrical machinery, jewelry, and precious
stones. Employment in the manufacturing subsector accounted for 7.9
percent of total employment by the mid-1980s and had absorbed over 16
percent of labor force growth during the 1970s. Textile, apparel, and
leather firms had the highest share of manufacturing employment, with
25.8 percent in the early 1980s, followed by processed food, beverage,
and tobacco firms, which accounted for 19.9 percent. Furniture and other
wood products firms accounted for 15.8 percent of manufacturing
employment; minerals, metals, and metal products, 12.6 percent;
transportation equipment, 8.5 percent; and other manufacturing firms
accounted for the remaining 17.4 percent. The growth in manufacturing
employment resulted both from the absolute growth of the subsector
itself and from the labor intensiveness of such industries as textiles.
Small-scale firms with fewer than 10 workers employed 50 percent more
workers at the beginning of the 1980s than all larger firms. However,
both groups had the same average annual growth rate of around 10 percent
in the 1970s. Manufacturing was heavily concentrated in the Bangkok
metropolitan area, as indicated by its share of 35.3 percent of total
manufacturing employment. The next highest area of concentration was in
the Center. Industries outside Bangkok were based primarily on the
processing of agricultural products, such as rubber, sugar, cassava, and
rice, or on the repair of agricultural implements. Bangkok's role as the
manufacturing center resulted from its position as the leading port, the
largest market, and the transportation, communications, and financial
center of the country. State-owned manufacturing firms produced tobacco,
playing cards, liquor, marble, jute, sugar, paper, textiles, leather
goods, glass, batteries, and pharmaceutical products. Each state
enterprise was required to submit an annual operational and investment
budget to be approved by its board of directors, its parent ministry,
the Bureau of the Budget, and the National Economic and Social
Development Board under the Office of the Prime Minister. Each firm had
on its board of directors between nine and eleven members, all of whom
were appointed by the parent ministry. The board was responsible for
setting prices with the approval of the parent ministry. State
enterprises were more unionized and more powerful than private firms and
often had salaries 50 percent higher than those in the civil service and
in some private firms. They also offered higher fringe benefits,
bonuses, and overtime pay. Planning for privatization of some
unprofitable state-owned manufacturing firms was under way in the
mid-1980s, but the government faced labor opposition and other
difficulties in selling these firms. Foreign enterprises accounted for
about 30 percent of capital investment in the form of joint ventures
with some twenty foreign countries. Japan provided more than one-third
of total foreign investment, the United States more than one-seventh,
and Taiwan less than one-eighth. The general attitude of the people
toward foreign firms was favorable until the early 1970s. At that time,
world commodities prices collapsed, causing hardship in the country.
This collapse was popularly perceived as resulting from foreign
involvement in the economy. Students and liberal elements demanded that
contracts with foreign enterprises be reexamined and renegotiated. To
placate these groups, the government revoked the extensive offshore
concession of the foreign-owned Thailand Exploration and Mining Company
(TEMCO). In the late 1980s, Thailand was considering large-scale
industrial development plans, such as the Eastern Seaboard Development
Program, which included deep-sea port facilities, a natural gas-based
petrochemical complex, a soda ash project, a fertilizer plant, and an
integrated steel complex. The petrochemical industries complex was to be
developed southeast of Bangkok and was to include a plant to process
ethane and propane into ethylene and propylene. It was to be a public
and private joint-venture project costing an estimated US$600 million.
The site of the Eastern Seaboard Development Program was to be a major
center for industrial development that would extend from east of Bangkok
toward the Cambodian border. The site was chosen because of its
proximity to Bangkok, access to raw materials and labor supplies from
the Northeast, availability of an existing deep-sea port on the Gulf of
Thailand, and excellent road and communications infrastructure. One
objective of the program was to decentralize economic activities away
from Bangkok. The other goals were the development of a wide range of
industries, including agro-industries, around Si Racha-Laem Chabang and
the development of tourism in and around Pattaya, a popular beach resort
area. The total capital requirement for the project was estimated at
US$4.5 billion: about 66 percent for heavy industrial development; about
20 percent for infrastructure; 7 percent for housing, industrial
estates, and urban services; and the remainder for light industries.
The Thai industrial sector was under the
supervision of seven governmental agencies. The Ministry of Finance
administered taxes and duties and provided tax refunds on exports. It
was involved in large-scale industrial projects in the role of deciding
on government equity participation, arranging public foreign borrowing
to support the project, and extending protection through tariffs. The
Board of Investment provided investment incentives, and the Ministry of
Commerce controlled prices and international trade. The Ministry of
Industry issued factory licenses, drew up industrial regulations, and
enforced zoning laws. It also provided technical assistance, management
training, and financing for small- and medium-sized enterprises. The
Industrial Finance Corporation of Thailand lent long-term funds to
medium- and large-scale firms from credit given by the government. The
Bank of Thailand provided foreign exchange and rediscount facilities to
selected industries and exporters at concessionary terms. Finally, the
National Economic and Social Development Board established policy
guidelines and targets for the industrial sector. In 1982 the Industrial
Restructuring Committee was created to coordinate the various agencies
and to formulate detailed policy proposals in line with economic
development plans. Import tariffs were the most important protective
measure used for the industrial sector. In the 1960s, the nominal tariff
rates were low, ranging from 25 to 30 percent. In the 1970s, the rate
went up to a range of 30 to 55 percent for consumer goods. By the end of
1978, nine import categories had tariff rates above 90 percent,
including alcoholic beverages, shoes, perfume, cosmetics, and
automobiles. In the early 1980s, the government attempted a more uniform
tariff structure and lower protectionism in conformity with the Fifth
Economic Development Plan. The adjustments included a reduction in
tariffs to 60 percent on 270 categories of imported commodities; a
change in tariffs to 30 percent for 1,970 items; and an increase in rate
to 5 percent for those nonessential items that had been exempted. Goods
considered essential, such as milk for infants or fibers used in
textiles, remained exempted. Other protective measures included price
controls, which were quite pervasive in the 1970s but were relaxed at
the beginning of the 1980s, except on petroleum products, white sugar,
and sweetened condensed milk. Quantitative restrictions on imports were
increased in the early 1980s to cover forty-six products. Regulations
requiring a certain percentage of domestic content in manufactured
imports included 30 to 40 percent for commercial vehicles, 45 percent
for automobiles, and 70 percent for motorcycles. In order to encourage
investment, the Board of Investment provided incentives, such as
guarantees against nationalization and price controls, tax exemptions of
up to 8 years, and tariff surcharges of up to 50 percent to protect
against competing imports. The basic objectives of the board were to
promote laborintensive industries, exports, and regional
decentralization of industry.
Much of the
impressive economic growth recorded by Thailand in the 1970s and the
early 1980s was owed to the steady expansion of the agricultural sector.
This sector provided adequate food for the rapidly growing population
and produced substantial surpluses of some commodities for export. The
Thai farmer's ability to adapt to changing market conditions contributed
to the country's agricultural success, but even more important was the
availability of large areas of virgin land for cultivation. Between 1950
and 1980, agricultural holdings nearly doubled to an estimated 22
million hectares, of which about three-quarters were farmed annually,
and much of the rapidly growing population was absorbed in the
expansion. By the early 1980s, however, most of the arable land had been
occupied, except in the South, and continued growth of the agricultural
sector became increasingly dependent on the acceptance of new
technologies and the adoption of more intensive cultivation. Observers
feared that without these changes growing domestic demand--both from
increasing population and from rising expectations--would seriously
affect the nation's balance of payments position through the reduction
of exportable surpluses of vital major foreign exchange earners, such as
rice and sugar. Agriculture--crops, livestock, forestry, and fisheries--
employed about three-quarters of the labor force, and it was estimated
that some four-fifths of the total population was dependent on the
sector for its livelihood. During the mid-1980s, agriculture accounted
for an average of about 25 percent of GDP, and agricultural commodities
accounted annually for over 60 percent of the value of all exports. The
type of agriculture engaged in--whether cash crop, subsistence, or a
combination thereof--varied from region to region and within regions. In
the central plain, there were farmers whose sole activity was the
raising of such cash crops as maize, sugarcane, vegetables, and fruit.
