Page 1


FIG 001

























































INTRODUCTION Housing the urban poor is an issue that faces developing nations all over the world, and increasingly so as our population continues to grow and to urbanise. The struggles associated with land tenure throughout Asia pose the biggest problem for the urban poor. Urban land has become a commodity to be bought and sold to those with the most to offer, making it difficult for governments to find motivation behind providing land for the poor – that is, for those with the most need but the least to offer (Boonyabancha 2009, p310). Local authorities may argue that urban land is simply not available, but those in desperate situations continue to find land by any means possible. The result of this poverty and desperation is the formation of city slums with living conditions often well below any acceptable standard.

Despite a politically unstable history, Thailand has managed to increase the standard of living of its population and improve its economic strength consistently since the mid twentieth century. Thailand ranks highly in many regards in comparison to its neighbouring countries and achieved many of its Millennium Development Goals more than a decade before the 2015 requirement. For this reason, the Government has decided an additional set of more-ambitious targets, called the MDG+. However, economic disparities, uneven development and political uncertainty continue to provide problems throughout the country and further work is required for the continued improvement of living standards.

Reduce poverty to less thann 4% Double the proportion of women in national parliament, local government bodies, and executive positions in the civil service during 2002-2006

Increase the share of renewable energy to 8% Universal upper secondary education

Reduce the IMR to 15 per 1000 live




Universal lower secondary education

Reduce the MMR to 18 per 100000 live births









Reduce the U-5M in highland areas, selected Northern provinces and Southern provinces by 50% of the year 2005 Reduce the MMR in highland areas, selected northern provinces and five southern provinces by 50% of the year 2005

Reduce the HIV prevalence among reproductive adults to 1% Increase the share of municipal waste recycled to 30% Reduce Malaria incidence in 30 border provinces to less then 1,4 per 1000

FIG 002


Unlike some other developing nations, such as India and South Africa, Thailand’s poor are generally spread throughout rural areas. More employment opportunities are present in the urban centres, especially Bangkok, and only low levels of poverty have been recorded in the cities. These low levels of urban poverty can partially be credited to the Community Organisations Development Institute (CODI) and its predecessor the Urban Community Development Office (UCDO), established by the Thai government in 1992.

It is the national government that has initiated much improvement in housing conditions throughout Thailand, through a much-decentralised process where the communities themselves carry out planning and implementation. This paper will examine civil societies in Thailand, the role of NGOs and the impact of politics on their rise and success in urban and rural development. We will discuss in detail the work of CODI, the Baan Mankong Program and various other case studies that have shaped the housing conditions in urban Thailand today.

POVERTY IN THAILAND Incidence of poverty: 1.2% Population vulnerable to poverty: 9.9% Population in severe poverty: 0.2% Poverty in Thailand has been steadily decreasing over past decades, with the exception of the few years following the 1997 Asian economic crisis.

Outside Bangkok, which is by far the largest city in the country, much of the population live in rural areas and that is where the majority of poverty occurs. In 2008, 90% of the poor lived in rural areas. More than half are located in the north-east, where one in every seven people lives in poverty, compared to one in 130 in Bangkok (MDG Report 2010, p14).

FIG 003


FIG 004

About 5% of urban dwellings in Thailand have been constructed from non-permanent or used materials so housing durability is not a major problem (Marwah & Hoontrakul 2007, p15). Despite the steady decrease in poverty throughout Thailand, there has been an increase in income inequality and this prevents the poverty levels from decreasing at a much faster rate. This income inequality is highlighted in the vast differences in conditions between various regions of the country. People in Bangkok and other regional growth areas have much higher human development levels than in isolated areas. The north, north-east and south have the lowest levels (Marwah & Hoontrakul 2007, p6).

Household incomes have increased in line with Thailand’s economic growth, but still an average of 88% of a household’s income is spent on consumption, which leaves very little for savings or investment. Three quarters of Thais live in their own house on their own land, though this is higher in rural areas than urban. 99% have safe sanitation, drinking water and electricity and a high proportion own basic household appliances.

HDI & MPI The Human Development Index (HDI) combines indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income to serve as a frame of reference for both social and economic development. The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) uses the same three dimensions as the HDI (health, education and living standards) across a number of different variations to show the number of people who are multidimensionally poor.

FIG 005


Thailand has a medium level HDI rating, similar with China and slightly higher than neighbouring countries Vietnam and Cambodia.

The MPI rating of 0.006 in Thailand shows the rate of poverty is far lower than many other Asian countries.

The rating of 0.682 is well above the poorest regions of the world (African countries in particular) though still well below the most developed nations.

FIG 006

BANGKOK With a population of over 8 million, Bangkok is by far the largest city in Thailand and the centre of the Thai economy. The Bangkok Metropolitan Region generates more than twothirds of Thailand’s GDP and has one of the highest GDPs per capita in South East Asia (Marwah & Hoontrakul 2007, p15). Employment is available and that continues to attract people from rural areas of the country. Despite the strong economy, there are still huge differences in wealth amongst its residents. It is estimated that the number of urban poor in Thailand is one million.The poorest areas of Bangkok are spread throughout the city, but the highest concentration is just north of the Port of Bangkok, since the port provides jobs for the poor. Cheap labour was required by the Port Authority of Thailand to help construct the port during the 1950s and so unskilled workers from other parts of Thailand were encouraged to move there.The result was the Klong Toey Slum, which is possibly the largest in Thailand with a population of over 80,000 (Marwah & Hoontrakul 2007, p19). The slum is situated on land owned by the Port Authority.

