UN Human Development Report Thailand 2007

[Johpa]

I have not seen this posted yet, and I apologize if I am duplicating an earlier post, but for those interested, here is a link to the United Nations Development Programs 2007 report on the state of Thailand written by well known academic Chris Baker, partner in the free-thinking academic tag-team of Phasuk & Baker.

UN Human Development Report Thailand 2007

Caveat Emptor, this is a long report, often a bit academic, but with extended food for thought.

If it has not yet been posted then mods might want to pin this in a appropriate forum.

[Johpa]

My apologies for the rather embarassing typo error in the subject line.

[londonthai]

this report doesn't say anything about the Thaksin government policies: reducing poverty in thailand within the last 5 years by half. There is no chance that the military government will be able to achieve anything near

Edited January 22, 2007 by londonthai

[Jai Dee]

My apologies for the rather embarassing typo error in the subject line.

Topic Title edited.

[Jai Dee]

this report doesn't say anything about the Thaksin government policies: reducing poverty in thailand within the last 5 years by half. There is no chance that the military government will be able to achieve anything near

You're correct... there is no mention in the report of any political endeavours (or misdemanours) by any political parties or governments.

Instead, the report focuses on the "Sufficiency Economy" thinking pioneered by HM the King.

A very well written report and definitely worth the read.

Thanks for posting it Johpa.

/Moved to News Forum.

[younghusband]

this report doesn't say anything about the Thaksin government policies: reducing poverty in thailand within the last 5 years by half. There is no chance that the military government will be able to achieve anything near

You're correct... there is no mention in the report of any political endeavours (or misdemanours) by any political parties or governments.

Instead, the report focuses on the "Sufficiency Economy" thinking pioneered by HM the King.

A very well written report and definitely worth the read.

Thanks for posting it Johpa.

/Moved to News Forum.

It's worth pointing out that the UNDP Report has received a very critical international reception, and was the subject of an Economist article on 11th January.It noted that the UNDP is a sucker for this kind of new age waffle (sufficiency economy theory) especially if it has royal patronage.An extract:

"The UNDP report goes out of its way not to mention the Thaksin government or its policies.There is no discussion of how the new "sufficiency" policies will differ from Mr Thaksin's -just an uncritical lauding of the new government's five-year plan as the biggest shift in Thailand's economic orientation in over two decades and much praise for royal projects.

The sufficiency theory talks of "immunising" the national economy against shocks.So far the miltary government only seems to be creating shocks.As a result growth is set to slow, and with it Thailand's progress in cutting poverty.Neither the UNDP report nor the many speeches launching it, deal with such awkward truths.

In publishing such an unbalanced report on a theory that is untried on a national level, the UNDP has abandoned all sense of objectivity"

The UNDP responded that the report was published to provoke a debate.But as the Economist pointed out no debate is possible in Thailand for the obvious reasons and in fact could land critics in jail.So to sum up we have a very dubious report and an inability to debate it.And one minor mystery, what the hel_l did Chris Baker think he was up to?

[Jai Dee]

An extract:

"The UNDP report goes out of its way not to mention the Thaksin government or its policies.There is no discussion of how the new "sufficiency" policies will differ from Mr Thaksin's -just an uncritical lauding of the new government's five-year plan as the biggest shift in Thailand's economic orientation in over two decades and much praise for royal projects."

We must be reading different reports... I saw nothing in the report that referred to the new government or the old.

[Plus]

this report doesn't say anything about the Thaksin government policies: reducing poverty in thailand within the last 5 years by half. There is no chance that the military government will be able to achieve anything near

Did you really expect Thaksin's promises be included in UNHDP report? They were too incredulous even for local press to be taken seriously.

Remeber his CEO Governor promises? By now Thailand would have had ten cities the size and quality of Singapore.

[Johpa]

this report doesn't say anything about the Thaksin government policies: reducing poverty in thailand within the last 5 years by half. There is no chance that the military government will be able to achieve anything near

You're correct... there is no mention in the report of any political endeavours (or misdemanours) by any political parties or governments.

Instead, the report focuses on the "Sufficiency Economy" thinking pioneered by HM the King.

A very well written report and definitely worth the read.

Thanks for posting it Johpa.

/Moved to News Forum.