In the rice bowl region of the central plain, farmers grew rice for sale
as a main crop. Elsewhere, rice was raised basically for subsistence
purposes, but many farmers also cultivated secondary crops for the
market. In areas without developed access roads and services, such as
parts of the upper Northeast, participation in the market economy was
limited. Farmers in these areas practiced subsistence cultivation,
selling only an occasional surplus locally. Agriculture was dominated by
smallholders, most of whom had either outright title to the land or
effective possession of it; tenancy was significant only in parts of the
central plain. In the early 1980s, the average holding for the whole
country was about 5.6 hectares, but considerable size differences
existed within different regions and locales that related in part to
terrain, soils, rainfall, and other natural factors. In the North, where
nearly a quarter of the nation's more than 4.5 million agricultural
households were located (1983 estimate), over half the land is
mountainous. In the upper part of the region, which is characterized by
narrow valleys, average holdings were only about 2.2 hectares. In the
parts of this upper area that had controlled irrigation, the typical
farm only had slightly more than one hectare. A farm on nonirrigated
land consisted of about two hectares, part of which was rain-fed paddy
and part upland. The lower part of the region had areas similar to those
in the central plain. Farms were considerably larger, the typical one
having close to five hectares. Both paddy and upland crops were grown,
and maize had become an important secondary cash crop for many farmers
(see table 12, Appendix). In the Northeast, the generally infertile soil
required larger holdings to meet subsistence needs. Over half the farms
had between 2.4 and 7.2 hectares, and the typical farm had an area of
about 4 hectares. In the early 1980s, about 40 percent of the country's
agricultural households lived in this region. Holdings in the Center,
which contained about 20 percent of the nation's agricultural
households, varied considerably. Near Bangkok small farms producing
market vegetables might have little more than half a hectare, whereas
commercial rice farms outside the city averaged over ten hectares. The
typical commercial rice holding on the central plain, however, averaged
somewhat over three hectares, and all available land was under
cultivation. In the upland to the east of the plain, where maize was
grown commercially, the typical farm size was close to 6.5 hectares.
Cassava was also grown in this area on somewhat smaller farms, typically
of about five hectares. West of the plain, the uplands were devoted in
part to sugarcane grown on holdings usually of about three hectares. In
the South, the rugged terrain made about two-fifths of the region
unsuitable for agriculture. The climate, however, favored the
cultivation of rubber trees, and the majority of farms grew rubber as a
cash crop along with subsistence rice. A typical household had about
three hectares: 1.5 hectares of rubber trees, small areas of coconut or
fruit trees, and the rest planted in rice. In the three southernmost
provinces holdings were smaller, averaging about two hectares.
Roughly two-fifths of Thailand is covered
by mountains and hills, the steepness of which generally precludes
cultivation. Nevertheless, perhaps as much as a tenth of this area might
also be converted to agricultural purposes once detailed information was
obtained through surveys. Estimates in the 1970s of overall land-use
suitability classified roughly 58 percent of mountainous and hilly
regions as cultivable (compared with 24 percent 2 decades earlier), of
which about 19 percent was usable for paddy, 28 percent for upland
crops, and 11 percent for both paddy and upland agriculture. Actual
holdings of agricultural land--not all of which was under cultivation at
any one time--were estimated in the mid-1970s to occupy about 43 percent
of the total land area. Soils throughout most of the country are of low
fertility, largely as a result of leaching by heavy rainfall.
Differences between the various soil types are the result of differences
in parent rock material, variations in the amount of rainfall, length of
wet and dry seasons, type of vegetable cover, and other natural factors.
In general, stony and shallow soils characterize the hill and mountain
terrain of the North. Large portions of this mountainous area were
traditionally used by hill peoples for shifting cultivation (see
Glossary). The Lua (also called Lawa) and Karen cultivated for short
periods, then permitted the land to lie fallow for long periods, which
allowed forest regrowth and restoration of soil fertility (see The
Non-Tai Minorities , ch. 2). As a result of population pressures,
however, other groups sometimes failed to follow this practice. The
principle crop of many hill peoples was upland rice; maize was an
important secondary crop. The Hmong, Lisu, and certain other hill
peoples cultivated the opium poppy as a cash crop , but this activity
had important implications for internal stability as well as major
international repercussions (see Criminal Activity and the Narcotics
Trade , ch. 5). Thai authorities, with substantial international
assistance, increased efforts in the 1980s to redirect these people to
other cash crops, including tobacco and coffee. Many inhabitants of the
lowlands in the North also practiced shifting cultivation in hill areas
lying not far above the valleys. The valleys usually had better soils,
some of fairly high or moderate fertility, which were used mainly to
grow irrigated rice. In places where population pressures had developed,
the higher areas were often turned to shifting cultivation to supplement
lowland production. The principal crop was usually upland rice, although
other crops were also grown. Shallow sandy loams cover a large part of
the Khorat Plateau. Their generally low fertility partly explains the
lower economic level of the region. Soils along the main rivers are more
fertile, and alluvial loams of high fertility are found along the Mekong
River. Lowland soils covering about a fifth of the Northeast (some 3.5
million hectares) had been converted to rice paddy. The central plain
rice-growing area and the delta of the Mae Nam (river) Chao Phraya has
clayey soils of high to moderate fertility. Low-lying and flat, much of
the area is flooded during the rainy season. Higher areas on the edges
of the plain are generally well-drained soils of high to moderate
fertility that are suitable for intensive cultivation. These lands are
used extensively for maize and sugarcane. Among other highly useful
soils are the well-drained clayey and loamy soils in parts of the
peninsula where rubber is grown.
Traditionally, the king owned all the land,
from which he made grants to nobles, officials, and other free subjects.
If left uncultivated for three years, the land could be taken back by
the crown, but otherwise it could be passed on to heirs or mortgaged or
sold. At the same time, there was abundant unoccupied cultivable land
that by tradition and custom could be cleared and used by a farmer, who
after three years of continuous cultivation established informal rights.
The concept of individual ownership of the land was introduced during
the reign of King Chulalongkorn (Rama V, 1868-1910), and beginning in
1901 formal title could be acquired. The titling of land in the
mid-1980s was based on a land code promulgated in 1954. The 1954 code
established eight hectares as the maximum permissible holding except
where the owner could manage a larger holding by himself. This
limitation was generally ignored, however, and was rescinded four years
later. A title deed (chanod tidin) giving unrestricted ownership rights
ordinarily was issued only after a cadastral survey. At least two prior
steps were required before the prospective landholder could obtain a
full title deed. Application was first made to occupy and cultivate a
piece of unused land, and a temporary occupancy permit (bai
chong--reserve license) that carried no title rights was received. After
75 percent of the land had been cultivated, the landholder could secure
an exploitation testimonial (nor sor). This gave him the right to occupy
the land permanently and to pass the property on to heirs; in effect it
was an assurance that a title deed eventually would be forthcoming.
Transferring the land through sale, however, was extremely difficult,
and the exploitation testimonial was not usually accepted by banks as
collateral. In the case of squatters, a special occupancy permit (sor
kor) could also be obtained, unless the land was in a permanent reserved
forest or was intended for public use. Satisfactory development could
then lead to the issuance of an exploitation testimonial and ultimately
a full title deed. The issuance of title deeds, which proceeded at a
relatively slow pace in the early 1950s, quickened somewhat during the
remainder of the decade. By 1960 the total number of title deeds for
agricultural land had reached 1 million, although there were 3.4 million
agricultural households (this total included an unknown number of
tenants' households). The pressure for titles of various kinds increased
during the 1960s and 1970s as the number of farm holdings expanded
rapidly. In an effort to expedite the processing of title deeds, the
Department of Land of the Ministry of Interior resorted in the 1970s to
the use of aerial photography in lieu of land surveys. In the 1980s, a
substantial component of the nation's dominant smallholder group
nevertheless lacked full title to the land it worked. By 1982 the total
number of title deeds was 3.9 million. A 1976 estimate placed the
proportion of farm holdings having formal title at about 60 percent. The
lack of full title by the remaining 40 percent created not only a sense
of insecurity for the landholder but also presented a barrier to
securing needed credit. A major question in the mid-1980s concerned the
legalization of farm holdings outside recognized areas for land
acquisition. An unknown but substantial number of holdings had been
established by squatters--many of them hill people--in the reserve
forests, which, according to the central government, were not eligible
for titling, although the de facto possession of such holdings was
recognized by local authorities. Observers pointed out that in many
cases of forest encroachment the occupied land was incorrectly
classified and in fact was suitable for cultivation (some
reclassification was reported in the late 1970s). It also appeared that
in the drafting of the country's land laws there was an underlying
assumption that agricultural land meant the lowlands; in other words,
the land in mountainous and hill areas was considered nonagricultural.
Thus, a large part of the North was not even included in the land
registration system, and the hill peoples of the region were therefore
unable to acquire legal title to the land they used.
Historically, agricultural tenancy nationwide
appeared to have been low except in the commercial rice-growing areas of
the central plain and in the North. This situation was the result of
land reforms instituted by King Chulalongkorn beginning in 1874, the
great availability of free land, the absence of population pressures,
and the relatively small amount of funds required by the individual
farmer to start cultivating rice. Together with customary practices that
tended to limit the amount of cultivable land that could be claimed,
these factors resulted in a national pattern of small independent farms.
Of great significance to this development was the law that the farmer
had to cultivate his own land; if it was more than he or his family
could handle, the farmer had to supervise cultivation of the excess.
Four hectares were considered the maximum tillable by one family,
although with hired help up to about eight hectares could be managed,
the amount varying with soil differences and climatic conditions.
Nineteenth-century legislation set a four-hectare limit on freely
acquirable agricultural land and acted as a major deterrent to the
accumulation of land into large estates. Nevertheless, large holdings
did exist as grants to nobles and officials under the sakdi na (see
Glossary) system (see Social and Political Development , ch. 1).