As the slum has grown over the years, congestion and overcrowding has become a problem but a well organised community organisation has been developed and that has allowed for the development of the slums. Most dwellings now have electricity and mains water supply and concrete paths have replaced wooden boardwalks. This kind of development however, is more than most other slums in the city. In regards to social benefits, there is a vast difference between Bangkok and the rest of Thailand: •12% of the BMR has access to piped water, compared with less than 2% for the North, Northeast and South. •7% of BMR residents have a telephone, compared with less than 1.5% for the North, Northeast and South. •BMR has more than five times the national average of supplied water. •There are 2.12 hospital beds per 1,000 BMR residents, compared with 0.38 in the poorest provinces in Thailand. (Marwah & Hoontrakul 2007, p18)


FIG 007




As capitalism spreads throughout the world, agriculture first becomes less important in the overall economy of a country. It then loses its importance as an employer of a country’s population, and rural to urban migration increases (Van Wey 2005, p142). People are encouraged to leave rural areas by the prospect of industrial employment in cities and the loss of employment in the countryside, which is often hastened by the mechanisation of agriculture and a reduced need for labour. Outmigration is higher from communities with less land available for settlement. These ideas are true for many parts of the world, but especially in the case of Thailand, where the wealth created by the agricultural sector was channelled to finance the industrialisation and growth of Bangkok. This then caused unequal development and extreme economic disparities between urban and rural areas and conflict between the areas.

Until the economic crisis in the late 1990s, Thailand had produced economic growth per capita every year for more than four decades. The growth did benefit many Thais and increased state expenditure (Glassman 2009, p10). Health, education and welfare standards improved. But the growth did not equally benefit all of the population. It caused considerable problems for the most disadvantaged, mostly because of an uneven distribution of money and social benefits. Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire businessman who founded the Thai Rak Thai Party (TRT) in 1998, was elected Prime Minister in 2001. His policies assisted the poor because they included many social benefits like healthcare for low income earners. Thaksin was extremely popular in rural areas and urban slums, but his excessive wealth made him unpopular amongst the more advantaged Thais.


Many viewed him as corrupt and authoritarian (Glassman 2009, p19). The elite class of Bangkok generally opposed Thaksin and eventually, after issues involving privatisation in Thailand, many middle class Thais that originally supported Thaksin began to back the opposition. Despite his overwhelming popularity amongst the poor, Thaksin was ousted as Prime Minister by a military coup in 2006. Today, Thailand continues to function with political uncertainty. LAND TENURE IN RURAL THAILAND The situation of rural areas in Thailand does not fit a single stereotype. Just like in urban centres, it is the tenure of land that poses the greatest problems for citizens. Many farmers throughout Thailand settled on land that has been classified by the government as “forest” or “protected” and as a result they are under the constant threat of being dislodged from the land on which they live and work, especially if infrastructure projects (like dams or pipelines) are being planned in the vicinity. Without the rights to secure land, they are also unable to access government loans and generate any significant capital (Baker 2001, p12). The general risks involved in farming, such as seasonal variation, can add to this precarious situation. During the early 1990s it was estimated that approximately 25% of farming families were settled on protected land, and were therefore without any land rights. The Thai Government started the SPK program, which was introduced to provide land to those that required it the most. Although the program was badly abused – mostly by wealthy Thais trying to benefit from cheap land to turn into a profit – the program did allow some of the landless poor to legitimately occupy their own parcel of land. Others negotiated with local authorities or migrated to the city. In 2001, it was estimated that the number of families still living on insecure land had dropped to between ten and fifteen percent (Baker 2001, p13). RURAL TO URBAN MIGRATION The rural to urban migration during the 1970s was typically from rice zones of the central plains to Bangkok. Villagers without any secure land tenure were drawn towards the capital city by better opportunities.

The close proximity between the two areas made this migration possible for many villagers. In following years, improved connections and communication meant that Bangkok was attracting migrants from much greater distances. Migrants from the North and Northeast in particular had very high numbers. Improved road infrastructure made Bangkok easily accessible from any point of the country, and motorcycles became more common as prices dropped due to local assembly. The rural television network expanded rapidly during the 1980s and televisions became affordable for most families (Baker 2001, p9). For many, rural to urban migration was originally a temporary or seasonal practice. Young men and teenagers in particular would travel to Bangkok during the dry season and return for harvesting. However, with the rapid growth of the urban economy from 1985, many more migrants stayed for longer periods of time or permanently. It has been estimated that 1.1 million people between the ages of 15 and 30 left the Northeast in search of a better life (Baker 2001, p9). NGOs have an important role in aiding development of rural areas in Thailand. The first development NGO was the Thailand Rural Reconstruction Movement, founded in 1969, but it wasn’t really until the 1980s that NGOs began to spread all over Thailand and not just concentrate in Bangkok. The unstable political situation during the 1970s impacted the growth of NGOs. Networks were set up to spread this work and as a result they functioned as a broad social movement and not simply as separate groups (Phatharathananunth 2006, p61). In 1980, NGOs began working in Isan in Thailand’s northeast, which is often considered Thailand’s poorest region. By 1987, there were 49 NGOs working in Isan, all working in rural development. The development NGOs working in the rural areas have a different focus than those of urban areas. While slum upgrading is a focus in Bangkok, the NGOs working in rural regions of Thailand concentrate more on equal opportunities, gaining political power, women’s’ rights and the use of natural resources, which has been the cause of much conflict over past decades. In both urban and rural development, however, securing the rights to land is a constant focus.










urban elite groups



FIG 008

IMPACTS ON THAILANDS‘S DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIL SOCIETY Buddhist temples were the initial form of civil society institutes. The monasteries were the centres of intellectual, cultural, recreational and community life. Until today they provide essential social services with a sense of local responsibility and wisdom to the members of their communities. This fact also strengthened the village structures themselves, where people have the tendency to help each other instead of asking for outside help. Until today compensation is very much anchored in people‘s minds, each individual must not only do something for himself or herself but also always something for the society. A strong maintenance to keep social harmony lies in the Thai culture and the deference to higher ranking and older people is mediated in the early childhood. “Their social order is characterized as an “almost determined lack of regularity, discipline and regimentation (Embree 1980:165)” (RÜLAND 1993: 29) The population is strongly encouraged by the government to think themselves as “Thai”.