It's worth pointing out that the UNDP Report has received a very critical international reception, and was the subject of an Economist article on 11th January.It noted that the UNDP is a sucker for this kind of new age waffle (sufficiency economy theory) especially if it has royal patronage.An extract:

"The UNDP report goes out of its way not to mention the Thaksin government or its policies.There is no discussion of how the new "sufficiency" policies will differ from Mr Thaksin's -just an uncritical lauding of the new government's five-year plan as the biggest shift in Thailand's economic orientation in over two decades and much praise for royal projects.

The sufficiency theory talks of "immunising" the national economy against shocks.So far the miltary government only seems to be creating shocks.As a result growth is set to slow, and with it Thailand's progress in cutting poverty.Neither the UNDP report nor the many speeches launching it, deal with such awkward truths.

In publishing such an unbalanced report on a theory that is untried on a national level, the UNDP has abandoned all sense of objectivity"

The UNDP responded that the report was published to provoke a debate.But as the Economist pointed out no debate is possible in Thailand for the obvious reasons and in fact could land critics in jail.So to sum up we have a very dubious report and an inability to debate it.And one minor mystery, what the hel_l did Chris Baker think he was up to?

First, any criticism from The Economist must be taken with a grain of salt as that publication is a sucker for modern macro-economic analysis and market theory, you know like the "invisible hand of the market", theories which are as ridiculous as any new age theory.

But having read the report, I would be hard pressed to ascribe talk about a sufficiency economy as economic theory, then I see economics as more of a social science than a hard science. I was introduced into the world of economic thought in High School by having to read Robert Heilbroner who saw economists as "Worldly Philosophers" and not technocrats, yea, I am old school. I see the discussion as more of a perspective on attitude, a perspective that involves choice. The Economist and its minions prefer we take an economic perspective that all choices are based upon self-interest. Most of what passes as modern economic theory is based upon this assumption and some have even won Nobel prizes using this assumption as one of their basic postulates.

But there has long been a minority view that not all choices are based upon narrow self-interest and that choices aimed at the communal good are a viable option and that self-sufficiency, sufficiency, whatever you want to call it, can be an attainable and worthy goal. Mahatama Gandhi was one such advocate and India did follow some of his advice and one can argue that India is better off for it. A slightly more recent proponent was E. F. Schumacher. A more current day advocate is Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen, who focused upon Human Development Theory. The UNDP report clearly follows in their footsteps and continues a growing academic trend in economics of focusing not on GDP, but on other, may I sat, more humane factors.

The UNDP report has indeed provoked a debate, and if you search you can find healthy debate occurring. Due to the nature of these boards, perhaps some facets of that debate are not becoming of these forums on Thai Visa, and Thai Visa has never been the best place to engage in such academic debates.

But I would argue that although the current political situation within Thailand prohibits a fully open debate within Thailand itself on all issues discussed, that does not make the report dubious. As "Sufficiency Theory" is based upon both earlier and current works by many people, one can discuss various aspects without running afoul of lese majeste laws.

I would like to note that I do not agree with everything in the UNDP report. But I stand by my original claim that it offers a great deal of food for thought and is worth the read for anyone with an sincere interest in the future of Thailand.

And Younghusband, pray tell, just who "the hel_l " are you and what have you published to criticize Mr. Baker?

[younghusband]

this report doesn't say anything about the Thaksin government policies: reducing poverty in thailand within the last 5 years by half. There is no chance that the military government will be able to achieve anything near

You're correct... there is no mention in the report of any political endeavours (or misdemanours) by any political parties or governments.

Instead, the report focuses on the "Sufficiency Economy" thinking pioneered by HM the King.

A very well written report and definitely worth the read.

Thanks for posting it Johpa.

/Moved to News Forum.

It's worth pointing out that the UNDP Report has received a very critical international reception, and was the subject of an Economist article on 11th January.It noted that the UNDP is a sucker for this kind of new age waffle (sufficiency economy theory) especially if it has royal patronage.An extract:

"The UNDP report goes out of its way not to mention the Thaksin government or its policies.There is no discussion of how the new "sufficiency" policies will differ from Mr Thaksin's -just an uncritical lauding of the new government's five-year plan as the biggest shift in Thailand's economic orientation in over two decades and much praise for royal projects.

The sufficiency theory talks of "immunising" the national economy against shocks.So far the miltary government only seems to be creating shocks.As a result growth is set to slow, and with it Thailand's progress in cutting poverty.Neither the UNDP report nor the many speeches launching it, deal with such awkward truths.

