You’re right in ascribing these characteristics to the CNS, the Interim Government and the Monarch. But to say it doesn’t sound like Thaksinomics is a bit of an overstatement. Essentially, you are saying that Thaksin didn’t fulfill condition 6. He would certainly pay lip-service to the other 7, even if he had no real belief in most of them. Indeed, I half suspect that Thaksin is going to tell us sometime soon that he is also an SE supporter. He claims to be a Monarchist, so that would be the ultimate way of expressing his support for that institution. But of course he will find a way to pledge his allegience that will subvert the junta. Thaksinomics is a bit of a mirage anyway. Like the politicians who preceded him, Thaksin makes it up as he goes along and has no real allegience to anything other than to himself. The fact that SE is no better has not escaped me.
Thai people who read The Nation would usually have a reasonable level of education, so unless that person has a vested interest, they are unlikely to be pro-Thaksin, irrespective of whether they are pro-coup or anti-coup.
Andrew, could you hold up the Pro-Thaksin side of the essay by using some of your own thoughts combined with a survey of some opinions of the rural poor & taxi drivers?
(Bangkok Pundit may also be able to help as he is usually quick to defend Thaksin)
Taxi Driver, I still think you are premature in thinking the ‘reset’ process is a failure. The junta, despite some mistakes, seems to be trying to work within the law, and things could be much worse.
There may even be hope for national reconciliation, which would have been impossible under Thaksin.
The problem is not the system, it’s usually the people.
I had worked for similary kind of project, using “university” knowledge to “apply/lecture” to business owner.
But the problem is, I am too lazy to dig deep into each owner’s problem. Which end up giving business owner knowledge they either do not care, or too indirect to apply to each of their problem.
However, as far as I know, in shrimp farming. CP willing to supply scientist/academic to farmer who purchase shrimp larvae from them. And these guy are good, meaning significant effect on result good. I do not know about their policy on plant though.
A very, very smart move by the junta.
Put Somkid up in front, at a position to take the fall, but not have the ability to steer the ship.
Fail to bring in investor confidence, and it’s Somkid incompetent and personal bias.
Succeed to bring in investor confidence, and it’s Pridi’s and junta’s Sufficiency Supremecy.
All the while, Thai media would play out Somkid’s move as anti-Thaksin/Thaisinomic and foreign media would bound to interview Somkid(who duty bound to support Sufficiency).
The coup has done more long term damage to Thailand’s future stability than Thaksin. The democratic system was going through growing pains to be sure, and Thaksin shares a great deal of blame for that pain. But to kill off the system (in some belief that it can be “reset”!) is even more dangerous, as it simply delays the inevitable and things are likely to end up worse down the track. The 2550-2560 decade is going to be rough for Thailand.
HP: Have you seen Tyler Cowen’s article in the NYT on the Grameen Bank. Money quote:
“But microlending does not always feed into a new business. No matter how the loan is described on paper, many families use the money to finance the purchase of a new motorbike or pay the family doctor.
These loans will increase as more Indians come within reach of modern consumer society; Spandana realizes that such uses are no less important than creating businesses.
In some cases, microfinance allows people to refinance loans with private moneylenders and thus go deeper into debt. But more often I heard stories of how Spandana let Indian families break free from the expensive private lenders.”
HP: You seem to be a little touchy. But to be fair, I don’t ask you to conduct the research yourself, because this would indeed require a huge infrastructure, plus a lot of money. So, I think it would be fair to ask you just to come up with the research design (then, one might be able to sell it to some funding agency, if they can be convinced that this is viable and worthwhile). For this, you will have to familiarize yourself with the existing literature. Then you will see what I meant, and what the model is (I am not your servant, right?).
Re surveys, I don’t have any antipathy towards any word, and not even towards any given method at all, here surveys. But, first, I don’t like them if they produce research artifacts. This normally results from idadequately prepared researchers who think that posing questions to respondents is a simple matter.
Second, I simply pointed you to the probability that, in this sort of complex research undertaking–uncovering provincial-level political structures–a survey (in the usual sense of administering a questionnaire) might not be the adequate method of data collection. You might have to go for other methods, such as network analysis, and other ways of getting the necessary data than handing out questionnaires. You might have to chose a multi-method approach (qualitative researchers mostly do this to cross-check their data). This was meant to help you.