Chinese, Lao, Khmers, Burmese, Mons, Malays and different kind of hill tribes are forced into one concept of homogeneity, Thaification policy so to say. It is attempted to avoid the appearance of ethnic diversity and there is namely no official discourse about multiculturalism. The public image of the country with its inhabitants is just divided by the cardinal points north, east, west, south with the centre Bangkok. Nevertheless, Thailand’s Civil Society is highly polarized, not only ethnical but between being urban or rural. The strategy behind is the same as it has been against the colonialism. Thailand tried -and does it until today- to achieve a global resistance remaining a certain autonomous status. DOMINANCE OF BANGKOK / THE GOVERNMENT / URBAN ELITE GROUPS Western influences where strongly limited until the 1960. Thailand has never been a colony and there were just a few missionaries from the Christian Church mainly coming from Portugal, Spain or France. A notable foreign group are Chinese immigrants, which also formed their own non-governmental associations. (MC VEY 2000: 113)


Belonging to a civil society group is very relevant in Thailand, whether it is a cultural, ethnical, religious, business or family structure. This phenomenon must be considered, as it existed even before only one NGO was founded. Furthermore (protection) networks span across the whole range of the (illegal) economy. (UNESCAP 2012)

It should be noted that the decentralization process offered unconventional approaches as well as opportunities for the people to have access to the political sphere but on the other hand it also connected the private sector closer with the state. It gave the business community occasions to dominate public decisions on the local level, while looking after their own interests.

The stationing of the U.S. military, for the battle against communism in Southeast Asia in the middle of the 20th century, had a major impact on the Thai economy as well as on Civil Society. Between the periods of 1962-1970 the military aid amounted to 12% of total earnings from exports. Rural areas “benefited” more than urban areas -economically through the building of military bases, infrastructural and financially through US soldiers. In this time rural areas got more integrated into national economy, which can also be seen with the fast development of bank branches in the provinces. (MC VEY 2000: pp 79-80) Together with the US-Government, Thailand set up NESDP –national economic and social development plan -in 1950- and runs regular conferences to date. Beside this program, the THAI RED CROSS -running by female volunteers- and Christian welfare organisations have for the first time altercate the problems of the Poor.

Thailand is suffering under large imbalances, mainly between well-of urban elite groups and the rest of the country. There is a general gab between urban and rural development and the access to physical recourses is not evenly distributed. (UNICEF 2012)

CHARACTERISTiCS Two key socio-economic indicators, democratisation and capitalist growth influence Thailand. In the late 20th century Thailand was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. (RÜLAND 1993: 28) „Over the past two decades, Thailand has experienced generally strong economic growth, a substantial reduction in poverty (the incidence of poverty has declined from 42% in 1988 to 8% in 2009) and significant improvements in other important areas of social development, including access to education, health and other social services. […] The Thai economy has also bounced back from the recent global financial crisis with growth of 7.5% in 2010 […]“ (UNICEF 2012) This phenomena lead to a stronger middle class and powerful provincial capitalists, which were participating directly or indirectly in local and national electoral. Business elites e.g. the private construction industry are seen in main political parties, they have a parliamentary influence and they are also able to control budget allocations. (MC VEY 2000: 75)

CIVIL SOCIETY MOVEMENTS University played an essential role in Thailand’s social movements. Students are regarded as more independent from socio-economic and capital pressure and during the 60ies and 70ies many worked as volunteers in rural work camps. As well as in many other countries Universities were often places for meetings, gathering and demonstrations. (MC VEY 2000: 253) While it has been first the task to improve livelihood for the Poor by setting up infrastructural services, later a more radical way of thinking namely changing social and political circumstances on the national scale lead to the 19731976 students uprising which toppled ultimately the regime in that time. (RÜLAND 1993: 76) This process indeed opened the stage of cooperation between the government and civilians, including urban and the rural areas. Regarding persecution, activist and leader went underground; some were never seen again, others resurfaced in the NGO movement. Until today universities, individual academics and student-organisations are relevant actors and links for NGO’s. (MY VEY 2000: 222) During the 80ies Thailand went trough a community cultural movement. The enormous economic growth gave rise to a strong middle class and turned them into actors for claiming social changes. Above all, the critic was the top-down governmental policy demanding villagers to transform themselves to a “more modern scientific and market rational way of operation”. Additionally the desire of the state to arise a knowledge-based society, not regarding traditional values released strong protests.


“Because of the Teachers, academics, lawyers, journalists and doctors who spearheaded the 1992 provincial protest movement are all included under this category, we can see how the expansion of the profession helped build the social foundations for the democratic struggle that emerged in the provinces in 1992” (MC VEY 2000: 253) It was felt that development should be rooted in the villager’s own knowledge to strengthen local culture and preserve village-style social relationships. Some social groups had the opinion that Civil Society should focus again on a lifestyle more in line with Buddhist values than those of Capitalism. The main demand was, though the deepening of democracy and decentralisation of state power. (MC VEY 2000: 256)



TENDENCY TOWARD NGO‘S In the early decades of the 20th century the first Thai-associations were founded. Quiet often they were formed by the grown upper or middle class and financed by the state or high-ranking government officials. (THAILAND Rundschau 3/2001: 80) Later the orientation to western values and models, made it difficult for alternative organisations as they were suffering from repression especially if they were seen as communist or non-Thai. The Anti-Chinese regime (between 1948 – 1953) for example almost closed down all Chinese associational land out of fear of the not-controllability. Thereby the Chinese communities have been taken away from their livelihoods and their habits of acting. “The ethnic separation of economic and political power was one of the major reasons that – unlike in India or the Philippines where associations emerged in the “inclusive” AngloAmerican tradition- in Thailand associations for a long time had a predominantly “exclusive” character.” (RÜLAND 1993: 28)