In publishing such an unbalanced report on a theory that is untried on a national level, the UNDP has abandoned all sense of objectivity"

The UNDP responded that the report was published to provoke a debate.But as the Economist pointed out no debate is possible in Thailand for the obvious reasons and in fact could land critics in jail.So to sum up we have a very dubious report and an inability to debate it.And one minor mystery, what the hel_l did Chris Baker think he was up to?

First, any criticism from The Economist must be taken with a grain of salt as that publication is a sucker for modern macro-economic analysis and market theory, you know like the "invisible hand of the market", theories which are as ridiculous as any new age theory.

But having read the report, I would be hard pressed to ascribe talk about a sufficiency economy as economic theory, then I see economics as more of a social science than a hard science. I was introduced into the world of economic thought in High School by having to read Robert Heilbroner who saw economists as "Worldly Philosophers" and not technocrats, yea, I am old school. I see the discussion as more of a perspective on attitude, a perspective that involves choice. The Economist and its minions prefer we take an economic perspective that all choices are based upon self-interest. Most of what passes as modern economic theory is based upon this assumption and some have even won Nobel prizes using this assumption as one of their basic postulates.

But there has long been a minority view that not all choices are based upon narrow self-interest and that choices aimed at the communal good are a viable option and that self-sufficiency, sufficiency, whatever you want to call it, can be an attainable and worthy goal. Mahatama Gandhi was one such advocate and India did follow some of his advice and one can argue that India is better off for it. A slightly more recent proponent was E. F. Schumacher. A more current day advocate is Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen, who focused upon Human Development Theory. The UNDP report clearly follows in their footsteps and continues a growing academic trend in economics of focusing not on GDP, but on other, may I sat, more humane factors.

The UNDP report has indeed provoked a debate, and if you search you can find healthy debate occurring. Due to the nature of these boards, perhaps some facets of that debate are not becoming of these forums on Thai Visa, and Thai Visa has never been the best place to engage in such academic debates.

But I would argue that although the current political situation within Thailand prohibits a fully open debate within Thailand itself on all issues discussed, that does not make the report dubious. As "Sufficiency Theory" is based upon both earlier and current works by many people, one can discuss various aspects without running afoul of lese majeste laws.

I would like to note that I do not agree with everything in the UNDP report. But I stand by my original claim that it offers a great deal of food for thought and is worth the read for anyone with an sincere interest in the future of Thailand.

And Younghusband, pray tell, just who "the hel_l " are you and what have you published to criticize Mr. Baker?

Johpa

The tone of your response is reasonable, and there is some of what you say that I can agree with.In addition the expanded reply with your intellectual points of reference gives me a much clearer idea where you are coming from.Forgive me for saying so but the reference to Schumacher was the give away.Allow me to disabuse you however of one point which is your implicit suggestion that Amartya Sen would give his imprimatur to the wishy washy and frankly sycophantic UNDP report.I can say this with some confidence because I too am familiar with his work, and the very rigorous academic Cambridge tradition of which he is one of the greatest living examples.

The Economist is the world's leading journal for politics and economics and although it can be criticised for being excessively didactic, it is as you might concede on reflection a little strange to suggest that everything it says must be taken with a pinch of salt.There is any case much to be said for Adam Smith's "invisible hand" in understanding economic theory and practise, although as you suggest there other less mechanistic considerations to be taken into account.But to compare the ,shall we say, standard Economist editorial line with the fuzzy feel good vapourings of the UNDP report is plain silly I'm afraid.

You do make a very good point that Thai Visa is not the best forum to discuss these matters, mainly because most members interests do not lie in intellectual or academic areas, and also because the moderators for reasons I well understand have to intervene in a way that prevents full and open discussion.

Finally to address your rather impertinent final point, I have published nothing.However I know Chris Baker's work as well as anybody and have generally admired it greatly.I regret he has lowered his standards to be part of this very dubious UNDP report, but will withhold further comment because he should have a chance to defend himself.My right to criticise him or anyone else, or discuss any subject unfettered is unrestricted.It's called academic freedom.

[ColPyat]

Sufficiency economy as propagated today is more of an ideology than economic theory.

The basics are wrong.

Sufficiency economy is based on an agricultural system of survival by small scale farming, under very clear conditions, with clear directions and definitions.