Validity simply means that an empirical statement corresponds to the claimed empirical reality (e.g., vs. a reliably or unreliably produced artifact; of course, a reliably produced valid result is a nice thing, too).
Rest assured that a great deal of my work during the past two decades consisted of collecting data in order to contribute to the “understanding of things.”
Finally, let me say that I don’t think that it is a scholarly productive position to be a sectarian methodological extremist. So, try to be more open and flexible, be a sport and take the challenge, and have the chance of making a name for yourself.
HP: As I suggested, read the articles and the full TDRI report…, and if you read quotes, read them carefully….These are much better options than harping on your prejudices.
Anti-coups are outgunned in that debate.
Pro-Thaksins are unusually silent, hardly any coherent argument in defense of Thaksin in the Nation debate.
Come on guys . . . you must have INPUTS, eh?
Why don’t I conduct field investigations? Why, because I’m not an anthropolgist or a political scientist or a sociologist or any such -ist. Is the academic community so thin-skinned than a request for methodological validity yields nothing but cries of “if you don’t like what we do, then do it yourself”? Sadly, I have rent to pay and a family to feed, but if you’re willing to support my quantitative fieldwork, I’d be glad to take your money. Say the word and I’ll open my PayPal account.
I’m not sure what you mean by “qualitative studies have provided you with a valid research question” – what question? “how does rural politics work” is not a hypothesis. You mentioned that there was a “general model” – what is it? Whether that general model is valid or not IS a hypothesis. And it should be tested. But no one can test what doesn’t exist.
You also mention “a good degree of qualitatively produced validity” – ummm…what does that mean; that is, how does one “qualitatively validate” something? I understand p values and signifcance testing, but this is something new to me. Can you explain?
Finally, you appear to have a bizarre antipathy to the word “survey”. I hope you realize that “survey” basically means “collecting data”, or perhaps you do realize this and you feel that data collection has no place in our understanding of things?
Ah, I see. So the program increased health care access for people in general, but not for poor people. Yes, I did miss that, thanks for pointing it out.
Sure, research has different purposes. Yet, I still find it curious that research on opinions is readily available while research on actual health outcomes is so rare.
Priorities, right? I guess it’s much more important to find out what people think rather than what’s actually happening. Knowledge marches on.
The recruitment of Somkid Jatusripitak represents a win-win situation for both the government and the Council for National Security.
Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont’s appointment Thursday of Somkid Jatusripitak, former deputy prime minister and finance minister of the ousted Thaksin regime, as the government’s mouthpiece on the sufficiency economy came as a total surprise to the public.
Not even Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Pridiyathorn Devakula who is responsible for clarifying the philosophy of sufficiency economy to the foreign community was aware of the appointment in advance.
The prime minister admitted that it was Somkid himself who approached him and voluntarily offered the service for the government. However, several political observers believed it was the government which approached Somkid to solicit his service.
But whoever made the first move did not matter as much as the fact that the choice of Somkid was a plus for the government in several aspects. Given Somkid’s credibility and reputation in the international community, he is in a good position to clarify to the international community, especially foreign media, about sufficiency economy philosophy that it is relevant with globalisation although while serving in the Thaksin regime he often preached capitalism and ”leap forward” economy.
Honest speaking, the Finance Ministry and the Foreign Affairs Ministry have not been successful in clearing up doubts held among foreign businessmen about sufficiency economy.
Politically, Somkid’s recruitment to serve the Surayud government lends credence to the government’s call for national reconciliation. Viewed in a different context, Somkid’s appointment will deal a blow to Thai Rak Thai party which is now breaking up with several factions already jumped ship. Diehard members of the party may have to reconsider whether it is worthwhile to put their political future with the party or to find green pasteur elsewhere.
As far as Somkid is concerned, he is yet to make known his political ambitions although one political faction, the Matchima, which comprises mainly of former Thai Rak Thai MPs, has rolled out a red carpet for him to lead their party which is to be set up in the future.
Last but not least, Somkid’s recruitment to serve the government in the capacity as the government’s spokesman on sufficiency economy with the international community represents a win-win situation for both the Surayud government and the Council for National Security.