Chulalongkorn's reforms played an important part in the breakup of at
least some large estates. In such cases the law provided that the
uncultivated land would revert to the state after a period of three
years. In the area around the capital, however, where many larger
holdings were located, land could be rented out, and the landholdings
therefore remained intact. Statistical data on tenancy in the
mid-twentieth century varied considerably. A problem of classification
concerning whether the fairly numerous part owner-part tenant
arrangements should be included with owners or tenants also led to
different conclusions. The part owner-part tenant group consisted
largely of farmers who owned small plots but also worked as tenants on
other larger farms. In some areas, 95 percent of the farmers were
reported to be deeply in debt. According to the government censuses of
agriculture in 1950 and 1963, the rates of full tenancy for the country
as a whole were 6.6 percent and 4.1 percent, respectively. Rates varied
significantly by region. In 1963 the rate in the Center, the chief
agricultural area containing the rice-growing central plain, was 10.7
percent as compared with 1.1 percent in the North. A special 1967-68
survey of the Center determined the full tenancy rate to be 22.5 percent
(part owners-part tenants constituted an additional 15.8 percent). A
1973-74 survey of the Center, as well as other regions, showed the
full-tenancy rate in the Center to be 12 percent (part owners-part
tenants constituted another 28 percent). The remainder were full owners.
Tenancy in the Center in areas devoted completely to commercialized
agriculture was very high, however, especially in some districts near
Bangkok where as many as 75 to 85 percent of the farmers were reported
in the mid-1970s to be full tenants. Lower, but still comparatively
high, rates of tenancy were also found in certain other districts of the
plain. The unusually high tenancy rates were attributed to several
factors, including the proximity to Bangkok of estates that were granted
to the ancestors of present-day holders under the sakdi na system; large
holdings received as remuneration for the digging of canals; and, since
the 1950s, acquisition of land as investment by individuals residing
mostly in Bangkok. Figures published in 1975 covering 4 provinces in the
Bangkok area cited 119 estates ranging in size from 160 hectares to
1,600 hectares and comprising a total of more than 60,000 hectares.
Another factor contributing to tenancy in the central plain was the loss
of holdings to creditors by farmers unable to repay loans. A large
proportion of the small leaseholds was reported to be owned by
storekeepers, local craftsmen, and other farmers. The 1973-74
agricultural survey also provided data on tenancy in other regions. In
the North, the survey found that 4 percent of the farmer operators were
full tenants, 25 percent were part owners-part tenants, and 69 percent
were full owners. The southeastern provinces of the North, where
conditions resemble those of the central plain, reportedly had a higher
percentage of farmers renting some or all of their land. In the
Northeast, full tenants constituted only a negligible proportion; 89
percent of farm operators were full owners, and 8 percent were part
owners-part tenants. In the South, full tenants likewise were only a
very small minority; 83 percent were full owners, and 16 percent were
part owners-part tenants. One reason given for the development of the
part owner-part tenant situation was the effect of Islamic inheritance
laws, which in theory divide the land equally among the children. In
such cases, the inherited holding might be inadequate to meet family
needs, and supplementary land would be rented. The part owned-part
rented condition was not in itself detrimental. There appeared to be
many cases in which additional land was rented solely because the farmer
family believed it would benefit financially by cultivating it. Unrest
among tenants, who constituted a substantial portion of the nation's
poorer farmers, began to manifest itself in the early 1970s. Tenant
discontent centered chiefly on the amount of rent, but also of great
concern was the fact that use of the land was often based on a verbal
agreement that rarely exceeded one year and carried no guarantees of
renewal. In 1950 a land rent- control act covering part of the central
plain was passed but proved generally ineffective. The civilian cabinet
that succeeded to power in October 1973 promised rent and land reform.
Implementing action was not immediately forthcoming, however, and farmer
dissatisfaction mounted, finally erupting in demonstrations in May and
June 1974. In December of that year, the government passed a rent reform
law known as the Agricultural Land Rent Control Act of 1974, providing
for six-year, indefinitely renewable rental contracts. Rents were to be
payable once a year only, and procedures for determining the amount were
specified. Moreover, if a poor harvest occurred, the rent was to be
reduced, and none would be paid if the harvest were less than one-third
normal. Associated with tenancy was the equally serious problem of
landless farmers, who by the early 1980s numbered an estimated 500,000
to 700,000. In January 1975, the civilian government, over strong
opposition, managed to get through the National Assembly a second reform
measure of potentially far-reaching effect. This was the Agricultural
Land Reform Act of 1975. The legislation called for the establishment of
the Agricultural Land Reform Office in the Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives to serve as the implementing agency. Under the act,
landless and tenant farmers could be allocated up to eight hectares of
land that would be paid for on a long-term installment basis. The land
to be allocated was to come from purchases from private holders and from
forest and crown lands. Individual landowners were required to make
available to the program all but eight hectares of their holding. Under
certain circumstances, larger holdings could be retained, but such
holdings could be expropriated later if the provisions of the exception
were not met. Payment for the private land taken was to be 25 percent in
cash and the remainder in government bonds. Implementation of land
reform slowed after the coup of October 1976, which ousted the civilian
government, and the act's goals were subsequently shifted. The
government of Prime Minister Thanin Kraivichien, installed as head of a
military regime in October 1976, announced that a land reform program
covering 1.6 million hectares and taking place over a period of four
years would be carried out. Prime Minister Kriangsak Chomanand, who
succeeded to office in November 1977 after still another military coup,
modified this goal to a more realistic one of 1.3 million hectares over
five years. By early 1979, almost eighty areas throughout the country
had been designated Land Reform Areas under the program. At the same
time, although tenancy remained a major issue, a somewhat different
concept of reform seemed to have emerged, based on the belief that the
most pressing problem was to improve the situation of the large numbers
of illegal squatters in the forests. The Land Reform Areas included some
areas of high tenancy, but the new goal of helping forest squatters
appeared easier to promote than land acquisition by the Agricultural
Land Reform Office in the high-tenancy areas of the central plain. There
it was strongly opposed by large landowners, including wealthy
aristocrats, businessmen, and senior military officers. The program as
projected included furnishing legal titles to squatters and providing
them with needed infrastructure and credit. The areas brought under the
program were to be organized into self-sufficient cooperatives.
Implementation of a given project was expected to take about two years,
including about a year and a half to get the basic infrastructure well
under way and to provide titles. The latter would permit the landholder
to pass on the land to heirs but would not confer the right to sell it
to private parties. The title, however, could be used as collateral for
credit. According to government sources, by 1978 some 320,000 hectares
consisting mainly of public land had been distributed, and another
160,000 hectares were ready to be apportioned.
Thai farmers traditionally relied on rain and
flood water for crops, but the amount needed for rice cultivation was
not always received. By the mid-1800s, a number of canals had been
constructed in the central plain to carry floodwaters from the Chao
Phraya, and in the latter half of the century other canals were dug. The
canals did not form a controlled irrigation system, however, but simply
a distribution net, and whether additional water could be made available
depended on the level of the rivers. Records covering almost a hundred
years to 1930 showed that in about one-third of the years water from the
rivers was insufficient, resulting in considerable crop losses. In 1902
the government contracted with a Dutch expert to develop a controlled
irrigation plan for the entire country but failed to take further
action. Droughts in 1910 and 1911 led to renewed interest and the hiring
of a British irrigation specialist. Nevertheless, the first irrigation
project was not completed until 1922. By 1938 about 440,000 hectares had
been irrigated. Supply problems held up projects during World War II,
but work resumed with renewed vigor in the late 1940s. By 1950 the
irrigated area totaled nearly 650,000 hectares. In 1950 Thailand secured
the first of a series of loans from the World Bank (see Glossary) for
the construction of the vital Chainant Diversion Dam on the Chao Phraya
and a number of major canals. By 1960 over 1.5 million hectares had been
irrigated, almost entirely in the Center and in the North. Systematic
development of the irrigation system began with the First Economic
Development Plan (1961-66) and was continued in later plans. New
assistance from the World Bank included financing of the important
multipurpose Phumiphon (Bhumibol) Dam (completed in 1964) on the Mae Nam
Ping and the Sirikit Dam (completed in 1973) on the Mae Nam Nan. These
dams, both of which have associated hydroelectric power-generating
facilities, impound water at two large reservoir locations in the Chao
Phraya Basin. Other World Bank-financed projects were also carried out
in this basin during the 1970s, and by the end of the decade nearly 1.3
million hectares had controlled water flow in the rainy season, and
about 450,000 hectares had it in the dry season. The Chao Phraya Basin's
natural features, as well as its size, made it the most important area
for irrigation development. The topography and water systems of the
Northeast, by contrast, were not well suited to large-scale irrigation
projects (except on the Mekong River, which would involve major
resettlement problems). Controlled irrigation potentially could
encompass about 10 percent of the Northeast's 3.5 million hectares of
paddy. Beginning in the 1960s, the Royal Irrigation Department, founded
in 1904 and largely responsible for development and maintenance of the
country's main irrigation systems, constructed 6 large and about 200
small dams in the region. The associated irrigation system contained
design defects, and in the mid-1970s improvement was undertaken with
World Bank assistance. Part of the irrigable area was receiving water in
the early 1980s, but completion of necessary additional work was not
anticipated before the late 1980s, at which time about 160,000 hectares
would have irrigation throughout the year. Irrigation work also began in
the 1960s in the Mae Nam Mae Klong Basin, which contained nearly 400,000
irrigable hectares of paddy. Regulated wet-season irrigation was
furnished during the 1970s for roughly 175,000 hectares. A multiple dam
completed in the late 1970s and a distribution system under way in the
1980s was expected to provide adequate water for double cropping on over
250,000 hectares. Small irrigation projects also were started in the
1960s in the South, on the east coast where more than 500,000 of the
region's 600,000 hectares of paddy were located. About 75,000 hectares
had supplementary wet-season water, and work under way in the 1980s in
the Mae Nam Pattani Basin was expected eventually to serve about 52,000
hectares.