But there it starts going haywire. First of all, only some parts of Thailand are suitable for this system. Areas that are prone to flooding and only suitable for rice farming cannot be converted into fruit orchards and other diversified farming techniques necessary for that system. Lands that have not even the semi secure water access to regular monsoon, such as in many areas of Isaarn, are not suitable to sufficiency economy.

Next problem is the land ownership structure in Thailand. The poor sectors for which this system has been developed are not given the land where they could do that. If the elites that propagate sufficiency economy theory would start talking about a land reform, including reposessions of the land held by the elites as opposed to only opening stateheld forest land for the poor (which though hardly ever ends up in the hand of the poor), i would maybe start taking their intentions serious.

And then we talk about the human factor. Sufficiency economy is hard work. To the people who never had to get their fingers dirty it may look very picturesque how a little peasant stands in the ricefield in front of his little bamboo hut. For the peasant though it is hard work he does because he has no other choice.

Basically - the sectors of society who would love to do that system are not given the opportunity to, and the ones who get the opportunity will not do it because they can make their money far easier.

The next step, the return to a medievil exchange system might sound very nice, but i fear that it is not exactly practical where the rest of the world, and the society here, functions on a system based on money.

Nevertheless, you do have an increase of farmers who change into the sufficiency system, but that trend started several years ago already, and that was simply because they started understanding that high intensity fertilisation was a con, and lost them money instead of making them money, and that planting on a small plot your own veggies and a few fruit trees is simply common sense. But again, that are farmers who own land suitable for this system.

And many of their children have very little interest to become small scale farmers such as their parents.

Which still leaves the ones who have land not suitable, or the ones that have no land, and no hope of ever getting one.

And the rest, especially the new "national economic policy" is just, well..., lacks any clear definition or plan, and only consists of laudable intentions based on ideology without any real idea how to get there other than some religious based conduct.

What about decentralisation of industry, creation of employment outside the farming sector in the provinces?

I fear that there is the old problem of ideology driven dogma vs. reality.

Where sufficency economy works, it does work amazingly well, but it is a fallacy to believe that therefore it works everywhere and for everyone.

[Dupont]

Exellent post Colpyat Excellent post.

A further view of mine has always been the bottom line. This policy may attract a few of the very poorest people in the country as this would be a step up to them.

For many however, the level would mean a step down on lifestyle and this is where you would have problems keeping support. Looks nice on the tea towel and the silk prints when you have bamboo huts and men in straw hats fishing outside them, but how many of the middle class and aspiring middle class (or tourists for that matter) would want the hardship that is the reality of this rural scene.

[ColPyat]

A further view of mine has always been the bottom line. This policy may attract a few of the very poorest people in the country as this would be a step up to them.

Thanks.

And that is exactly why i bought land for my wife, and where her family does that system very successfully. It was a major step up for them.

The problem is - that they would have had no hope of ever getting land from the government, and no chance to get financing for the first years until the farm ran a profit. They put down their name for land for the landless for years, and never got any, while for some strange reasons the ones closed to the authorities always got some more.

Typical problem - what is propagated is often not how i ends up in reality. Just wait and see what happens with the now propagated "sufficiency economy". I see two outcomes - it either will just disappear in time as it would entail certain measures to be somewhat successful on a national scale that the elites are not ready to take. Or, it turns into a dogma, where corruption and classism will turn the good intensions without clear directions into a desaster.

Just read Edgar Snows praise of the "Great Leap Forward" in China in his sequel to the very good 'Red Star over China' , another well intentioned development program made on the drawing table, and then look at the catastrophic results.

[Plus]

A further view of mine has always been the bottom line. This policy may attract a few of the very poorest people in the country as this would be a step up to them.

For many however, the level would mean a step down on lifestyle and this is where you would have problems keeping support.

Not necessarily. Thais are fairly frugal people and they usually live on peanuts. In general they are not as heavily indebted as westerners.

Runaway materialism is still in its infancy so it's not a problem with stepping down, it's a problem with not stepping up.

Tough proposition in today's world, agreed.

[ColPyat]

Not necessarily. Thais are fairly frugal people and they usually live on peanuts. In general they are not as heavily indebted as westerners.

Runaway materialism is still in its infancy so it's not a problem with stepping down, it's a problem with not stepping up.

Tough proposition in today's world, agreed.

[Plus]

What exactly is your problem? Do you want me to search for average household debts in Thailand vs the West? Savings rates? Credit card use? Personal loans?