It is regarded as shrewd move amounting to ”shooting two birds with a single shot”. The only drawback is that Finance Minister Pridiyathorn’s feelings might get hurt because he was not consulted in advance and that he might be seen as failing in his job to clarify the sufficiency economy philosophy.
In Matichon of 16 February, p. 7, a certain “Sai Haim 42” attacks Somkid because of his apparent policy u-turn. He writes, “Why does he now have to come out with the idea that the sufficiency economy is the heart of building the nation, although, during the previous five years of the Thaksin Shinawatra government, it was none else than him who was behind the populist policies according to ‘Thaksinomics’?”
Why didn’t he “pay any attention whatsoever to applying the sufficiency economy when he had the opportunity to do so” (because he occupied relevant positions in the Thaksin government)?
Of course, the author assumes that the reason is that Somkid is positioning himself to become Thailand’s 25th prime minister (also figured in the headline of this piece).
Man — did you notice that the quote distinguishes between “people” and “poor”? That’s ain’t be the same, right?
“proportionally more” – yes, obviously, regarding their different levels of income.
Research papers can have different purposes and foci. Nothing really surprising or interesting here.
Yet another suggestion: Get yourself the articles and read them. TDRI will probably even have a more complete Thai-language report, in case you want to know more details.
Mr. Fernquest – To be sure, top-down directives that ignore on-the-ground realities are unlikely to be of much use, but let’s not paint an overly romantic image of the “poor wise farmer” either. There was an interesting piece in the IHT yesterday on microlending; a few select pieces (edited for space):
“…Grameen’s success has less to do with the amount of credit extended than with the accompanying behavioral changes that the bank demands of its borrowers. That is why some attempts at replicating this wonderful idea elsewhere have been less than successful.
Malaysia, for example, has a similar program, run by the government, but… it has bred a pile of dud loans…. the program quickly acquired a bloated bureaucracy… with priority for some loans going to the politically connected. The recent conviction of its top executive for corruption reflects the rot….
…A key stipulation of [Grameen] is that its loans must be for income-producing activities, not consumption… Grameen’s borrowers also must commit to the program’s “16 decisions,” which include family planning, educating their children, not accepting or giving dowries, and embracing “discipline, unity, courage and hard work” in all walks of life…
…The Malaysian initiative could be enhanced by not linking the program to the political establishment…Lenders could also have taught their borrowers the fundamentals of running a small enterprise and used their clout to negotiate discounts on behalf of their borrowers….
….The operational details of Grameen are equally noteworthy. By requiring weekly payments, borrowers are constantly reminded of their obligations. The close relationship between borrowers and lenders means that they know… fellow villagers – will be deprived of their opportunities. Grameen’s emphasis on behavioral changes alone may indeed be more of a help in easing people out of poverty than the money itself….”
[Full article at htttp://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/13/opinion/edmusa.php]
Proper planning and management is actually quite useful to any enterprise, and it is a skill that is sorely lacking in rural areas. Of course, I would hardly point to the Thai government (past or present), military, NGOs, or even businesses as paragons of management excellence themselves, but let’s not suppose that the only thing standing between farmers and sustainable prosperity is a cash injection.
As I said earlier, why don’t you just stop talking and start suggesting something constructive to the research community?
There might be some reasons–practical, methodological, and others–that the studies you want to see have not yet materialized. For example, if there already is a good degree of qualitatively produced validity, few researchers–and even fewer supervisors of PhD theses–will be prepared to waste their and their students limited time by merely confirming, this validity, perhaps even at a lower level, by using yet another method, i.e. an analytical or quantitative approach.
But now that you have accepted in your post that qualitative studies have provided you with a valid research question (and where else should this have come from otherwise; sucking one’s thump would not have worked, I guess), why don’t you get down to business, and do the research yourself? You seem to be brilliantly equipped to do so. So just do it, and try to impress those who think that they have seen the light already by outshining them. Or are you merely just another of these empty talkers? Or, perhaps, you are afraid that you won’t be able to add anything meaningful to the work that has already been produced by research means that you hate so much?
Just one tip for your work: a survey won’t do; you will need some more sophisticated method of data gathering for this sort of project. If you need some more advice while developing your research design, just post your questions on this blog.