Today it is described in the literature that people often just respond to issues of immediate and practical concerns and that only about 13,5% socialize themselves with group activities. MAIN STRUGGLES // Education -5.95 years of schooling for agriculture labour workforce – over 70% had less than secondary education // Discrimination of disabled, gender and ethnic minorities // Entering an ageing society // Corruption – also in everyday life // Large disparity between rich and poor // Sex-Tourism -200.000 – 300.000 women in prostitution // Domestic political conflicts –demonstrations armed hostilities with death and injured people // Human rights –violations, abuse, torture // Limited press freedom / censorship // Television as the main medium –army and government determine the television program –reinforce stereotypes and one-side opinions

NETWORKS “[…] In such a world order no scope was left for opposition, critique, and particularism- values that are central to a pluralistic order. Even worse, such deviant behaviour was rather interpreted as an assault on the social system in its totality. […] Autonomous social groups -this was the conclusion- could thus hardly emerge in such a cultural environment.” (RÜLAND 1993: 29) Long established totalitarian systems (absolute monarchies until 1932 and the following bureaucratic polity until 1973)as well as a hierarchical structure of the Thai Society prohibited the emergence of independent organisations. They had the reputation as disruptive to existing powers. The majority of non-governmental associations and organisations have either a Thai membership or are not registered. (RÜLAND 1993: 29) “Most lower-class associations, such as slum dwellers associations in the cities and the cooperatives and farmers’ organizations in the countryside are state-sponsored and frequently operate as extended arms of the authorities.” (RÜLAND 1993: 156)




NGO’s are described as private and non-profit organisations, which operate independently from the political system and organised by concerned people to fight poverty and injustice. (RÜLAND 1993: 29)

NGO’s in Thailand can be placed into three categories. (THAILAND-Rundschau 3/2001: 88) There are the non-registered organisations, which are self-reliant, autonomous people and communities. They convey rights and self-confidence to the people and use local knowledge to cope with problems. They work like catalysts between the people and the government by making problems consciously, organise and mobilize stakeholders and if possible build up people’s organisations.

While the approaches of governmental organisations are in larger scale and orientated to capital transfer, infrastructure development, transfer and improvement of techniques and education often towards western models and with standard solutions, NGO’s in the last decades tried to work with existing know-how and community structures on the “grassroots” level, a concept which is also described in E.F. Schumacher’s book: “The return to human scale-small is beautiful”, where he tries to find a balance between material and spiritual quest by helping people locally and using their local circumstances. In slum alleviation programs locally municipalities play a dominant role for the cooperation with NGO’s and nationally CODI is promoted. Unfortunately it is sometimes seen, that local non-governmental associations avoid criticizing municipal performances, as they fear for their existence. Informal loans so as payments and corruption are significant matters. The literature often mentions that people in Thailand joining organized groups with the purpose of pursuing common interests. As mentioned before politicians on a national and local level understood that popular politics became a crucial strategy to win an election. It has been found that especially on slum and housing issues they can reach votes for their parties. By concerning the problems of the poor they replace the role of NGO’s and local activists and decrease their working space and persuasiveness. It is said that some NGO’s in Thailand have a tendency towards factionalism, ideologies of leaders and therefore leadership struggles, espial when setting up networks. Nevertheless it has been understood by now that just by building up links and network between NGO’s and in cooperation with political authorities an efficient change can be made. A contribute to political reforms on the small scale as well as on the big one can then be steadfast. Most NGO organisations are concentrated in Bangkok or for the north in Chiang Mei, a few in provincial towns, but quiet rarely in rural areas.

Their main tasks are organisation, consulting, mediation and documentation as well as introducing the population in the political process. Their advantage is the allocation of alternative methods and one could almost say, that they make themselves as an institution superfluous. Many small organisations avoid registration, as they have to give regularly reports to the Ministry of Interior and a deposit between 200,000 and 500,000 Baht (5.200-12.783 Euro), which is just even their annual budget. Formality is seen as reducing flexibility. (THAILAND-Rundschau 3/2001: 89) Sometimes the government even rejected registration, if the organizations are not seen as compliance. Right-based movements, environmental concerned organisations, NGO’s working with hill tribe minorities or organisations in sensitive border-areas were affected. (RÜLAND 2000: 66) The second category is mainly critical against the government and the political system. Facing socioeconomic problems they try to organize peoples from rural areas by mass mobilization and campaigns. This group includes the community cultural movement. Those organisations influenced by Buddhist thinkers supporting anti-materialistic and anti-capitalistic values. They argue that the Thai Civil Society is penetrated by the western way of thinking missing their own alternative and traditional way of acting. Generally one can say that using campaign within different kind of media or mass mobilisation and demonstration is usually the last solution of a long negotiation process where claims were not heard or rejected. It is often used with slum dweller, human rights, the equality of women and health issues. Once trapped in a campaign, some organisations fear to be pigeonholed.


The third classification is the co-operation method (formal as well as informal) with governmental institutes. It is so called the consensual strategy. Those organisations are often supported from public funds. They do not interfere with the political system and limit their work within the range of government policy. Their main tasks are health and public welfare. The legal identity also gives them a stronger legitimacy in public. (THAILAND-Rundschau 3/2001: 89)

In 1989 there was set up a “Mobile Cabinet” where NGO’s could enter the platform of the political sphere, confronting politicians and the government with their demands and give a proof of their seriousness as force to be reckoned with. „BANGKOK, 26 June 2012 – Deputy Government Spokesman Anusorn Iamsaard has revealed that the next mobile cabinet meeting will be held in Surin province in July. In line with the Cabinet’s resolution to organize a mobile meeting once a month in a different part of Thailand, Mr. Anusorn announced that the July meeting will take place in the north-eastern province of Surin.“ (THAIFINANCIALPOST 2012) Another method to reach the public was the “meet the press” idea, set up in the mid80s of the 20th century where journalists were brought to the poor communities by NGO’s. Also a TV channel (11) was set up to report NGO’s work. (RÜLAND 1993: 73)