Thailand is still far far behind.

Five years under Thaksin had seen the process accelerated, but it's not irreversible.

Up until recently people wouldn't buy ANYTHING in credit - only cash upfront and many still feel that this is the best way forward. It used to be the national psyche.

Then, of course, there are millions of have nots who spend all they earn on booze and lottery.

[younghusband]

A further view of mine has always been the bottom line. This policy may attract a few of the very poorest people in the country as this would be a step up to them.

For many however, the level would mean a step down on lifestyle and this is where you would have problems keeping support.

Not necessarily. Thais are fairly frugal people and they usually live on peanuts. In general they are not as heavily indebted as westerners.

Runaway materialism is still in its infancy so it's not a problem with stepping down, it's a problem with not stepping up.

Tough proposition in today's world, agreed.

Most Thais may live on what you describe as peanuts but the Bangkok power elite most certainly does not with aristocrats, businessmen, officials of various sorts, military officers etc accumulating assets, often it must be said corruptly,and living a high rolling decadent lifestyle that would make similar elites in the West goggle in astonishment.It requires some gall if you come from this background to preach to ordinary Thais about simplifying their lifestyle.It's not actually a bad message but the reform process should begin with those who have the most.

[Plus]

By international standards even high rollers live frugally here. Imposing restrictions on their lifestyles is impossible but reminding them how their wealth was accumulated initially, through austerity and hard work, would never hurt.

I believe most Chinese businesses really took off only a generation or two ago.

[ColPyat]

By international standards even high rollers live frugally here. Imposing restrictions on their lifestyles is impossible but reminding them how their wealth was accumulated initially, through austerity and hard work, would never hurt.

I believe most Chinese businesses really took off only a generation or two ago.

Ehhh, in terms of land ownership here it's not really the Chinese businesses who are the main problem here...

[Plus]

That's true - land is the main asset for Thais, and Chinese were late comers.

I don't quite see the connection between Bangkok high-rollers and their land holdings, apart from land reform.

Do you mean land speculation?

[younghusband]

By international standards even high rollers live frugally here. Imposing restrictions on their lifestyles is impossible but reminding them how their wealth was accumulated initially, through austerity and hard work, would never hurt.

I believe most Chinese businesses really took off only a generation or two ago.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.Of course in New York,London, Tokyo etc the elite wealth and lifestyle is on a different scale than in Bangkok (although there are one or two figures who would fit in quite comfortably with that league).No the point I had in mind is that the disparity between the elite and ordinary people is hardly anywhere as grotesque as it is here in Thailand, one of the most unequal societies on earth.Hence the sickening hypocrisy of the Thai people being told to simplify their style of life, in most cases fairly basic anyway.

[Plus]

People who preach self sufficiency live modest lives themselves, within reason, of course. Like today we were reminded that Sorayud's salary is five times lower than that of outgoing TAT chief.

There was a banker a few years back whose story was known to everyone in Thailand - how his family used to only look at the fish hanging above the dinner table as they couldn't afford eating it.

I was also impressed with Kasikorn Bank's chief - when asked to comment on anti-poverty campaign he simply said he has no idea of what life in poverty is so he is not qualified to give advice.

[ColPyat]

Where sufficency economy works, it does work amazingly well, but it is a fallacy to believe that therefore it works everywhere and for everyone.

And this is the Achilles heel of just about all economic theories and viewpoints. Within the complexity of modern societies, there will be times and places where one particular viewpoint will seem to work, but when applied universally they tend to lead to disaster. And well all know that when things go bad the doggy doo doo flows downhill and lands in the laps of the poor, and that when things are going good the money always percolates upwards into accumulated wealth at the top. There will be times and places where the government's hand in the economy will be beneficial and then other times when it is not needed. There will be times and places where tariffs and other protectionist acts will be benefical the the citizenry and other times when an open market will be make a particular society a better place to live for the majority of its citizens. There are, in my humble opinion, no absolute answers, and so we are left to create an economic perspective, of which sufficiency economy is but one possible perspective.

I can definately agree with that part of your post. As to the rest, i can only answer on the flooding part, the remainder, i fear, is somewhat out of bounds.

There are many areas in Isaarn that do get flooded regularly. I know for example a village in Roi Et province that lost now two consecutive rice harvests through flooding (and heard of other in neigboring provinces that had no harvests for lack of rain). Also many northern provinces get flooded regularly, such as this year many parts of Phitsanulok or Uttaradit provinces.