“Although the number of people who seek health care has increased substantially…the health-seeking behaviors of the poor have not changed much…”
I don’t get it. If more people are seeking health care, doesn’t that mean that health seeking behaviors have changed? What am I missing here?
Generally, access to low-cost or free care increases utilization rates – you can see this in the Canadian system vs. US system. This isn’t necessarily bad, but it needs to be carefully monitored lest unnecessary visits start eating up the system (for example, there was a case in a nearby country where a campaign to educate people about leprosy resulted in masses of people showing up to free clinics for every light patch on their skins, creating total havoc).
There is lots of talk of cost savings from preventative care, but unless you place limits on end-of-life care, much of that savings can be illusory. The problem is worst without the co-pay, so eliminating the 30-B fee will likely lead to increased strains on the system as people go to the clinic with no obligation at all.
When you say “The lower-level income goups spent proportionally more on health care…”, I assume you mean as a percentage of their incomes?
It is also interesting to me that both papers focus on behaviors and opinions, as opposed to what impact if any the program had on people’s actual health. Anyone look at that, or is it as irrelevant as the focus of all this research would suggest?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Populism
You’re right in ascribing these characteristics to the CNS, the Interim Government and the Monarch. But to say it doesn’t sound like Thaksinomics is a bit of an overstatement. Essentially, you are saying that Thaksin didn’t fulfill condition 6. He would certainly pay lip-service to the other 7, even if he had no real belief in most of them. Indeed, I half suspect that Thaksin is going to tell us sometime soon that he is also an SE supporter. He claims to be a Monarchist, so that would be the ultimate way of expressing his support for that institution. But of course he will find a way to pledge his allegience that will subvert the junta. Thaksinomics is a bit of a mirage anyway. Like the politicians who preceded him, Thaksin makes it up as he goes along and has no real allegience to anything other than to himself. The fact that SE is no better has not escaped me.
The Nation’s innovative Thaksin debate
Thai people who read The Nation would usually have a reasonable level of education, so unless that person has a vested interest, they are unlikely to be pro-Thaksin, irrespective of whether they are pro-coup or anti-coup.
Andrew, could you hold up the Pro-Thaksin side of the essay by using some of your own thoughts combined with a survey of some opinions of the rural poor & taxi drivers?
(Bangkok Pundit may also be able to help as he is usually quick to defend Thaksin)
Taxi Driver, I still think you are premature in thinking the ‘reset’ process is a failure. The junta, despite some mistakes, seems to be trying to work within the law, and things could be much worse.
There may even be hope for national reconciliation, which would have been impossible under Thaksin.
Sufficiency makeover: р╕Ьр╕▒р╕Бр╕Кр╕╡р╣Вр╕гр╕вр╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓
The problem is not the system, it’s usually the people.
I had worked for similary kind of project, using “university” knowledge to “apply/lecture” to business owner.
But the problem is, I am too lazy to dig deep into each owner’s problem. Which end up giving business owner knowledge they either do not care, or too indirect to apply to each of their problem.
However, as far as I know, in shrimp farming. CP willing to supply scientist/academic to farmer who purchase shrimp larvae from them. And these guy are good, meaning significant effect on result good. I do not know about their policy on plant though.
Nothing to do with politics
A very, very smart move by the junta.
Put Somkid up in front, at a position to take the fall, but not have the ability to steer the ship.
Fail to bring in investor confidence, and it’s Somkid incompetent and personal bias.
Succeed to bring in investor confidence, and it’s Pridi’s and junta’s Sufficiency Supremecy.
All the while, Thai media would play out Somkid’s move as anti-Thaksin/Thaisinomic and foreign media would bound to interview Somkid(who duty bound to support Sufficiency).
It’s a win-win for Junta today. Very smart move.
The Nation’s innovative Thaksin debate
The coup has done more long term damage to Thailand’s future stability than Thaksin. The democratic system was going through growing pains to be sure, and Thaksin shares a great deal of blame for that pain. But to kill off the system (in some belief that it can be “reset”!) is even more dangerous, as it simply delays the inevitable and things are likely to end up worse down the track. The 2550-2560 decade is going to be rough for Thailand.