Empowerment stands at the core of NGO’s work and means to integrate the Poor into the decision-making process. Underprivileged groups will be made to actors. The mass mobilization plays an important role, and some organisations are just engaged with bringing people at the right time to the right place. To support residents of rural areas for e.g. bus transfers were implemented to the demonstration sites in cities. (THAILAND Rundschau 3/2001: 84)





Government Institutions

informal cooperation, support from public funds consensual strategy / cooperation NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL WELFARE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION


NGO The solutions lie in the villages

critical of government policy



FIG 009

NEGOTIATION PROCESSES / GAINING POWER Strategies of NGO’s to control corruptions and legitimate the voice of many individuals can only be successfully implement in Thailand by forming alliances and networks to share resources and increase the political weight. One of the first ones was AOP Assembly of the Poor, a right-based movement that mainly deal with land tenure. With the help and the pressure of the civil society they could prepare reforms and development plans which were set in motion during and after the Asian crisis in 1997. The greatest successes were the formation of an anti-corruption tribunal, an independent electoral commission and the transparency of MP’s salaries.Other important ones are the NGO-CORD, the PEOPLE’S LIBERATION ALLIANCE and PNEX, while the last one is a non re

gistered civil organisation for city development set up to strengthen local economy, slum and housing issues. Despite the many advantages to form networks, also remains a slight risk to lose the own focus and to subject to domination by others. Also it is described that cooperation between different organisations are more within vertical structures instead of horizontal. CONNECTION TO MUNICIPALITIES Small organisations with seldom more than ten employees and in addition with a high staff turnover rate facing enormous problems reaching the national negotiation level to submit their claims. Therefore NGO’s work, besides the alliances and networks, is usually closer connected to local governments, which then in turn must campaign for their regions with the national government.


The literature argues that a well functioning local government is composed of three areas –a legal-institutional dimension, secondly a resource dimension and thirdly a linkage dimension, while each of these subgroups is then connected with different indicators. From experiences of NGO’s work it is said that not all projects can be realized quickly enough on a formal bureaucratic level. For this reason the linkage dimension of local authorities should focus “on the communicative interrelations […] and the wider societal environment, thereby going beyond the merely legal defined patterns of central-local relations”. (RÜLAND 1993: 11)

NGO’s for that can provide valuable experiences, information, data, services, financing concepts and organizational recoursesas well as specialist know-how. A participatory planning and developing process including local authority, civil organisation groups -which give a voice to the interests and needs of individuals- will increase the power capacities and decision-making options towards the national level to overcome the elite structure of the political culture. (RÜLAND 1993: 11-13) The relationship between NGO’s and the government is a sensitive field, charged with a lot of tension and prejudices. Meanwhile, it is predominantly understood, that NGO’s mainly do not work against the political system.


PEOPLE‘S LIBERATION ALLIANCE - PLA Campaign for Popular Democracy AOP



Student Federation of Thailand










local entrepreneurs business people




FIG 010

ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES/CHALLENGES How an organization is built structurally, certainly one can only see in those, which are registered. It is described as followed: “They have statutes, a board of directors, annual conventions, and regular elections of their leaders. The board is frequently composed of prestigious public figures: academics, lawyers, medical doctors, Buddhist abbots, and highranking bureaucrats. Their function is to lend legitimacy to the organization, to protect it from government repression and to serve as facilitators for funding agencies.” (RÜLAND 1993: 69) Mostly it is seen that the not the affected persons are the main stakeholders, but activist from the middle- or upper class. Foreign donors often prefer non-governmental organisations as they regarded less costs and administrative complex as well as more efficient due to the closer contact with target groups. (THAILAND Rundschau3/2001: 82)

Another aggravation is the pilot character of many NGO projects, namely because this creates problems of continuity in the working process. Precision and reliability of collected and published data as well as informal estimations lead to un-sustainability. But what is even worse it makes already fragile small-scale projects susceptible to political pressure. To not suspend under the control of the government a number of organizations grouped around projects and loosen up again after its termination. All together it gives rise to a weak status of rural cooperatives, seldom associated with sustained organized NGO’s. Without this continuity a trustful and opened relationship to target groups can be hardly achieve. To improve communication directly with the stakeholders it has been one approach to cooperate with the already existing local village leaders, while they give back the information to the individual residents.


URBANISATION HISTORY OF URBANIZATION IN LARGER AND SECONDARY CITIES Thailand is divided into 76 provinces which are geographically grouped into 6 regions. (Thailand Central Office of the Registrar General Department) The capital Bangkok is not a province but a special administrative area and is included as the 77th province since it is administered at the same level as the other 76 provinces. In Thailand each province is administered by a governor, who is appointed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The only exception is Bangkok, whose governor is elected by its population.

Chiang Mai formally became part of Siam in 1775 but it was abandoned between 1776 and 1791. Lampang then served as the capital of what remained of Lanna. Chiang Mai then slowly grew in cultural, trading and economic importance to its current status as the unofficial capital of northern Thailand, second in importance only to Bangkok. (John, Undated)

Bangkok has both the highest population and the highest population density. The biggest province by area is Nakhon Ratchasima. It was a small trading post near the Chao Phraya River during the Ayutthaya Kingdom in the 15th century. It eventually grew in size and became the site of two capital cities: Thonburi in 1768 and Rattanakosin in 1782, which is the accepted date for the founding of the present city. Over the years since then, Bangkok has undergone tremendous changes, growing rapidly in the second half of the 20th century to become Thailand’s main city.

HAT YAI Hat Yai is a city in southern Thailand near the Malaysian border. Great Hat Yai area has the population of 800,000. Hat Yai is the largest city of Songkhla Province, the largest metropolitan area in Southern, and third largest metropolitan area of the country. Songkhla is the capital and the center of administration and culture, while Hat Yai is the business center. The two cities are considered as twin cities due to their close connection. Hat Yai was a small village until the southern railway was built there in 1922. In 1928 Hat Yai was made a Chumchon, which was upgraded to a sanitary district (sukhaphiban) in 1935. It covered an area of 4.4 km². In 1938 the municipal administration building was completed. In 1949 it was granted town status. In 1977 the area of the municipality was enlarged to 21 km². Finally in 1995 it was upgraded to city status.