Climatic and soil conditions permit the
cultivation of a wide range of crops, not only tropical varieties but
also many originating in semitropical and temperate zones. Until the
late 1950s, however, the major emphasis in agriculture was on rice and,
secondarily, on rubber, which together accounted for over half the value
of all commodity exports. Other crops regularly grown included maize,
cassava, potatoes, yams, beans, sugarcane, fruit, cotton, and various
oilseeds, but all were supplementary and intended basically for domestic
use. Historically, Thailand's independent status had kept it from being
saddled with a colonial plantation economy, in which two or three
principal crops were produced for world markets or for the imperial
power. Agricultural production, however, had been strongly influenced by
the West after the Bowring Treaty of 1855 with Britain, which resulted
in crop diversification (see The Bangkok Period, 1767-1932 , ch. 1).
Accordingly, when new market conditions-- increased world demand, higher
prices, and developing domestic industry--arose during the 1960s and
1970s, Thailand's independent small farmers responded by expanding
substantially the output of many secondary crops. The flexibility of the
Thai farmer was evidenced by an unprecedented shift from rice production
to other crops by a considerable number of households. In other cases,
many farmers continued to produce rice for subsistence purposes while
expanding their activities to grow market-oriented upland crops. In the
mid-1980s, major export crops included not only rice and rubber but also
maize, cassava, sugarcane, mung beans, tobacco, and sorghum. Other
important crops in which major production increases also had been made
were pineapples, peanuts, cashew nuts, soybeans, bananas, sesame,
coconuts, cotton, kapok, and castor beans.
Rice, the nation's major crop, was grown by about
threequarters of all farm households in the early 1980s. Two main types
were cultivated: dry, or upland, rice, grown predominantly in the North
and Northeast; and wet rice, grown in irrigated fields throughout the
central plain and in the South. About half the 1986 production of 19
million tons was grown in the central plain and major valleys in the
North; another two-fifths was produced in the Northeast; and about 6
percent came from the South, which was a rice deficient area. Roughly
8.5 million hectares were devoted to rice production in the early 1980s,
about 40 percent more than in the early 1960s. The rice yield was
highest in the Center, averaging about 1.9 tons per hectare, which was
about a third of the yield per hectare in Taiwan and South Korea. Low
productivity was attributed in part to longstanding government policies
aimed at keeping consumer rice prices low. The so-called rice premium
(in fact an export tax) and occasional quantitative export controls were
claimed by opponents to have discouraged production expansion by
reducing profitability. Although perhaps a valid argument for commercial
rice farming, the policies probably had a minimal effect on the large
number of subsistence farmers in the Northeast and North, who produced
small, if any, surpluses and whose dry rice was not usually exported.
Perhaps more significant was the apparent loss of paddy fertility in the
North and Northeast because of poor soil management and the extension in
those regions of the growth of lower yield upland rice.
In 1901 British planters introduced rubber trees into the
Malay Peninsula, where the soils and climatic conditions were highly
suited to rubber cultivation. In Thailand early government restrictions
on foreign investment led to development of the industry by local
smallholders, usually subsistence rice farmers who were able to start
rubber tree stands on the relatively abundant free land in the area.
Land under rubber cultivation expanded rapidly in the 1930s, consisting
mainly of smallholdings controlled by Chinese, Thai, and Thai Malays
rather than large, European-owned plantations, as in other Asian
countries. Thailand had about 1.6 million hectares in rubber in the
mid-1970s, of which about 10 percent were located in an area along the
Gulf of Thailand southeast of Bangkok. Of the 500,000 holdings in the
early 1980s, about 150,000 were under 2.5 hectares in size, and another
300,000 were under 10 hectares. The remaining larger holdings were
operated more as expanded smallholdings than as plantations. Production
was increasing in the early 1980s and had reached about 830,000 tons in
1987. An extensive replanting program, in which old tree stock was
replaced with new high-yield varieties, had reportedly been carried out
in about half the planted area by the mid-1980s, significantly
increasing the potential for expanded production.
Maize was believed to have been introduced by Spanish or Portuguese
traders in the sixteenth century. Export interest and profitability led
to increased maize cultivation after World War II and the introduction
of the so-called Guatemala strain in 1951. Output rose rapidly
thereafter to almost 600,000 tons in 1961, over 1 million tons in 1965,
and 2.3 million tons in 1971. A record 5 million tons were produced in
1985. Fertilizer use was limited, however, and there was concern that
yields would gradually decline. The grain was grown throughout Thailand,
but the uplands around the central plain were especially suitable.
Weather conditions usually permitted commercial growers to produce two
crops a year.
Cassava, a root crop from which
tapioca is made, was introduced in about 1935. The tubers may also be
boiled and eaten as a vegetable or ground into flour. An important food
in many tropical subsistence economies, cassava had never been
significant in Thailand in the past because of the abundance of rice.
Cassava developed into an important export item in the 1950s, and
production continued through the 1970s and 1980s as external demand
increased. Thai output of cassava root in 1984 was more than 19 million
tons, second only to Brazil in world production. The main growing areas
were Chon Buri and Rayong provinces, southeast of Bangkok, but
substantial quantities were also grown in parts of the Northeast. In
1986 Thailand signed a 4-year tapioca trade agreement with the EEC
calling for export of 21 million tons of tapioca during the 1987-91
period.
Sugarcane has long been widely
grown. Some commercialization was reported by the mid-nineteenth
century, but the crop became of major importance only after World War
II. In the early 1950s, production averaged 1.6 million tons annually,
and in the late 1950s self-sufficiency in sugar was attained. In 1960
Thailand became a net exporter of sugar. Rising world prices led
Thailand's market-responsive farmers to expand cropped areas in the
1970s. In 1976 sugarcane production reached a record 26.1 million tons,
and sugar output totaled 2.2 million tons, the latter amount being
considerably in excess of international and domestic demands. Drought in
1977 greatly reduced output and seriously affected many small growers.
Declining world prices after 1975, drought, and lower producer prices in
1978 led many farmers to shift to alternate crops. In 1986 about 24
million tons of sugarcane were produced. Productivity was low compared
with other major sugarcane-growing countries (about fifty-three tons of
sugarcane per hectare against Taiwan's seventy tons and Indonesia's
eighty tons in the mid-1970s). Introduction of new varieties and
improved cultivation and cropping practices were needed to raise output
levels. The principal sugarcane-growing areas were in and around
Kanchanaburi Province and in Chon Buri Province in the Center. Sugarcane
was also grown in the Northeast and in the North around Chiang Mai,
Lampang, and Uttaradit. Kenaf, a coarse fiber similar to jute but of
somewhat lesser quality, is native to the country and has long been
grown for local use in making sacks, cord, and twine. Commercial
cultivation began in the Northeast in the 1950s, and production was
largely concentrated in the central and eastern parts of the region in
1980. World shortages created by the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965
temporarily stimulated Thai production of jute, as did shortages
resulting from the 1971 civil war in Pakistan. The recovery of jute
cultivation in Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) and broad swings in
producer prices led many Thai farmers in the late 1970s to replace kenaf
with cassava, which commanded a higher return. The 1984 kenaf crop was
estimated at about 200,000 tons, compared with an average annual output
of over 400,000 tons in the previous decade. Increased world demand,
however, was expected to encourage a revival in planting. Tobacco, an
important foreign exchange earner, had long been grown by farmers for
personal and local use. Virginia flue-cured tobacco had been produced
commercially since the 1930s, but export began only in 1956. Some burley
and oriental (Turkish) tobacco was also grown. United Nations sanctions
against Rhodesia beginning in the mid-1960s opened new markets, and
production of Virginia tobacco rose from 13,700 tons in 1967 to more
than 50,000 tons in 1981. About half of the commercial tobacco was grown
in the North and another quarter in the Northeast. Tobacco growers were
licensed, and a large number operated under the aegis of the state-owned
Thai Tobacco Monopoly. Pineapples, exported chiefly as canned fruit and
juice in the early 1980s, were grown solely as a supplementary crop for
local use until the first pineapple cannery was opened in 1967. A
shortage of fruit led several canneries to establish large pineapple
plantations (ranging up to more than 3,000 hectares--in sharp contrast
to the smallholding character of most Thai agriculture), which supplied
about 40 percent of cannery needs in the late 1970s. The industry grew
dramatically, and by the early 1980s Thailand was one of the world's
largest exporters of pineapples, producing about 1.6 million tons in
1984. Production and export of coffee expanded rapidly after Thailand
became a member of the International Coffee Organization in 1981.