Sufficiency makeover: р╕Ьр╕▒р╕Бр╕Кр╕╡р╣Вр╕гр╕вр╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓
If it is as JF describes,what ever happened to “Putting the Farmer First “movement?
Sufficiency makeover: р╕Ьр╕▒р╕Бр╕Кр╕╡р╣Вр╕гр╕вр╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓
The above comment should read “have you seen Tyler Cowen’s article in the NYT on microfinance/microlending”.
Sufficiency makeover: р╕Ьр╕▒р╕Бр╕Кр╕╡р╣Вр╕гр╕вр╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓
HP: Have you seen Tyler Cowen’s article in the NYT on the Grameen Bank. Money quote:
“But microlending does not always feed into a new business. No matter how the loan is described on paper, many families use the money to finance the purchase of a new motorbike or pay the family doctor.
These loans will increase as more Indians come within reach of modern consumer society; Spandana realizes that such uses are no less important than creating businesses.
In some cases, microfinance allows people to refinance loans with private moneylenders and thus go deeper into debt. But more often I heard stories of how Spandana let Indian families break free from the expensive private lenders.”
The Nation’s innovative Thaksin debate
The problem might be that the anti-coups are not pro-Thaksin, but just as anti-Thaksin as the pro-coups are.
The poor stay poor, the rich stay rich
HP: You seem to be a little touchy. But to be fair, I don’t ask you to conduct the research yourself, because this would indeed require a huge infrastructure, plus a lot of money. So, I think it would be fair to ask you just to come up with the research design (then, one might be able to sell it to some funding agency, if they can be convinced that this is viable and worthwhile). For this, you will have to familiarize yourself with the existing literature. Then you will see what I meant, and what the model is (I am not your servant, right?).
Re surveys, I don’t have any antipathy towards any word, and not even towards any given method at all, here surveys. But, first, I don’t like them if they produce research artifacts. This normally results from idadequately prepared researchers who think that posing questions to respondents is a simple matter.
Second, I simply pointed you to the probability that, in this sort of complex research undertaking–uncovering provincial-level political structures–a survey (in the usual sense of administering a questionnaire) might not be the adequate method of data collection. You might have to go for other methods, such as network analysis, and other ways of getting the necessary data than handing out questionnaires. You might have to chose a multi-method approach (qualitative researchers mostly do this to cross-check their data). This was meant to help you.
Validity simply means that an empirical statement corresponds to the claimed empirical reality (e.g., vs. a reliably or unreliably produced artifact; of course, a reliably produced valid result is a nice thing, too).
Rest assured that a great deal of my work during the past two decades consisted of collecting data in order to contribute to the “understanding of things.”
Finally, let me say that I don’t think that it is a scholarly productive position to be a sectarian methodological extremist. So, try to be more open and flexible, be a sport and take the challenge, and have the chance of making a name for yourself.
Evaluating the 30 baht health care program
HP: As I suggested, read the articles and the full TDRI report…, and if you read quotes, read them carefully….These are much better options than harping on your prejudices.
The Nation’s innovative Thaksin debate
Anti-coups are outgunned in that debate.
Pro-Thaksins are unusually silent, hardly any coherent argument in defense of Thaksin in the Nation debate.
Come on guys . . . you must have INPUTS, eh?
The poor stay poor, the rich stay rich
Why don’t I conduct field investigations? Why, because I’m not an anthropolgist or a political scientist or a sociologist or any such -ist. Is the academic community so thin-skinned than a request for methodological validity yields nothing but cries of “if you don’t like what we do, then do it yourself”? Sadly, I have rent to pay and a family to feed, but if you’re willing to support my quantitative fieldwork, I’d be glad to take your money. Say the word and I’ll open my PayPal account.
I’m not sure what you mean by “qualitative studies have provided you with a valid research question” – what question? “how does rural politics work” is not a hypothesis. You mentioned that there was a “general model” – what is it? Whether that general model is valid or not IS a hypothesis. And it should be tested. But no one can test what doesn’t exist.
You also mention “a good degree of qualitatively produced validity” – ummm…what does that mean; that is, how does one “qualitatively validate” something? I understand p values and signifcance testing, but this is something new to me. Can you explain?
