INT’L COOPERATION POLICY SEMINAR (Prof. Hirotsune KIMURA, Ph.D) June 11th, 2003 Tri Widodo W. Utomo (M2-DICOS)

1. 1
INT’L COOPERATION POLICY SEMINAR (Prof. Hirotsune KIMURA, Ph.D)
June 11th
, 2003 Tri Widodo W. Utomo (M2-DICOS)
Sources:
Edgington, David W., et.al. (ed.), New Regional Development Paradigms, Vol. 2: “New
Regions – Concepts, Issues, and Practices”, London: Greenwood Press in
cooperation with UN and UNCRD.
Chapter 1: David W. Edgington & Antonio L. Fernandez, “The Changing Context of
Regional Development”.
Chapter 6: Utis Kaothien & Douglas Webster, “Regional Development in Thailand:
New Issues, New Responses”.
Aims: • to explain the changing context for regional planning in developing countries
• to explain the changing context for regional planning in Thailand
Traditional Approach Recent Approach
• Centralized (top-down)  state-led
devt. / state intervention.
• Decentralized (bottom-up)  locally
based, participatory.
• Focus on physical planning or hard
infrastructure (land-use, roads, etc)
• Integrating physical planning into social
and economic dimensions.
• Plans and projects were seen as
belonging only to central government
• Viewed a multisector & multilevel activity
that incorporated LG & other sectors.
• Growth pole strategy  see Lipton’s
critique on “urban bias”.
• Basic needs strategy (redistribution with
growth).
Historically, regional development planning (RDP) in developing countries was
characterized by undue priority to ISI and utilization of natural resources. It also
concerned to regional balance between the nation’s core city and its rural hinterland.
The principle goal was the reduction of income gap between rich and poor regions.
Thailand context  The 1st
and 2nd
National Development Plans (NDP, 1962-1971)
focused on economic development with emphasis on basic infrastructure. Little
attention was paid to non-economic and distributional issues. The 3rd
and 4th
NDP
(1972-1981) focused on alleviation of urban problems and deconcentration of
administration and economic activity from Bangkok Metropolitan Administration
(BMA) to cities in growth poles of the country. In short, Thai government put priority
on urban economy development (urban-oriented approach).

2. 2
However, by the early 1990s (7th
Plan: 1992-1996), there was a shift of paradigm. The
current paradigm attempts to reconcile participatory, and utilizes a bottom-up
human-centered approach. The shift has become more prominent by the establishment
of Eastern Seaboard (ESB) Special Economic Zone, which contribute to the shift of
manufacturing activity out of Bangkok area, to coastal areas farther east.
In general, there are two areas of concern have been raised over this shift of paradigm:
• The reaction against central governments’ neglect of strictly local interests and
social identities.
• Overwhelming support given to the growth pole approach and its expected result,
trickle down effect. In reality, this strategy did not perform to expectations and
discredited.
The Global – Local Dialectic
Integration of national economies through a process of globalization has been a
dominant feature of the international economy in recent decades. The process represents
a major opportunity for improving the economic conditions of developing countries and
particular regions, though it is not without friction and adjustment cost. A major shift in
thinking about development has been brought on by the paradoxical coexistence of
processes of globalization and localization. This approach emphasizes the common
threads in the restructuring of national and regional economies, yet the uniqueness of
local responses.
In the era of “global village”, RDP must address the following themes:
1. New Cross-Border Regions
The processes of globalization are seen to have produced borderless geographies
among regions. All examples (provided in chapter 2-4) indicated that emerging
regions are the result of both globalization and of decentralization, frequently led by
the private sectors. Planning for these regions needs to be approached in an
integrated way and all stakeholder groups should be represented in the process.
2. Position of Transition Economies
During the 1980s, some countries are just emerging into the market economy. They
are the transition countries and have special characteristics in their regional
development priorities. In the case of China (chapter 5), although it was successful
in its new market-oriented reforms, it has been achieved at the cost of widening
inequality between regions.

3. 3
3. Empowerment at the Local Level.
Since the paradigm shift of regional planning takes place, a decentralized and
participatory process should continue to the lowest feasible sub-national level, such
as urban neighborhood and rural villages. In the case of Thailand, this country
should give more consideration to how to generate citizen participation and how to
instigate a real decentralization power.
4. Regional Competitiveness
The globalization has reinforced the competitiveness of regions. In this case,
competitive advantage is created and sustained through a highly localized process,
and the government should nurture these advantages based on knowledge-intensive
and value added products and services. This leads to “soft infrastructure” planning
such as network of customers, educational institutions and research laboratory as
source of skilled labor and knowledge (Chukyo case).
5. New Forms of Management and Urban and Regional Governance
In the developing countries (particularly in ASEAN), institutional reform has been
much slower than rapid economic expansion. The main problem in removing
poverty is not the lack of resources (economic matters), but their human and
organizational issues (institutional dimension) such as lack of competent people to
manage planning, lack of research and training facilities, etc.
Globalization and Technological Change in Thailand
Thailand has been significantly exposed to global driving force since 1984. In terms of
regional developmental planning, globalization has influenced thinking in 5 ways:
1. Industrial Location.
The core city Bangkok becomes less important and coastal locations with good ports
(esp. Laem Chabang) become more important due to inexpensive marine access to
international markets and inputs.
2. Industrial (Location) Incentives.
In the free trade era, tariffs will go down and corporate taxes declines. It demands
regional development planners to identify and utilize a new set of tools to influence
the location of economic activity. Moreover, since WTO allows national government
to subsidizes the poorest region, it will drive the redesign of locally based incentive
policies.
3. Subregional Cooperation.
Thailand involves in 3 subregional economic cooperations as the following:

4. 4
• The Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS)  Thai, Myanmar, Yunnan (China),
Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam.
• The Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle.
• Andaman Sea and links to South Asia.
There are 2 impact of subregional cooperation on RDP:
• Plans have been cooperatively prepared for these regions,
• Ongoing and proposed developmental cooperation of these subregions has
changed the content in which domestic spatial planning occurs.
4. Border Towns.
1st
stage  infrastructure and trade development was emphasized at the Thai side
of the border.
2nd
stage  more emphasize is being placed on the development of both sides of
the borders.
3rd
stage  focus on long corridor development, e.g. from Phayao to Kunming.
In fact, subregional development appears to benefit larger urban areas more than the
border town themselves.
5. Regional Diversity.
Since global force are sharpening competition for markets and investments,
subnational regions must focus on comparative advantage. As the economic
boundaries weaken, regions are more exposed to a global level.
With regard to technological change, although Thailand currently possesses a dense
fiber optic network, but it has a sort of institutional problem i.e. slow implementation or
delay in introducing technological innovations into RDP (e.g. north-south highway and
SBIA project). The source of delay is failure to undertake initial planning in a
participatory and systematic manner.
Area Development
Previously, all RDPs in Thailand have been prepared centrally. But from 1994, RDPs
have jointly prepared by NESDB in Bangkok and NESDB regional centers. This change
represents deconcentration policy, and is a step toward the objective of decentralizing
RDP. In the future, area development process in Thailand should be human centered,
based on local participation, and should be both the product of, and contribute to, the
enhancement of regionally based democratic processes. In this case, even though there
are some layers, changwat (province government) will be the key units in area
development.

5. 5
Poverty Alleviation
Spatial disparity in Thailand is primarily a rural-urban rather than uneven geographic
distribution. From policy perspective, the emphasis should be on improving well-being
and incomes in poorer / rural regions. Regarding poverty, Thai developmental planning
is based on the assumption that poverty can be reduced or prevented by encouraging and
supporting self-reliance. Unfortunately, the approach until recently has been viewing
rural and urban development as separate system. If significant impact on poverty is to
be improved, rural and urban areas must be reintegrated at the area level.
The majority of rural income is from local service activity, agricultural processing,
contracted-out piecework, remittances, and income obtained from daily and seasonal
commuting to employment in urban areas. Therefore, reducing income disparity and
alleviating poverty requires an integrated (rural-urban) approach of development.
There are 7 priorities for restructuring RDP and implementation in Thailand:
1. Decentralization  plans should be the product of local collaborative processes.
2. Regional Differentiation  RDPs are likely to be much more varied than they are
now (require greater technical emphasis on comparative advantage).
3. Dynamic Planning  RDPs need to anticipate to the continuous process of
economic restructuring at different rates and different times.
4. Area Development Processes  new locally based approaches need to emphasize
local participation, transparency, accountability, managerial capacity, etc.
5. Conceptualization of New Developmental Paradigms  international corridors,
border towns, and locational orientation to international markets are receiving
greater attention.
6. Environmental Considerations  there is a need to create / introduce more effective
environment management mechanism.
7. Increased Coordination of Regional Development  consequences of RDP in terms
of demographics, investment, and economic structure need to be calculated and
monitored.
Comments and Discussion:
1. Traditional approach (centralized, top down effect, etc) has been world widely
approved as failed. In Indonesia (including Thailand & other LDCs) growth poles
strategy sharpens the gap between urban (central) and rural areas (periphery).

6. 6
However, we should carefully suggest that modern approach (decentralization,
participatory, etc) is the best method of RDP.
Indonesia  LGs are always waiting for Central Guidances (Juklak, Juknis) even
though they have wide authority to enact regulations based on New-autonomy laws.
Thailand  Provincial plans are prepared by Bangkok-based consulting companies.
In addition, plans have been formulated with very limited local input (page 113).
2. Two alternatives might be favorable:
• Growth poles should be divided into smaller and more scattered poles 
avoiding uncontrolled urbanization, concentration of resources (mainly capital)
in a given area / city.
• Development planning from the middle as the New Paradigm (not fully
determined by the state / CG, but not completely participatory).
 Indonesian case: the development strategy of Sumatra Island has been
discussed and decided by Sumatran Governors Forum. Result: Sumatra
Shipping Line & Supply Base (Jambi), Sumatra Highway Networks
(Bengkulu), Railroad Networks (Lampung), Sumatra Airlines (Sumsel),
Electricity Interconnection System (Sumbar), Sumatra Online (Sumut),
Sumatra Promotion Center (Riau), and Sumatra Coastal Security (Babel).
 Thailand case: changwat will be the key units in area development (p. 113);
“provincial groupings” will be important in the case of environment
problem (p. 114).
3. It is stated in the passage: Subregional development appears to benefit larger urban
areas more than the border town themselves (p. 107)  Can we conclude that
subreginal development / cooperation has failed to make better spatial equity?
Case of KAPET SIJORI (Integrated Economic Development Zone of Singapore –
Johor – Riau)  Singapore exported dangerous and poisoned waste (B3: Bahan
Beracun dan Berbahaya) to Indonesia; and imported sea sand to support coast
reclamation project in Singapore but hazardous for Riau’s/Indonesia’s environment.
4. The Size of “Regional Development/Cooperation”  is it inter-states (e.g. ASEAN),
inter-region from different states (e.g. Singapore, Johor – Malaysia, and Riau –
Indonesia), inter-province in a given country (e.g. all provinces in Sumatra,
Indonesia), inter-district in a given province, inter-areas in a given province /
district (e.g. urban – rural), or, does it embrace all?
Similar problem will possibly occur regarding the term “Sub-regional Development
/ Cooperation” or “Area Development”.