CHIANG MEI (new city)


Chiang Mai is the largest and most culturally significant city in northern Thailand. It is the capital of Chiang Mai Province, a former capital of the Kingdom of Lanna (1296–1768) and was the tributary Kingdom of Chiang Mai from 1774 until 1939. It is located 700 km (435 mi) north of Bangkok. King Mengrai founded this city in 1296 on the location of an older city. The city was surrounded by a moat and a defensive wall. With the decline of the Lanna Kingdom, the city lost importance and was occupied by the Burmese in 1556.

Phuket is one of the southern provinces of Thailand that is approximately as the size of Singapore. It is Thailand’s largest island. The island is connected to mainland Thailand by two bridges. In the 17th century, the Dutch, English, and after the 1680s the French, competed for the opportunity to trade with the island of Phuket. In 1933 Monthon Phuket was dissolved and Phuket became a province by itself. In 2004, Phuket and other nearby areas on Thailand‘s western coast suffered extensive damage when they were struck by the Boxing Day tsunami, caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.

BANGKOK (city of angels)


DEFINITION OF CITIES THE PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION Thailand is divided into 76 provinces plus Bangkok. The name of each province is as the same as it’s respective capital city. Thailand is subdivided into 878 districts (amphoe). The fifty districts of Bangkok are called khet. The number of districts in each province varies, from three in the smallest provinces to fifty in Bangkok. Further subdivision levels are tambon (subdistricts) and finally, Muban (villages). In Bangkok the tambon are called khwaeng. As today, the provinces were created around a capital city (mueang), and included surrounding villages or satellite towns.

The provinces were divided into four different classes. The first class was the border provinces. The second class was those that once had their own princely house. The third class was provinces that were created recently by splitting them from other provinces. The fourth class was provinces near the capital.New provinces were created when the population of an area outgrew the administration, but also for political reasons if a governor became too dominant in a region, former satellite cities were elevated to provincial status. After administrative reform of 1892 many provinces kept their independence a bit longer. (Tej 1997)


HISTORY OF HOUSING DELIVERY The National Housing Authority (NHA) was originally established in 1973 as a state enterprise with the main goal of developing and providing housing options to Thais in lower income brackets (Chaimuenvong, 2004). Initially the organisation had a policy of only constructing new housing units, encouraging squatting communities to move into these newly constructed flats. It was later found however that the communities lives and economic standing


In 1992 the Urban Communities Development Organisation (UCDO) was founded under the National Housing Authority. Its formation came about due to rapid economic growth and a widening gap between rich and poor. It was initially established under the NHA to facilitate rapid growth in the organisation. This however was coupled with the vision that the UCDO would eventually become autonomous, decentralising the process and granting flexibility in its work. (UN HABITAT, 2009) The organisation was also based on the participation of communities in an attempt to remove some bureaucracy. The threat of eviction became a strong motivator for communities to bond together to fight for a common goal. Community organisations linked together and a number of networks began to form. These processes began very early on and demonstrated the effectiveness of a decentralised system. (Boonyabanca, 2003)

was not improving in their new homes due to problems with repayments resulting from a lack of income. In many cases this saw these families return to the city slums as squatters (Boonyabanca, 2003). This policy of resettlement subsided in 1977 when the NHA began site servicing and slum upgrading, acknowledging some right of the squatters to stay in their existing homes. Figure 010 summarises the major reforms to Housing Delivery.

FIG 011

The Asian economic Crisis of 1997 caused a reduction in the incomes and increases to the debts held by the urban poor and saw major reforms to UCDO, which had, up until that point, developed its process mainly through trial and error. There was a diversification in the type and conditions of loans that the organisation could give. This was in response to the need for growing flexibility in a tumultuous economic environment and increasing loan defaults. Each loan had a different interest rate and maximum term relative to its amount and purpose. (Boonyabanca, 2003) The gradual trend of decentralisation continued with increasing numbers of networks and community organisations implementing loans and development processes them, with UCDO then seeking to assist in this development. This also helped to decentralise funding, as the network


would receive the lump sum and then distribute it to its members, reducing administration and saving time at UCDO (Boonyabanca, 2003). It was identified that the community organisations lacked a adequate level of horizontal support. This led the UCDO to link different community organisations within the same area, or with common interests or goals together, providing support and advise to one another. This saw the beginning of community networks forming in Thailand and these networks subsequently became very useful in more wide scale district wide development. (Boonyabanca, 2003). In 2000 the Rural Development Fund was merged with UCDO to become the Community Organisation Development Institute (CODI). This new organisation had greater powers and flexibility, becoming even more decentralised than before, rather than existing under the NHA it was now its own legal entity granting

much more freedom in being able to form networks and seek funding (Boonyabanca, 2003). The formation of CODI also consolidated a number of other separate funds such as the Elderly Welfare Fund, under the same organisation for ease of access and greater ability to network a broader range of communities. CODI implemented the ‚Baan Mankong‘ Slum Upgrading program in 2003. The program channels government funds through CODI directly to communities who undertake slum upgrading works themselves. The program also strengthens support lines and networking by providing more links between communities and to NGO‘s, professionals and local governments for consultation and assistance in the slum upgrading works (Boonyabancha, 2009). The Baan Mankong program has been developed through countless other programs, trial and error and learning over many years in Thailand. (Boonyabancha, 2009)

HOUSING PROCESSES AND METHODS OF DELIVERY LAND SHARING Land Sharing is the process by which informal settlers occupying a private land owners site negotiate to remain on a portion of the site, freeing the rest of the land for development by the land owner. This benefits both parties and addresses both their claimed rights as the slum dwellers claim the right to stay as they have occupied for a lengthy period while the landowner has the legal claim to the land. A compromise is met in which both parties can be satisfied. (Angel and Boonyabancha, 1988) This Housing processes has a number of key stages/features: The community must mobilise and organise itself in a way that makes negotiations with the landowner possible. The negotiations must then result and a legally binding land sharing agreement in which each party (the Squatting community and the Land owner) are assigned a portion of the site. The Squatters houses must then be moved and consolidated into their new plot, often requiring demolition and reconstruction.