Finally, you appear to have a bizarre antipathy to the word “survey”. I hope you realize that “survey” basically means “collecting data”, or perhaps you do realize this and you feel that data collection has no place in our understanding of things?
Regards,
HP Boothe
Evaluating the 30 baht health care program
Ah, I see. So the program increased health care access for people in general, but not for poor people. Yes, I did miss that, thanks for pointing it out.
Sure, research has different purposes. Yet, I still find it curious that research on opinions is readily available while research on actual health outcomes is so rare.
Priorities, right? I guess it’s much more important to find out what people think rather than what’s actually happening. Knowledge marches on.
Best regards,
HPBoothe
Nothing to do with politics
And from the Bangkok Post…
Analysis: Surprise appointment of Somkid
Veera Prateepchaikul, for Bangkokpost.com
The recruitment of Somkid Jatusripitak represents a win-win situation for both the government and the Council for National Security.
Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont’s appointment Thursday of Somkid Jatusripitak, former deputy prime minister and finance minister of the ousted Thaksin regime, as the government’s mouthpiece on the sufficiency economy came as a total surprise to the public.
Not even Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Pridiyathorn Devakula who is responsible for clarifying the philosophy of sufficiency economy to the foreign community was aware of the appointment in advance.
The prime minister admitted that it was Somkid himself who approached him and voluntarily offered the service for the government. However, several political observers believed it was the government which approached Somkid to solicit his service.
But whoever made the first move did not matter as much as the fact that the choice of Somkid was a plus for the government in several aspects. Given Somkid’s credibility and reputation in the international community, he is in a good position to clarify to the international community, especially foreign media, about sufficiency economy philosophy that it is relevant with globalisation although while serving in the Thaksin regime he often preached capitalism and ”leap forward” economy.
Honest speaking, the Finance Ministry and the Foreign Affairs Ministry have not been successful in clearing up doubts held among foreign businessmen about sufficiency economy.
Politically, Somkid’s recruitment to serve the Surayud government lends credence to the government’s call for national reconciliation. Viewed in a different context, Somkid’s appointment will deal a blow to Thai Rak Thai party which is now breaking up with several factions already jumped ship. Diehard members of the party may have to reconsider whether it is worthwhile to put their political future with the party or to find green pasteur elsewhere.
As far as Somkid is concerned, he is yet to make known his political ambitions although one political faction, the Matchima, which comprises mainly of former Thai Rak Thai MPs, has rolled out a red carpet for him to lead their party which is to be set up in the future.
Last but not least, Somkid’s recruitment to serve the government in the capacity as the government’s spokesman on sufficiency economy with the international community represents a win-win situation for both the Surayud government and the Council for National Security.
It is regarded as shrewd move amounting to ”shooting two birds with a single shot”. The only drawback is that Finance Minister Pridiyathorn’s feelings might get hurt because he was not consulted in advance and that he might be seen as failing in his job to clarify the sufficiency economy philosophy.
BP, 15 February 2007, web edition
Lessons from the Thaksin era
In Matichon of 16 February, p. 7, a certain “Sai Haim 42” attacks Somkid because of his apparent policy u-turn. He writes, “Why does he now have to come out with the idea that the sufficiency economy is the heart of building the nation, although, during the previous five years of the Thaksin Shinawatra government, it was none else than him who was behind the populist policies according to ‘Thaksinomics’?”
Why didn’t he “pay any attention whatsoever to applying the sufficiency economy when he had the opportunity to do so” (because he occupied relevant positions in the Thaksin government)?
Of course, the author assumes that the reason is that Somkid is positioning himself to become Thailand’s 25th prime minister (also figured in the headline of this piece).
Evaluating the 30 baht health care program
Man — did you notice that the quote distinguishes between “people” and “poor”? That’s ain’t be the same, right?
“proportionally more” – yes, obviously, regarding their different levels of income.
Research papers can have different purposes and foci. Nothing really surprising or interesting here.
Yet another suggestion: Get yourself the articles and read them. TDRI will probably even have a more complete Thai-language report, in case you want to know more details.