Exports of coffee beans, most of which were grown in the South, reached
20,600 tons in 1985.
Animal husbandry accounted for about
13 percent of the gross value of agricultural production in the early
1980s. Water buffalo and cattle remained the chief draft animals for
cultivation, although tractors were playing an increasing role in some
areas, as in the maize-growing regions of the central plain. Buffalo,
predominantly of the swamp type well suited to paddy culture, were
estimated at between 5.5 and 7.2 million. Able to flourish on coarse
fodder and roughage indigestible by other livestock, buffalo were found
in all farming areas; even very small paddy farmers usually had at least
one animal. After maturing, buffalo were used as draft animals for five
or six years, or until too old to work, when they were slaughtered and
sold for meat. Cattle, numbering between 4.9 and 5.5 million, were used
mainly for upland plowing and hauling carts. About 70 percent of all
farms had cattle. Although 30 percent of farms had three or more head,
there were few herds of more than 10 animals. Cattle also were
slaughtered for meat once their usefulness had ended. Pigs were an
important source of meat, and there were about 5 million in the early
1980s. Most farmers raised one or two, and an estimated 150,000 families
were engaged in commercial pig raising. Weather conditions were
generally unsuitable for using horses except in the North, where the
common variety was the so-called Yunnan pony mainly valued as a pack
animal. Tame elephants remained important to the forest industry in the
1980s, especially in harvesting teak, where the use of mechanical
equipment was economically prohibitive because of the wide dispersal of
individual trees. Livestock reproduction rates were low because most
animals were bred only when it did not interfere with work. In addition,
debilitating diseases, including foot-and-mouth disease, were endemic to
all regions except the South. These diseases retarded expansion of the
national herd of livestock, which was reported to be growing at only
about 2.5 percent annually in the early 1980s. Shortages of meat in
Bangkok in the early 1970s led to student demonstrations and the
establishment of export quotas in early 1974 (in early 1979 the quotas
were 35,000 head of cattle and 15,000 of buffalo annually). Several
commercial dairy herds and smallholder dairy cooperatives furnished some
milk for sale. Demand for fresh milk and dairy products had grown,
especially in Bangkok. Almost all smallholders raised some chickens and
ducks for eggs and meat. The commercial production of chickens grew
dramatically in the 1970s, and nearly 65,000 tons of frozen chickens
were exported in 1986, of which 95 percent went to Japan. A considerable
number of commercial operations had flocks of over 20,000. Select
breeding stock was used, and modern operational practices were followed.
Commercial duck farms were almost entirely Chinese operated.
In the 1980s, the fisheries sector was of major importance
to the economy as an earner of foreign exchange, marine products
accounting for about 10 percent of total exports in 1986. Fish also
accounted for about three-fifths of the protein in the national diet and
an even higher proportion among the poorer rural population. Until the
early 1960s, the country had been a net importer of fish. This situation
completely changed with the introduction of trawl fishing, which
resulted in a dramatic rise in the marine catch from 146,000 tons in
1960 to 1 million tons in 1968 and 2.1 million tons in 1985. Thailand
became the third largest marine fishing nation in Asia after Japan and
China. Of Thailand's 40,000 fishing vessels, nearly 20,000 were deep-sea
trawlers, many with modern communication and navigation equipment and
refrigeration facilities. By 1980 large-scale fishing operations, based
largely in urban areas, were responsible for 88 percent of Thailand's
annual catch. The fishing industry was the economic backbone of many
Thai coastal cities. The increase in the catch of shrimp was
particularly notable, and shrimp exports became a major source of
foreign exchange earnings. By about 1972 maximum exploitation of
demersal (bottom-dwelling) and pelagic (open-sea) fish appeared to have
been reached in the Gulf of Thailand and in the Andaman Sea. In the
early 1980s, production remained relatively static, and there was
growing concern that these areas were being overfished. Government
control of fishing was limited. The use of certain kinds of fishing gear
within three kilometers of the coast was banned, but there appeared to
be no restriction on trawl net-mesh size, and undersized commercial food
fish were being caught and dumped in with trash fish in the production
of fishmeal. Moreover, during the 1970s neighboring Cambodia claimed
territorial waters extending to 200 nautical miles from its coast. This
reduced the area in the Gulf of Thailand available to Thai fishermen and
increased the intensity of fishing off the coast of Thailand. Similar
claims by Burma had also restricted Thai fishing in the Andaman Sea.
Inland fisheries, which included both freshwater and brackish water
fish, officially reported annual catches of about 160,000 tons in the
early 1980s. The actual catch--principally freshwater fish from flooded
rice paddies, swamps, irrigation and drainage ditches, canals,
reservoirs, rivers, lakes, and ponds--was estimated to be much higher.
It was believed, however, to be declining as population growth resulted
in overfishing and as increasing water pollution from industrial waste,
insecticides, and siltation caused by forest destruction took its toll.
The most promising course for maintenance of fisheries production at the
level attained in the 1970s, or for increasing output, was the expansion
of aquaculture, including the culture of fish, shrimp, and various
mollusks, such as mussels, oysters, and clams. According to the
Department of Fisheries, about 4.5 million hectares of inland water
areas, mostly rice paddy fields, were suitable for aquaculture. Another
1.3 million hectares, including estuaries, mangrove swamps, and tidal
flats, were also usable (see table 13, Appendix).
An aerial photographic survey conducted in 1961 showed forests to cover
about 54 percent (or if swamp and scrub areas are included, 56 percent)
of Thailand. In the succeeding two decades, this area was substantially
reduced as a rapidly growing population pushed into the forests seeking
new land for agricultural use. Increasing prices for certain upland
crops, especially in the 1970s, also acted as a strong incentive for
conversion of forests to cultivated lands. By the mid-1980s, the
expansion of the cultivated area had resulted in a decrease in the
amount of forestland to less than 30 percent. Except for a few small,
privately owned, coastal mangrove areas, all forestland was the property
of the state. Roughly 32 percent of the 1961 forest area, largely in the
North and Northeast, had been designated permanent reserved forest
through the end of the 1960s. Government plans called for additions in
subsequent years to raise the total to about 51 percent. Clearing or
cutting of timber or settling in such land was possible only with an
official permit. Many of the stream valleys in these reserve areas,
however, were highly suitable for agricultural use. Traditionally,
farmers had been able to occupy unreserved public land on a free basis,
restrictions in such cases relating only to the cutting of certain
timber tree species, which remained the property of the state. As
population growth increased the demand for land, farmers in the 1970s
also moved into the reserved forests with little or no effective
hindrance from government agencies. This situation was generally
nonreversible, and observers anticipated that eventually most such
holdings suitable for cultivation would be legalized under the
agricultural land reform program. Areas of forest usable for permanent
cultivation still existed in the early 1980s, mostly in the South. In
other regions there were logged-over areas and scrubland (at times
included with forestland), part of which could be used for agriculture.
Extant forest areas--minus potentially cultivable land--were still
considered sufficient to meet domestic timber and other wood
requirements and also to provide a surplus of forest products for
export. Foreign and Thai forestry specialists were agreed that for this
situation to continue, positive steps would have to be taken, including
an adequate program of reforestation, prevention of illicit cutting and
the use of steep forest slopes for cultivation purposes, and active
promotion of more efficient forest exploitation practices. In the early
1970s, the Food and Agriculture Organization recommended a reforestation
program of 1 million hectares. The government later approved a plan to
replant 120,000 hectares. Major exploitation of the highly valuable teak
wood for exportation was begun by European interests in the late 1800s,
and by 1895 indiscriminate cutting had largely exhausted the more easily
workable stands. About this time, the government established a system of
control that included leases and cutting cycles (a teak tree takes from
80 to 150 years to mature fully, depending on local soils and weather).
By 1909, when controls were further tightened, almost all of the
industry was in European hands, mainly British but also Danish and
French. During World War II, a Thai company took over all concessions,
and although a few were returned to foreign control for a period after
the war, the government's long-term goal of full Thai operation was
attained in the late 1950s. Although modern logging equipment was in
widespread use, difficult terrain and lack of roads in many areas
necessitated the use of elephants in logging operations. In 1982 there
were 12,000 working elephants in Thailand, including those trained at
the Royal Forestry Department's Young Elephant Training Center. The
exploitation of Thailand's forests was the responsibility of the Royal
Forestry Department. Through the Forest Industry Organization, a
state-owned enterprise, the government controlled nearly all extraction
of mature teak. However, illegal felling of teak continued to be a
serious problem in the 1980s, although the extent of the cutting was
uncertain. A decade earlier, estimates had placed illegal cutting at
from one-third to an amount greater than legal cutting. Some idea of the
magnitude of the situation was evident in a 1973 report of the Royal
Forestry Department, which cited some 7,600 incidents of illegal teak
felling. The department was not only unable to patrol adequately all
forest areas but authorities also failed to act against illegal logging
operations connected with politically influential individuals and
families. Major damage to permanent forest areas also occurred,
especially in the 1970s and 1980s, through occupation of hillside
forestland that was not suitable for cultivation. This practice was
carried on throughout the country and resulted not only in destruction
of forests but also in erosion and damage to watersheds. Notable forest
destruction occurred over time in the North because of shifting
cultivation practiced mainly by the hill peoples of the region. Of the
roughly 70 percent of this region classified as forests, well over a
quarter was being used for such cultivation in the late 1960s, according
to a government report. The amount grew tremendously during the 1970s as
the population of the hill peoples increased. In addition, many landless
Thai were reported to have migrated to the area, and others who were
farming agricultural land in the valleys also were practicing shifting
cultivation on the hills and mountainsides to supplement production.