The process also requires investment for the reconstruction works. This can be sourced either through the communities existing savings and loan scheme, or if one does not exist, from another organisation such as CODI a NGO or other financier (Angel and Boonyabancha, 1988). The process always undoubtedly includes the intervention of government departments and officials as the land use changes must be approved by them, but also as each party will attempt to have them advocate for their side. The National Housing Authority may also be involved and is often included as a signatory to the agreement. In some cases they will receive ownership of and maintain the consolidated housing (Angel and Boonyabancha, 1988). ENVIRONMENTAL INTERVENTIONS Is a method of low income housing improvements stemming mainly from the motivation to improve the living environment of these local communities but also to preserve the natural environment that may be being affected by their imposition on the land (Ribeiro and Srisuwan, 2005).


A program, Urban Communities Environmental Activities (UCEA) launched in 1996 promoted improvements in the living environments of low income settlements by providing grants to these communities to undertake programs and actions with environmental concerns at their heart. These may include environmental upgrade works such as improvements to drainage, water supply or landscape recovery, or environmental management plans, but there is also an emphasis on education. The program also promotes networking and cooperation between communities, NGO‘s, government authorities and other organisations. (Boonyabancha, 1999) Similar to the way in which CODI delivers its funding, UCEA places the communities at the centre of the process leaving the decision making and implementation power to them. This also creates ownership of any improvement works and creates a mentality that the community should maintain their environment after the projects have been implemented. The program however does not see this upgrading as the solution but rather as an empowerment process in which these urban poor communities are given greater weight in overall society due to their self motivation and implementation (Ribeiro and Srisuwan, 2005). BUYING SLUM LAND AND RELOCATION Occurs when a private landowner wishes to sell their land to the existing squatters. It has tended to occur only on the small scale with only a number of families seeking land tenure. (Boonyabancha, 2003) Community networks that, through the use of their savings and loans schemes, produce some of the required capital support the process. The network also creates greater bargaining power during the purchasing process.

CODI also provides a low interest loan classified as a non-project housing loan, which can be used to help purchase the land and be used for any reconstruction works. This loan is provided at a 10% annual interest rate. Lower interest rates exist on other types of loans but these are provided only in situations in which the acquisition of housing is time sensitive such as with the threat of eviction. The process tends to be self motivated and initiated. The advantage of community networks is that one community can see how the process has worked for another and then instigate the purchase of their own site and draw on support from a previously successful community. Relocation is a financially similar process in which squatters who have been evicted or settlers who‘s leases are ending relocate to a site sometimes nearby. This requires the purchasing of the new land or the negotiation of a new lease agreement with the new landlord. In the case of squatters facing eviction, CODI is able to provide a project-housing loan at an interest rate of 3% per annum or this emergency situation. This process also usually occurs with a community as a whole and as such is very self-supporting. Again, consultation and cooperation with other communities within networks provide further advice and expertise to carry out the process (Boonyabancha, 2003). As credit levels are lower for the urban poor, seeking creative new ways to secure tenure is often required. The loans given out by CODI, although numerous and with low interest, have a low maximum value and as such, communities must seek inventive solutions to their own housing insecurities. This is a self-driven process supported by the network and wider network of CODI‘s partners (Boonyabancha, 2009). Relocating to an area too far from the community‘s existing site can also cause problems with regards to distance required to travel to a place of work. It is important that there is thorough consultation with the community when any relocation project is occurring.


BAAN MANKONG COMMUNITY BASED SLUM UPGRADING PROGRAMM INTRODUCTION There are many examples of upgrading and new house development programs that have “significantly improved the lives of slum dwellers”, but almost never on a scale that significantly reduces the problem. In most nations, just increasing support to conventional upgrading and new house projects will never reach a sufficient scale. (Boonyabancha 2005, Introduction) According to Archer (2010) Baan Mankong is an innovative participatory slum upgrading project, that Thailand is glorified for it over the last few years. It was launched by the Thai government in 2003 and implemented through the Community Organizations Development Institute (CODI) with the aim of “cities without slums” that caused low-income communities to take community saving groups seriously and connected them to government, architects, planners, NGOs, etc. In 2010 Archer says that during this program 80,000 households and 1,300 communities were benefitted; Though Boonyabancha wrote in 2005 that the program has set a target of improving housing, living and security of tenure for 300,000 households in 2,000 poor communities in 200 Thai cities within five years. Baan Mankong is becoming an independent movement through the National Union of Low Income Community Organizations (NULICO) that allows communities to meet their housing needs, Collaboration between society and the state and a more sustainable form of urban development with the main issue of security of tenure that targets low income settlements with the main aim of helping communities, and in consequence residents, to become able to use government housing loan and imply a demand-driven policy instead of supply-side policy (Archer, 2010). However the estimated target in 2005 was not completely achieved but it’s still one of the most successful examples among upgrading programs.

CODI believes that past Thai housing policies failed due to having a very centralized and hierarchical structure, focused on construction targets and seeing the poor as beneficiaries rather than forging a relationship with them (CODI, undated as quoted in Archer 2010). BANGKOK CASE STUDIES Going further in studying about Baan Mankong, examining the experiences of communities undertook full reconstruction of housing, makes it possible to find out whether and how community residents have benefited from upgrading. These communities are mentioned by Archer in 2010 as communities which were all squatting on government-owned land prior to upgrading, and managed to negotiate a collective lease with the landowner. These communities are Bang Bua (BB), located on treasury land that went under reconstruction and reblocking. Bonkai (B), located on land owned by Crown Property Bureau (CPB) was mainly razed in 2001. The other one is Ruam Samaki (RS), on CBP land which had a land sharing agreement on complete reconstruction. And the last one is Klong Toey (KT), on port authority land which was relocated 1 kilometer away.