Sufficiency makeover: р╕Ьр╕▒р╕Бр╕Кр╕╡р╣Вр╕гр╕вр╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓
Mr. Fernquest – To be sure, top-down directives that ignore on-the-ground realities are unlikely to be of much use, but let’s not paint an overly romantic image of the “poor wise farmer” either. There was an interesting piece in the IHT yesterday on microlending; a few select pieces (edited for space):
“…Grameen’s success has less to do with the amount of credit extended than with the accompanying behavioral changes that the bank demands of its borrowers. That is why some attempts at replicating this wonderful idea elsewhere have been less than successful.
Malaysia, for example, has a similar program, run by the government, but… it has bred a pile of dud loans…. the program quickly acquired a bloated bureaucracy… with priority for some loans going to the politically connected. The recent conviction of its top executive for corruption reflects the rot….
…A key stipulation of [Grameen] is that its loans must be for income-producing activities, not consumption… Grameen’s borrowers also must commit to the program’s “16 decisions,” which include family planning, educating their children, not accepting or giving dowries, and embracing “discipline, unity, courage and hard work” in all walks of life…
…The Malaysian initiative could be enhanced by not linking the program to the political establishment…Lenders could also have taught their borrowers the fundamentals of running a small enterprise and used their clout to negotiate discounts on behalf of their borrowers….
….The operational details of Grameen are equally noteworthy. By requiring weekly payments, borrowers are constantly reminded of their obligations. The close relationship between borrowers and lenders means that they know… fellow villagers – will be deprived of their opportunities. Grameen’s emphasis on behavioral changes alone may indeed be more of a help in easing people out of poverty than the money itself….”
[Full article at htttp://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/13/opinion/edmusa.php]
Proper planning and management is actually quite useful to any enterprise, and it is a skill that is sorely lacking in rural areas. Of course, I would hardly point to the Thai government (past or present), military, NGOs, or even businesses as paragons of management excellence themselves, but let’s not suppose that the only thing standing between farmers and sustainable prosperity is a cash injection.
Best regards,
HP Booth
The poor stay poor, the rich stay rich
As I said earlier, why don’t you just stop talking and start suggesting something constructive to the research community?
There might be some reasons–practical, methodological, and others–that the studies you want to see have not yet materialized. For example, if there already is a good degree of qualitatively produced validity, few researchers–and even fewer supervisors of PhD theses–will be prepared to waste their and their students limited time by merely confirming, this validity, perhaps even at a lower level, by using yet another method, i.e. an analytical or quantitative approach.
But now that you have accepted in your post that qualitative studies have provided you with a valid research question (and where else should this have come from otherwise; sucking one’s thump would not have worked, I guess), why don’t you get down to business, and do the research yourself? You seem to be brilliantly equipped to do so. So just do it, and try to impress those who think that they have seen the light already by outshining them. Or are you merely just another of these empty talkers? Or, perhaps, you are afraid that you won’t be able to add anything meaningful to the work that has already been produced by research means that you hate so much?
Just one tip for your work: a survey won’t do; you will need some more sophisticated method of data gathering for this sort of project. If you need some more advice while developing your research design, just post your questions on this blog.
Evaluating the 30 baht health care program
“Although the number of people who seek health care has increased substantially…the health-seeking behaviors of the poor have not changed much…”
I don’t get it. If more people are seeking health care, doesn’t that mean that health seeking behaviors have changed? What am I missing here?
Generally, access to low-cost or free care increases utilization rates – you can see this in the Canadian system vs. US system. This isn’t necessarily bad, but it needs to be carefully monitored lest unnecessary visits start eating up the system (for example, there was a case in a nearby country where a campaign to educate people about leprosy resulted in masses of people showing up to free clinics for every light patch on their skins, creating total havoc).
There is lots of talk of cost savings from preventative care, but unless you place limits on end-of-life care, much of that savings can be illusory. The problem is worst without the co-pay, so eliminating the 30-B fee will likely lead to increased strains on the system as people go to the clinic with no obligation at all.
When you say “The lower-level income goups spent proportionally more on health care…”, I assume you mean as a percentage of their incomes?
It is also interesting to me that both papers focus on behaviors and opinions, as opposed to what impact if any the program had on people’s actual health. Anyone look at that, or is it as irrelevant as the focus of all this research would suggest?
Regards,
HPBoothe