According to some sources, forested lands in the Northeast declined from
about 60 percent in 1956 to less than 20 percent two decades later.
Although teak had been a major long-term source of foreign exchange
earnings, the output by volume of timber from other commercially
valuable species was far greater. Thailand had a large number of such
species, of which the most commonly exported one was yang, related to
the so-called Philippine mahoganies. Others were of great value
domestically, supplying the country's general requirements for timber
and wood products of various sorts. In the 1980s, however, the forests
failed to meet the demand for raw materials for paper and paper
products, and these were being imported in growing quantities. Only
limited stands of pine existed, and development of a domestic pulp and
paper industry appeared to depend on the establishment of suitable
forest plantations.
Thailand's mineral reserves
had not been well assessed in the 1980s. Mining and quarrying accounted
for only a small share of GDP, in 1986 amounting to about 2 percent of
the total in real terms. About thirty minerals were exploited
commercially, but many were of minor significance. Tin, tungsten,
fluorite, and precious stones were important foreign exchange earners in
the early 1980s and so, to a lesser extent, was antimony. Minerals of
substantial value to the domestic economy included lignite, gypsum, salt
(which was also exported), iron ore, lead, manganese, limestone, and
marble. Tin was the leading mineral. The existence of tin in the area of
present-day Thailand was known at least by the thirteenth century, when
it was alloyed with copper in casting bronze images of the Buddha. In
the 1980s, major workings were located in the southern peninsula,
although deposits were also found and worked in several other parts of
the country. The ore was obtained from onshore alluvial deposits,
weathered and disintegrated formations, river beds, and offshore
deposits along the seacoasts. Production of tin concentrates averaged
over 29,000 tons annually in the early 1970s, dropped to about 22,000
tons in the mid-1970s, and then rose to 46,000 tons in 1980. By 1985 tin
production had dropped to about 23,000 tons as a result of export
controls imposed by the International Tin Council and the indefinite
closing of a major offshore mining company. The actual output of
concentrates in the 1980s was believed to have been at least 10 percent
higher than officially reported. The additional quantity represented tin
concentrates smuggled from the country to escape payment of both
business taxes and the statutory royalty deducted from the price paid to
the seller by the foreign-controlled Thailand Smelting and Refining
Company (THAISARCO). The export of tin ore and concentrates was banned
by the government after THAISARCO began smelting tin in 1965 at a newly
constructed plant on Phuket Island. Most of the smuggled concentrates
originally went to Penang, but this trade had been largely halted by the
Malaysian authorities; in the 1980s, the illegal ore was sent to
Singapore for smelting. Since the mid-1970s, the tin-mining industry has
generated a large amount of political controversy, social unrest, and
illegal activity that continued into the mid-1980s. Onshore mining
operations were carried on mostly by small miners who were predominantly
Thai. Offshore operations included a number of large dredges owned by
both Thai enterprises and foreign firms, as well as thousands of suction
boats. Both kinds of operations were supposed to be registered with
local provincial authorities. The tin fields had attracted large numbers
of the unemployed or persons seeking fortunes, however, who mined
illegally. Reports of a new tin strike brought thousands of individuals
to the area, resulting in such attendant social problems as claim
jumping, forged registration certificates, frequent violence, and the
like. In 1975 the government-owned Offshore Mining Organization (OMO)
was set up to replace large offshore oil concessions owned by foreign
corporations and ousted Thai government leaders. A substantial amount of
illegal dredging was also reported in the OMO concession area, whose
size and restrictions of exploitation to subconcessionaires had created
strong resentment among independent small operators, even though the OMO
had given concession rights to a considerable number of them. In late
1979, a group of nonconcession-holding small dredgers pressed the
provincial authorities of the area to urge the central government to
revoke all restrictions on mining in the OMO holdings. The overall
magnitude of illegal operations appeared in the early 1980s to be beyond
the ability of the local authorities to control. Official action,
moreover, was often deterred by public sympathy for the poor person
struggling to eke out a living. Thus, illegal mining was an important
source of employment in the southern peninsula and, in conjunction with
related illegal operations, created numerous ancillary jobs. From the
national viewpoint, however, a great loss of natural wealth occurred
because of haphazard and inefficient exploitation. Onshore miners, legal
and illegal, tended to take out only the readily accessible richer ore,
leaving varying amounts of lower grade ore that, mined separately, was
uneconomic. Large numbers of small dredges sent divers down to find rich
spots that were sucked up, avoiding large nearby areas containing ore
that was costly to mine. Many of the dredges also had poor separation
equipment, and considerable quantities of ore were lost in the tailings.
Because of potential political problems, decisive action by the central
government (or provincial governments) to resolve this problem did not
appear imminent in the late 1980s. Thailand is a rich source of
sapphire, ruby, zircon, garnet, beryl, quartz, and jadeite, and in 1986
gems and jewelry were a large export item in terms of value. Significant
deposits of rubies were located in Chanthaburi and Trat provinces in the
southern part of the Center, and deposits of sapphire were found in
Kanchanaburi Province. Stones were also imported from Sri Lanka,
Australia, Africa, and South America for cutting and setting into
jewelry. By the mid-1980s, Thailand had become one of the world's major
gemcutting centers, and the craftsmanship of Thai gemcutters was widely
recognized. Tungsten, an important source of foreign exchange earnings
beginning in the early 1970s, was found in the mountains in the North
and in the Bilauktaung Range along the Burmese border. In 1970 a major
find of the tungsten mineral wolframite was made in Nakhon Si Thammarat
Province in the South. Antimony, also an important export, was found in
many parts of the country. Mining was carried on almost entirely by
small operators, but in the mid-1970s cumulative annual production was
about 6 percent of total world output. Fluorite, one of Thailand's
principal exports, was mined mainly in the North in Chiang Mai and
Lamphun provinces, where large reserves existed. Relatively large
deposits of rock salt of approximately 97 percent purity underlay areas
in the Northeast. Reserves were estimated to be at least 2 billion tons.
Although having great future export potential, the lack of an adequate
transportation infrastructure posed a major problem for exploitation of
the rock salt reserves. Offering a hopeful promise of a new source of
foreign exchange earnings and savings on imports in the 1980s was the
long-delayed development of zinc mining and refining. This involved
exploitation of a large ore deposit, estimated at 3.5 million tons of 25
percent content, at Mae Sot in Tak Province near the Burmese border. A
zinc smelter constructed by a ThaiBelgian consortium began operation in
1984.
Thailand's transportation system of
inland waterways, railroads, and roads was centered on Bangkok (see fig.
11). Historically, waterways had served to carry agricultural products
from the central plain to the capital for export or domestic processing
and to transport foreign or locally made goods back to rural areas. In
the 1980s, the railroads and roads radiating from the city to all parts
of the country served the same purpose. Bangkok's accessibility through
the Chao Phraya made it the chief port for foreign oceanborne trade.
Since World War II, Bangkok's strategic location in Southeast Asia has
made the city the principal regional center for international air
travel. The existing system of main roads, railroads, and waterways in
the late 1980s was considered by foreign experts to be generally
adequate for the country's overall transport requirements. Considerable
upgrading of provincial roads would be needed in the coming decade to
handle growing traffic as commercialization spread through the rural
areas. In particular, substantial improvement and development were
required for subsidiary roads to provide villages and hamlets access to
the main transport arteries.
Historically, about 4,000 kilometers of inland waterways consisting of
the rivers and canals of the central plain and the Chao Phraya Delta
formed the backbone of the transportation system. Although in the
twentieth century railroads and roads assumed a dominant position in the
central plain, waterways still carried a sizable portion of the total
traffic. Waterborne freight, chiefly consisting of rice, accounted for
about 17 percent of total freight transported countrywide in the 1980s.
Large numbers of small craft also transported passengers. During the
rainy season about 1,600 kilometers of waterways were navigable by
barges of up to 80 tons and 1.8-meter draft, which could travel from the
Gulf of Thailand to as far north as Uttaradit. Navigation was reduced to
about 1,100 kilometers of waterways in the dry season, and traffic could
navigate only to Nakhon Sawan, roughly halfway to Uttaradit.
Shallow-draft vessels could navigate the interconnected network of
canals throughout the year, and Bangkok, Ayutthaya, and other towns had
floating markets where a great deal of trading activity took place. Some
sections of the Mekong River were also navigable.