Some of the central regions that got flooded this year, such as Ang Thong and Ayuthaya, were manmade floods in order to protect Bangkok. And the reparations offered to the farmers, between 200 and 400 Baht a Rai was a slap in the face. That does not even pay for the investment in this season's harvest, not talking about the about 7000 to 8000 baht they could have earned per Rai.

That may have been sufficiently economical in eyes of the government, but not so in the eyes of the farmers, and also politicians from that area were furious, at least in private, while in public they had to make a nice face given the martial law.

Problem is, as always, on the ground here things are very different than in the speaches by the mighty. Free speach about these issues is simply very complicated. That is not exactly the right climate to start a economic policy that has not been under open scrutinity.

In the following link are some very interesting points criticising this UNDP report, if anyone is interested:

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/ca...ciency-economy/

[Plus]

promote gradual change with a socialist flavor to counterbalance the self-centered Bangkok elite.

Don't forget that everything comes from Bangkok, including socialism to counterbalance other Bangkok's ideological influences.

First it was Thaksin, and now socialists, who are looking to grab the rural majority's attention and use it to their own ends.

In both cases they want to share something they don't own - take it from the elite and give it to the peasants. In both cases they want to force the elite to change by threatening to bring millions of farmers to Bangkok streets.

Royally promoted ideas have a better chance of influencing the elite than confrontation with hijackers of rural votes.

[ColPyat]

promote gradual change with a socialist flavor to counterbalance the self-centered Bangkok elite.

Don't forget that everything comes from Bangkok, including socialism to counterbalance other Bangkok's ideological influences.

Would you mind not just picking and choosing from people's posts, and at least make an attempt to stay with the main topic - which is the UN report on sufficiency economy. I haven't seen you making even one post on this in the whole thread.

So tell us, do you think that 'sufficiency economy' will work, and if so, why is that so?

Or do you follow the statements of the from you quoted Kasikorn Bank chief of having no idea on poverty and therefore not saying anything about it and just post because you want to say something, but haven't got anything to say about this topic, so you just say something about a different topic?

[Plus]

Would you mind not just picking and choosing from people's posts, and at least make an attempt to stay with the main topic - which is the UN report on sufficiency economy. I haven't seen you making even one post on this in the whole thread.

So tell us, do you think that 'sufficiency economy' will work, and if so, why is that so?

Or do you follow the statements of the from you quoted Kasikorn Bank chief of having no idea on poverty and therefore not saying anything about it and just post because you want to say something, but haven't got anything to say about this topic, so you just say something about a different topic?

How's that contributed to the topic? Flaming again...

From the top of this page every post was about implementing self-sufficiency theory. The specific questions were whether Bangkokians would be able to adopt it and whether they are qualified to preach it.

[Old Man River]

Would you mind not just picking and choosing from people's posts, and at least make an attempt to stay with the main topic - which is the UN report on sufficiency economy. I haven't seen you making even one post on this in the whole thread.

So tell us, do you think that 'sufficiency economy' will work, and if so, why is that so?

Or do you follow the statements of the from you quoted Kasikorn Bank chief of having no idea on poverty and therefore not saying anything about it and just post because you want to say something, but haven't got anything to say about this topic, so you just say something about a different topic?

How's that contributed to the topic? Flaming again...

From the top of this page every post was about implementing self-sufficiency theory. The specific questions were whether Bangkokians would be able to adopt it and whether they are qualified to preach it.

The earth will come to a stand still the day you guys agree on anything. I bet one of you is a Chelsea fan while the other pulls for Arsenal.

[ColPyat]

How's that contributed to the topic? Flaming again...

Let me repeat that simple question i have asked you:

So tell us, do you think that 'sufficiency economy' will work, and if so, why is that so?

[MiG16]

anyone seen the economist article :rebranding thaksinomics" ?

the link here..... http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displa...tory_id=8521976

no kind words for the UN HDR report. I was suppose to be at the launch, but since i was away didnt get to go. would have been interesting to hear what retired Gen Surayud had to say. oh well

[Plus]

Though the report is written by Baker there are some heavy weights on advisory panel. I'd trust their judgement over hacks at the Economist any day.

The whole approach IS religion based and non-buddhists won't like it, as Johnpa rightly said. It comes from a totally different world view.