22.12.2012 Views

Conflict, Legitimacy and Government Reform: Equitable Allocation of ...

Conflict, Legitimacy and Government Reform: Equitable Allocation of ...

Conflict, Legitimacy and Government Reform: Equitable Allocation of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

58 KPI Congress XI<br />

Nevertheless, modern Thai governments still could not prevent<br />

deterioration <strong>of</strong> income inequality. Why?<br />

When comparing to other countries, public expenditure <strong>of</strong> Thail<strong>and</strong><br />

at the level <strong>of</strong> only 18 per cent <strong>of</strong> GDP is still very low. This level is<br />

below 26 per cent <strong>of</strong> developing countries in Asia <strong>and</strong> 36 per cent <strong>of</strong><br />

developed countries. The majority <strong>of</strong> public expenditure goes to wages<br />

<strong>and</strong> salaries <strong>of</strong> government employees which are on an upward trend,<br />

while in developed countries, public spending on subsidies <strong>and</strong> money<br />

transferred to welfare programs is as high as 50 per cent.<br />

Economists said public spending can make income distribution<br />

more equitable (Methee, 1979; TDRI, 1999; Peter Warr, 2003). It was<br />

observed that spending on education is the most efficient, followed by<br />

health care. Other studies also revealed that spending on the agricultural<br />

sector significantly increased income <strong>of</strong> lowest-income groups in the rural<br />

sector.<br />

However, historically such public spending was not enough to<br />

mitigate inequality stemming from other factors <strong>and</strong> the consequence <strong>of</strong><br />

tax burden borne by the poor that has reduced their income in relative<br />

terms.<br />

Such conclusion is substantiated by a research study entitled ‘Fiscal<br />

policies <strong>of</strong> Thail<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Impacts on Poor People’ which was conducted<br />

by Hyun Hwa Son, a South Korean economist. It was found that during<br />

1990s public spending <strong>of</strong> Thail<strong>and</strong> favored the rich <strong>and</strong> provided greater<br />

benefits to urban workers than rural people. State subsidies for electricity,<br />

water, transportation, hospitals <strong>and</strong> education under present schemes<br />

literally benefit well-to-do people more than the underprivileged.<br />

This study did not even take into consideration indirect benefits <strong>of</strong><br />

public spending which tend to fall into the h<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the rich more than<br />

the poor. Obvious examples are road construction <strong>and</strong> electric train when<br />

l<strong>and</strong> prices along the routes went up. In such case, people who don’t own<br />

l<strong>and</strong> will not receive this benefit.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!