The state-operated national rail system was started by King
Chulalongkorn, and the first section--from Bangkok to Ayutthaya-- was
inaugurated in 1896. The line was extended to Nakhon Ratchasima in 1910,
and during the first decade of the century work had already begun on
other lines to the north and south. By 1941 well over four-fifths of the
present-day rail system had been opened. After 1951 control of the
railroads was vested by law in the State Railway of Thailand (SRT), an
autonomous agency. Through 1979 SRT had received a number of assistance
loans from the World Bank, as well as bilateral aid with which the line
was first rehabilitated and later modernized, including replacement of
steam locomotives by diesel units. In the early 1980s, SRT had about
4,000 kilometers of meter-gauge track, all of it single track except for
a 90-kilometer section of double track running north of Bangkok to near
Ayutthaya. Four main interconnecting lines originating in Bangkok ran to
Chiang Mai (Northern Line), Aranyaprathet (Eastern Line), Nong Khai and
Ubon Ratchathani (Northeastern Line), and the Malaysian border (Southern
Line). A number of branch lines were also in operation, including a line
constructed in the 1980s to link the Lan Krabu oil field in Kamphaeng
Phet Province to the Northern Line. Also under construction in the
mid-1980s was a link from Bangkok down the eastern seaboard to Rayong,
which was completed as far as Sattahip in 1984. Competition from
developing road services had cut heavily into railroad passenger and
freight traffic, and the proportional share of freight declined between
1968 and 1976 from 19 percent to 11 percent. In the 1980s, however, the
rail lines remained of major importance in the transport of bulk
commodities, such as petroleum products, cement, and rice, over long
distances.
Extensive development of the road
network did not start until after World War II. By the 1980s, however,
roads were the most important part of the transportation system. Before
the war the few existing roads had been intended primarily as feeders to
the railroad system, which had been built largely with foreign funds
that needed to be repaid. Profit from rail transportation was vital, and
the construction of competing roads was deemed uneconomic. From the
mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, however, substantial United States aid was
provided, along with technical assistance, to develop a national highway
system that by 1965 totaled almost 9,500 kilometers. Thereafter,
assistance for highway development came mainly from the World Bank,
although in the late 1960s United States military forces also furnished
substantial funds for road construction. In the 1980s, the primary road
system consisted of a net of national highways that started at Bangkok
and extended in all directions to the country's frontiers. They totaled
about 20,000 kilometers, of which well over 90 percent were paved.
Provincial roads totaling over 24,000 kilometers formed a secondary
system that tied provincial towns and population centers to the national
roads. About two-fifths were unimproved and often impassable during
rainy weather. In addition to the main and provincial roads, there were
tertiary roads--consisting of village roads, footpaths, tracks, and the
like--variously estimated at from 40,000 to 60,000 kilometers. These
roads and trails were important because they represented in many cases
the only link between a village or hamlet and the provincial system or
possibly a railroad stop or inland waterway point. Several thousand
kilometers of tertiary roads had been improved, but in general they were
poorly maintained. Their administration was spread over a number of
government agencies, in contrast to national and provincial roads, which
were administered by the Department of Highways in the Ministry of
Communications. In the early 1980s, no restrictions existed on the
importation of motor vehicles, although taxes and duties on imported
vehicles were higher as a measure to protect the domestic automobile
assembly industry. Under guidelines set in 1986, local automobile
assembly plants were required to use at least 54 percent domestic parts.
Motor vehicles registered in 1984 included 688,000 automobiles, 600,000
commercial vehicles, and nearly 2 million motorcycles. In the 1980s,
about a third of all vehicles registered were in the Bangkok
metropolitan area, but this included almost two-thirds of the
automobiles. The relatively massive concentration of trucks, buses, and
automobiles in the capital area regularly created enormous traffic jams.
Construction of an elevated expressway was under way, the first part of
which had been completed by the early 1980s.
The country's preeminent port was Bangkok, which in the
early 1980s handled 98 percent of imports and 65 percent of exports as
well as about 40 percent of coastal traffic. More than 4,000 foreign
vessels were reported to have called at Bangkok in 1983, and about 24
million tons of cargo were handled, including coastal cargo. Two other
ports of some significance in international trade were Si Racha and
Sattahip, both located southeast of Bangkok on the Gulf of Thailand.
Both ports were used primarily for exporting agricultural products.
Sattahip's deep-water naval facility was also used to handle imports of
heavy equipment. The port of Bangkok had experienced continuous growth
since the 1950s, and, through loans from the World Bank, its facilities
had been substantially expanded to handle the increased traffic. A major
drawback of the port was its limitation on vessel size and draft, which
forced ships of more than 10,000 tons or 8.5- meter draft to offload at
the mouth of the Chao Phraya, some 27 kilometers downstream. As part of
the Eastern Seaboard Development Program, the government in 1986
approved plans to build a new deep-water port at Laem Chabang in Chon
Buri Province to supplement Bangkok's Khlong Toei port. An industrial
estate was to be built close to the port area for export-oriented
industries, such as electronics, and for agro-based industries, such as
food processing and rubber products. Under the same program, a new port
and industrial park was to be constructed at Mapthaphut to serve the
petrochemical, fertilizer, and soda ash industries. Some thirty smaller
ports were found along the Gulf of Thailand and the Andaman Sea. About
half were fishing ports, and the remainder served multiple purposes,
including coastal services, export and import functions, and fisheries
operations. Coastal operations were in general small. In the early
1980s, the government also had under consideration development of
deep-water ports at Songkhla on the east coast of the peninsula, through
which rubber was exported, and Phuket on the west coast. Phuket served
as an outlet for both tin and rubber exports. In 1985 the Thai merchant
fleet consisted of 71 freighters, 2 bulk carriers, and 25 tankers,
totaling roughly 700,000 tons. Regular cargo service was provided
between Thailand and Japan, and one shipping company made regular calls
at West European ports. An unknown number of small coastal vessels
conducted trade with Malaysia and Singapore.
Domestic air service was furnished by Thai Airways Company
(TAC), a government-owned entity established in 1951. There were some
130 airfields of all categories throughout the provinces, 104 of which
were in usable condition, in addition to the major airport at Bangkok.
In the early 1980s, service was provided to about twenty airports. In
addition to domestic service, TAC also flew to Penang in Malaysia,
Vientiane in Laos, and Hanoi in Vietnam. The principal Thai-flag
international service was provided by Thai Airways International (THAI),
founded in 1959 by TAC jointly with the Scandinavian Airlines System
(SAS); TAC held 70 percent of the shares and SAS 30 percent. THAI's
routes included flights to Asia, the Middle East, Europe, North America,
and Australia. Approximately thirty international airlines flew into
Thailand. Both TAC and THAI had greatly expanded and upgraded their
fleets by the mid-1980s. In 1985 THAI placed orders with the European
aircraft manufacturing consortium Airbus Industrie for four A300-600
medium-range jumbo jets, making the airline the third largest Airbus
user in the world, with sixteen airplanes. Also in 1985, THAI ordered
two more Boeing 747s, making a total of eight, for use on its
long-distance routes to Europe, North America, and Australia. In 1987
Prime Minister Prem Tinsulanonda approved the proposed merger of THAI
and TAC, which was expected to be carried out by 1989. The principal
international airport was Don Muang outside Bangkok. The airport had
long been Southeast Asia's main air traffic center for flights between
Asia and Europe (although at the beginning of the 1980s it was
experiencing strong competition from Singapore). The airport was used
jointly by civilian airlines and the Royal Thai Air Force, resulting in
growing congestion as international flights increased. During the
mid-1970s, consideration was given to building a new civilian airport,
but in 1978 a decision was made to move some military operations to
other airports. A two-year expansion program for Don Muang was then
initiated, and a new state enterprise, the Airport Authority of Thailand
(AAT), was legislated and took over administration of the airport in
July 1979. In 1979 the airport at Chiang Mai was upgraded to become an
international airport. In 1985 THAI opened a new cargo terminal at Don
Muang International Airport as part of its plan to expand its cargo
business. That same year a new wide-body aircraft maintenance center was
inaugurated at Don Muang as a bid to make Bangkok a regional service
center for Airbus and Boeing planes.
Suvannabhumi (Land van Goud, vermoedelijk
overeenkomend met een zeer vruchtbaar gebied dat zich uitstrekte van
Zuid-Myanmar over Centraal-Thailand naar Oost-Cambodja. Twee steden in
Thailands centrale laagvlakte heetten gedurende lange tijd Suphanburi (Stad
van Goud) en U Thong (Wieg van Goud).)
Historically,
the population has had adequate supplies of fuel in the form of wood
charcoal, which was usually available for the taking from nearby forests
and thickets. Until the midtwentieth century, the chief energy source
for the country's limited industry was wood, supplemented by rice husks
and bagasse (the dry pulp remaining from sugarcane after the juice is
extracted). Even into the 1960s, wood was a major source of fuel for the
railroads. Electricity, which was used for power beginning in 1887 with
the establishment of the Siam Electric Company, was generated as late as
the early 1950s largely by steam produced through burning rice husks.
Other natural energy sources existed, although they were underexploited,
in the large hydroelectric potential of the Chao Phraya and to a lesser
extent of the Mae Klong and other smaller rivers. There were also
deposits of lignite, which was used to fuel a number of power plants.
Since 1950 small oil deposits have been found and exploited in the
North. Oil shales have also been discovered, but exploitation remained
economically unfeasible in 1980. The greatest potential for domestic
hydrocarbon production in the late 1980s consisted of large natural gas
deposits, which had been discovered in the 1970s in the Gulf of
Thailand.
