Thailand's Future; 1st, 2nd or 3rd World by 2030?

[Samui Bodoh]

Hello All, 

 

Happy New Year! I hope everyone has had a great year and that the in-coming one brings happiness and prosperity.

 

A question for members; by 2030...

 

Will Thailand become a First-World, 'advanced' country? 

 

Will Thailand remain a Second-World country? 

 

Or will Thailand sink to Third-World status again?

 

I have been either visiting or living in Thailand since the early/mid nineties, and the idea of even asking such a question seemed ridiculous for much of that time. However, I am re-evaluating my belief that Thailand will (two steps forward and one step back!?) soon join other 'developed' countries like the Western ones and/or South Korea/Japan/Singapore, etc.

 

There is a reasonable case to be made that Thailand will join the First-world, 'developed' countries. There is a well-established, extremely lucrative, stable tourism industry that will provide foreign currency, and a great deal of it, for a very long time to come; this will ensure that Thailand has funds for development. Further, the region is relatively rich in resources and, at least for the moment, Thailand is a leader in developing those resources around SE Asia. Next, Thailand's neighbours, at least at the moment, are behind in development/economic terms, and that usually means that the 'best and the brightest' from those countries will come to Thailand seeking opportunity. Furthermore, while there is massive income-disparity, there are also some world-class Thai companies, so knowledge on how to prosper does exist here. Moreover, Thailand has generally good relations with her neighbours, so the existence of any serious, outside threat in minimal. Finally, Thailand has examples (things are always easier to do if you know that they can be done) in Singapore, China, Taiwan and South Korea, at a minimum. 

 

The case for Thailand remaining a Second-World, stagnant country is also strong. The key elements to this part of the argument are that Thailand has HUGE numbers of uneducated/under-educated people in combination with some world-class talent, but each of those will cancel the other out, leaving things unchanged. Further, while Thailand used to have great relations with rich, Western countries, those relations have stagnated or gotten worse in the last while; I am not saying that relations with Western countries are required for prosperity, but that if you want to be rich, you must hangout/trade with rich countries and Thailand is doing less of that now. The crucial question of governance rears its head in this paragraph; the current government (and the previous overt Junta) are not able to inspire great things from Thai people, and they have exhausted their main new economic loci with the development of Chinese mass tourism. Chinese mass tourism is reaching/has reached a growth-stopping point in my view; it is already too crowded and locals are already a bit fed up; imagine if it doubled? The things that make Thailand nice would be lost, and that in turn would mean fewer tourists, which in turn... etc. To sum up; a country advances with new, outside opportunities, by relying on internal growth and development, or by inspirational motivation and leadership. I do not believe that Thailand can utilize any of these three things.

 

The case for reverting to Third-world status relies on three pillars; bad Governance, bad Education, and a bad International Environment. Thailand has had really bad governance for 5 years or so (50 years?), and is likely to continue to have bad governance for the foreseeable future. We all saw a rigged election process, we all have seen a ludicrous constitution, we all have seen a packed Senate, we all have seen unqualified people entrenched in every level of government, etc. Entire tomes could be written about this, but I will simply say that even in a best case scenario, it'll take a decade at utter minimum to toss these people out, and two decades is more likely a minimum if the effort started today, which it won't. The Thai Education system is simply awful, and Thai people are not receiving a proper education to allow them to function in the coming global economic environment. The Forum is full of threads on this, so if you don't understand this issue, go have a look. It seems, sadly, that global trade is taking a bit of a hit in these Nationalistic times, and that will hurt Thailand as it is reliant on it. Yes, Thailand will continue to trade with both the US and China, but they will not have as favourable terms and will find it difficult to compete, especially with China. Finally, Thailand's neighbours, especially Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea will be either trying to achieve the same thing as Thailand (move up a level) or trying to stay ahead of their competitors.

 

Which will it be?

 

Back in the Nineties and early Noughties, I would have said 'well on the road to First-World status', but that there would be bumps along the way. In the second half of the Noughties, I began to wonder if they might get stuck in Second-World status. After the coup and the recent 'election' and subsequent events (lawsuits against FFP, re-jigging the Constitutional process for counting votes, continued lack of interest in Police Reform, erratic governmental management, endemic/systemic corruption, embedding of unqualified people in key locations, etc), I am starting to think that Thailand might slide back to Third-World status as her neighbours slowly overtake her.

 

It is a really sad thought.

 

What say you?