As industry revived and began
to expand after World War II, the need for electricity grew. The supply
was limited and unreliable, and some industrial firms and businesses
installed their own generators, mostly fueled by imported oil. In 1958
the Metropolitan Electricity Authority (MEA) was established to generate
and supply power to Bangkok and adjacent provinces. A year earlier the
government had also set up the Yanhee Electricity Authority (renamed in
1969 the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand--EGAT) to promote
development of hydroelectric power. The first hydroelectric generating
facility was the Phumiphon Dam. Completed in 1964 on the Mae Nam Ping,
it had an installed capacity of 420 megawatts in 1979 and a potential of
560 megawatts. Escalating power demand led to construction of a major
oil-fired plant, the North Bangkok Power Station, which went into
operation in 1961. Installed capacity from 1968 totaled 237 megawatts.
The capital area became adequately supplied with the construction of a
new oil-fired plant in Bangkok. The South Bangkok Thermal Power Plant
started up in late 1970 with a 200- megawatt capacity; by 1977 this was
increased to 1,300 megawatts. The country's second major hydroelectric
plant, at the Sirikit Dam (potential generating capacity of 500
megawatts) on the Mae Nam Nan, a major tributary of the Chao Phraya,
started generation with an installed capacity of 375 megawatts in 1974.
A third large hydroelectric facility, part of a multipurpose irrigation,
flood control, and power project at Ban Pho on the Mae Nam Mae Klong
northwest of Kanchanaburi, was completed in the 1980s with an initial
capacity of 360 megawatts and an estimated potential of 720 megawatts.
Generating capacity to other parts of Thailand was on a much smaller and
regionally unequal scale. Increased oil prices in the 1970s stimulated a
new interest in lignite, and a lignite-fueled plant installed at Mae Mo,
the site of a major lignite deposit, was producing 825 megawatts by
1987. Lignite reserves were estimated to be 865 million tons in 1985. In
the South a lignite-fired plant at Krabi with an installed capacity of
sixty megawatts commenced generation in 1964. A major purpose of this
plant was to furnish power for tin mines in the area and the tin smelter
on Phuket Island, in addition to meeting local needs. In 1968 additional
generating capacity was installed on Phuket through a ten-
megawatt-capacity diesel plant, and between 1971 and 1977 three gas
turbine units totaling forty-five megawatts were installed on Hat Yai.
In the late 1970s, three additional gas turbine units having a combined
capacity of fortyfive megawatts were also located at Surat Thani.
Development of power facilities in the Northeast received little
attention until the mid-1960s, at which time the region had an estimated
generating capacity provided by small diesel units of perhaps one
megawatt. By the early 1970s, however, four hydroelectric plants had
been installed at dams in different parts of the region, with an
installed capacity of ninety-five megawatts. New gas turbines furnished
an additional thirty megawatts, and diesel units produced an additional
four megawatts. In 1987 the power sector was composed of three
governmentowned enterprises: EGAT, under the Office of the Prime
Minister, was the national power production agency; MEA, under the
Ministry of Interior had responsibility for power distribution in
Bangkok and the provinces immediately around the city; and the
Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA), also under the Ministry of
Interior, distributed power throughout the rest of the country. There
were also a number of privately held distribution franchises that bought
power from PEA or EGAT. Some privately owned industries also generated
their own power. Installed generating capacity in 1986 was 7,570
megawatts, of which 70 percent was thermal and 30 percent hydropower. In
1985 industry used nearly 50 percent of the 20 million megawatt-hours of
energy consumed. Residential consumption was 25 percent, commercial
establishments used 25 percent, and street lighting and miscellaneous
uses accounted for less than 1 percent. By the end of 1986, nearly
43,000 villages of the more than 48,000 throughout the country had been
supplied with power. It was projected that 95 percent of all villages
would have electricity by 1991 and essentially all villages by 1999.
Oil was discovered near Fang in the
far north of the country in the early 1950s, but by the late 1970s the
principal field was reported close to depletion. Onshore deposits were
believed to exist in other parts of the country, and several foreign
firms had exploration concessions in the 1980s. Exploration in the 1970s
in the Gulf of Thailand uncovered oil in limited quantities. Oil shales
were found at Mae Sot in Tak Province in the North. Surveys in the
mid-1970s indicated a reserve of about 2.5 billion tons. A smaller
deposit, estimated at about 15 million tons, existed in Lamphun
Province, also in the North. Surveys in the Northeast from the mid-1970s
showed the existence of about 2.5 billion tons of oil shale in that
region. Although 4 million barrels of petroleum were produced in 1983,
extensive commercial exploitation still seemed remote because of
comparatively high production costs. In the early 1980s, petroleum
products provided about 68 percent of the annual energy requirement. The
country was highly dependent on petroleum imports, and increasing world
petroleum prices had a serious impact on the country's balance of
payments. In 1980 there were three large, privately operated, oil
refineries having a combined design capacity of 165,000 barrels per day
(bpd); government sources estimated maximum capacity at 188,000 bpd. The
Thailand Oil Refining Company (TORC) started operations in the mid-1960s
with a capacity of 42,000 bpd. This was expanded to 65,000 bpd in 1971
under an agreement whereby the entire operation was to become the
property of the Thai government in 1981. A second fully integrated plant
was government owned but was leased for operation to the private Summit
Industrial Corporation; the lease was due to expire in 1990. This plant
had a design capacity of 65,000 bpd. A third plant was owned and
operated by Esso Standard of Thailand and could handle 35,000 bpd. A
very small 1,000 bpd plant was operated in the far north by the Ministry
of Defense to refine domestic oil produced in the area. Natural gas was
found by international firms in offshore concessions in the Gulf of
Thailand in the mid-1970s, and subsequent explorations determined that
large quantities were recoverable, sufficient to alter favorably
Thailand's energy position. By 1979 two major gas fields had been
generally delineated, one located approximately 425 kilometers south of
a proposed pipeline terminal east of Sattahip at the upper end of the
gulf, the other 170 kilometers farther south. Proven recoverable
reserves in the first field were estimated at nearly 1.6 trillion cubic
feet and probable recoverable reserves at 220 billion cubic feet. In the
second field, proven recoverable reserves were 1.3 trillion cubic feet
and probable reserves 4.5 trillion cubic feet. Two smaller fields about
365 kilometers south of the terminal site were estimated to have about
500 billion cubic feet of recoverable reserves. The country's total
proven reserves of natural gas were estimated at 8.5 trillion cubic feet
in 1984. Thailand's production of natural gas in 1987 was 162.3 billion
cubic feet. In late 1979, the World Bank approved a loan of US$107
million to the Petroleum Authority of Thailand, a state enterprise, to
assist in the first-phase exploitation of the discoveries. A submarine
pipeline was built from the terminal near Mapthaphut to a production
platform at the major field 425 kilometers south in the gulf. When
completed in the early 1980s, it was the world's longest submarine
pipeline. Additional pipelines were built to transport the gas overland,
initially to the South Bangkok Thermal Power Plant and later to a new
thermal power plant at Bang Pakong southeast of Bangkok, built in the
early 1980s under EGAT's 1978-85 power generation development plan. Gas
was also distributed to industrial users along the pipeline route.
Two major entities were responsible for the
Thai telecommunication and postal services under the supervision of the
Ministry of Communications. The Telephone Organization of Thailand (TOT)
was responsible for the domestic telephone services; for international
telephone services to several neighboring countries, such as Malaysia
and Laos; and for leasing circuits for domestic point-to-point
transmission of voices, telegraph, radio, and television. The
Communication Authority of Thailand (CAT) was responsible for postal
service, international telephone service to countries not served by TOT,
all telegraph and telex services international lease circuits, domestic
radiotelephone links to some isolated areas, and telephotographic and
facsimile services. A committee in the Ministry of Communications
coordinated the services and investment of TOT and CAT, although the two
were state-owned autonomous operations. Numerous government agencies and
large private industrial and commercial entities operated their own
radio-telephone networks. By the mid-1980s, Thailand had an average
density of one telephone per hundred inhabitants. This density was
better than the average of 0.7 for the developing countries in the East
Asia region, although it was still lower than Malaysia with 3.3, South
Korea with 7.8, Taiwan with 14.6, and Singapore with 26.5. Even Bangkok,
which had the most developed telephone service in the country, had only
a density of 5.4 telephones per 100 inhabitants. Overall, only 25
percent of the population had access to telephone services. There were
about 5,800 local and long- distance pay (coin box) telephones in the
capital city and 750 in provincial towns. About 4,500 pay telephones
were to be added in Bangkok and 1,500 in provincial towns. About 62
percent of the country's telephone lines were connected to business and
government subscribers and the rest to residential subscribers. Business
lines accounted for 83 percent of total calls and revenues. As a rapidly
modernizing nation, Thailand in the late 1980s faced many problems
related to the growth and expansion of its economy. The development of
its industrial base and the continuing need for new cultivable land
placed increasing pressure on urban and rural areas alike. However, the
abundance of the country's resources, the adaptability of its workforce,
and the stability of its polity boded well for Thailand's successful
transition to the role of newly industrialized country.