 

PS discussion on this subject will, inevitably, require some negative opinions on Thailand. Could these be kept to a minimum? we all live here because we choose to live here; it is worth remembering that.

 

 

[DaRoadrunner]

Thais are fond of using the phrase 'world class' (oh my image).

 

Yet today Thailand is a third world country that charges first world prices. The way they are going, by 2030 we will all either have left or be dying from the pollution, but it will still be third world.

[Felt 35]

Status quo

[madmen]

12 minutes ago, DaRoadrunner said:

but it will still be third world.

still ? So your saying its third world now?

I think it remain 2nd world but only just. They are eradicating 3rd world perception in Bangkok by getting rid of street stalls and lots of improvement in infrastructure but a long way to go yet

[RichardColeman]

Most countries ruled by generals will always be 3rd world. 

[saengd]

The terms first world, second world, third world ceased to be in use during the 1970's after the cold war, they referred to political East/West alignment not wealth and development.

 

World Bank refers to countries as emerging, developing or fully developed and Thailand is currently classified as developing, I expect it to remain in that classification for at least the next decade or two.

 

 

[Kwasaki]

[Caldera]

My prediction is that Thailand will never be a developed country. They're ageing quicker than their economy grows, which is a major problem.

 

Thailand will either remain a somewhat underdeveloped backwater (which could mean that it will eventually end up a failed state) or become a part of something bigger, let's say a vast Chinese empire.

[OneMoreFarang]

There is Thailand and Thailand. Not same but different. Now and in the future.

[OneMoreFarang]

On 1/1/2020 at 2:49 PM, RichardColeman said:

Most countries ruled by generals will always be 3rd world. 

How about countries which are ruled by morons and liars like the land of the free and the couple of islands north of France?

[rabang]

I don't think it will be fully developed in my lifetime and I plan to stay around for a few decades more. Bad governance and bad education being the primary reasons. I think status quo will remain for the next 10 to 20 years at least, pockets of development and affluence with large masses of ignorant people living from hand to mouth.

[CNXexpat]

hailand was 15 years ago a 2nd. world country and will be in 15 years still a 2nd world country. Other SEA countries are growing much faster than Thailand and will overtake it during the next couple of years (Vietnam).  At least will come much closer (Cambodia, Myanmar).

[Samui Bodoh]

On 1/1/2020 at 3:04 PM, saengd said:

The terms first world, second world, third world ceased to be in use during the 1970's after the cold war, they referred to political East/West alignment not wealth and development.

 

World Bank refers to countries as emerging, developing or fully developed and Thailand is currently classified as developing, I expect it to remain in that classification for at least the next decade or two.

 

 

Respectfully, this is not accurate.

 

The terms "First World, Second World and Third World" are still in use today as subjective identifiers (precisely like Emerging, Developing and Fully Developed), and are, in my view, far better as subjective identifiers than the nonsensical pap of "Emerging, Developing and Fully Developed". However, I will grant that they have been used somewhat less frequently as the PC Brigades object because they are too straightforward, honest and blunt. I prefer them because they are straightforward, honest and blunt.

 

Assigning countries a number on a scale provides clarity and an immediate ease of understanding, thus allowing the reader to either dive deeper into the reasons why or accept the general level and move on. Assigning meaningless pap when discussing a country's rating does not provide accuracy or clarity as the scale only really goes one way (positive); my post suggests that Thailand is regressing, so should they be classified as "Developing but returning to Emerging"? What does that even mean? It is the country-rating equivalent of a teacher refusing to provide letter/number grades on a child's report card in favour of nonsense like "Little Johnny feels good about himself" and "little Johnny gets his feelings validated everyday".

 

Further, I really could care less what the World Bank thinks should be the proper terminology. I have had the misfortune to work with World Bank staff on several occasions over the years, and while I am sure there are some good people, each staffer that I met was worse than the previous. They were, to put it politely, jargon-spewing ass-covering bureaucrats who were (it seemed) allergic to leaving their offices and decided every action based solely on whether or not it made them look good in their reports. And, without wanting to get into an argument, let us simply say that the World Bank's record and success rate over the years has been... er... 'mixed'.

 

Finally, one last notion. You stated that 'World Bank refers...' with the implication that we should all accept that. The day that the World Bank is an end-arbiter of proper English language usage is the day that Humanity, metaphorically speaking, disinters Shakespeare's coffin, opens it and vomits on the corpse.

 

Have a great weekend!