FIG 012

BANG-BUA COMMUNITY According to CODI, this community together with its community network, Klong Bang-Bua network comprised of 12 communities (see figure 2), was the first network of canal communities in Bangkok that successfully negotiated a long-term lease on the public land owned by Treasury Department (CODI 2008). “The role of the network is very powerful in negotiation. At first when I solely try to meet the landowner agency, the director denied the meeting. But when we gather people from many communities and tried to negotiate, by presenting how the Bang-Bua canal would change in the future for the whole system. The landowner listened and accepted our request. It agreed to support us by even changing some regulations or tax exemption that may obstruct the program. It also reduced the land rental price from 18 baht ($0.5) to 1.5 baht ($0.04) per square meters for the whole network� (Interview the leader of Klong Bang-bua Communities Network 2008: Wungpatcharapon 2009)

FIG 013

FIG 014


The network joined with other 9 canal communities at the city level to form a network called ‘Bangkok Canal Communities Network’ with support from CODI. These communities participated in various activities, such as visiting other communities in the network to observe the processes of Baan-Mankong program and learning from other case studies around the nation, sharing experience and information,

and more importantly participating in political activity.

FIG 015

FIG 016

Not only at the high levels have the networks played crucial roles, the networks of kinship and friendship at the community level have also influenced the project, especially informing practical ways to participation (Wungpatcharapon 2009).

FIG 017


BON KAI Bon Kai is a long-established squatter community of 566 households living on land owned by the Crown Property Bureau in Klong Toey in central Bangkok. In 2001, a fire destroyed 200 houses and, after forming a cooperative, the community took the opportunity to negotiate a (renewable) 30-year land lease. This was the first case in Thailand of a long-term lease contract for public land being made to a community cooperative (land leases are usually with

single households and are short term, so they do not provide secure tenure). The reconstruction was planned in three phases so that no one had to leave the site. In order to accommodate everybody, three-story row houses are being built, each on plots measuring 24 square meters. The average unit cost (for land, housing and infrastructure) is US$ 4,901 and households repay US$ 22–30 per month. The first phase of the project is now complete and was inaugurated by the prime minister in July 2004. (Boonyabancha 2005)

FIG 018


RUAM SAMAKEE Ruam Samakee was the first community that started organizing themselves to set up saving groups and welfare program. With assistance from CODI young architects they have developed three housing types that comply with family size, household’s activities and affordability. (UN HABITAT 2009)

FIG 019

FIG 020


KLONG TOEY Klong Toey Block 7–12 is a long-established squatter settlement housing port workers, daily labourers and small traders, on land belonging to the Port Authority of Thailand. Over the years, the community had experienced fires, chemical explosions and many attempts to evict them. Originally comprising nearly 400 families, the community had dwindled to 49, as some families took compensation and moved away and others moved to National

Housing Authority flats or remote resettlement colonies. After 20 years of struggle, the remaining 49 families negotiated a deal that allowed them to develop their own settlement on Port Authority land one kilometer away, with a 30year lease. The land can accommodate 114 households, and so includes homes for some renters and some who had already been evicted. The average unit cost (for land, housing and infrastructure) is US$ 9,039. (Boonyabancha 2005)


Involved residents in these projects were asked if they felt that tenure security was improved and in the most of the cases the answers were positive (table 2) although there are still some reasons for feeling unsecure such as lack of information, argument between community

leaders, general economic problems and also fears of not renewing the leas (tenure is not absolute). In some cases residents believe that having tenure security doesn’t worth to gain because they have to pay more money after being registered.

FIG 021


COLLECTIVE ACTION As the table below shows, due to communities’ residents, the main reason that made Baan Mankong possible was their ability to work collectively. “Fighting for what we wanted made this possible” (KT17). The government is cited as another major reason for upgrading success, along with CODI: “Without CODI and their loans, Baan Mankong would not be possible” (KT13).

FIG 022

THE ROLE OF NETWORKS NULICO (National Union of Low Income Communities) was one of the outcomes of the Baan Mankong project with the two main aims of: 1.“Solve the problems of community organizations of the poor in cities; 2. Collectively push forward policy changes with the states.” (Archer 2010, P.5) NULICO links the urban poor to reach more resources and power and also to share their experiencing. Network members identify themselves as the united citizens of Baan Mankong around their ability and willingness to upgrade. Khun Lek from CODI believes that “NULICO joins the small plots held by the poor so they have more space in the city and they can come out and speak at the district level. “ (Archer 2010, P.5) According to many of active members of NULICO, CODI doesn’t have enough power to help everyone, so they had to establish NULICO with the Baan Mankong program in its core, as a reaction to the lack of representations and solutions from the state. NULICO has its own different specialized teams. They have a monthly meeting for all members as well as separate meetings for each team. NULICO also tries to put into practice the Baan Mankong ideals of “information exchange” and “learning by doing”. They also have their own welfare

fund, to which members can contribute. There are also some teams of builders, composed of community residents, who can be hired also in other communities at a lower rate. According to the members of NULICO, the main problems during helping the communities to upgrade are lack of understanding from community members, lack of participation, divisions within the leadership, and unwillingness to participate in saving groups. They also suggest to make a better management and having a clear community plans to have incommunity improvements. (Archer 2010) CITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS (CDFs) In 2008, when CODI revolving fund ran dry, communities realized that they need financial independency. As a result, two networks of communities formed their own City Development Funds (CDFs). With CDF the communities which have not yet undertaken Baan Mankong upgrading have the guarantee of funds being available. While the CDF is mostly used to encourage housing improvement projects, it can also provide income generating loans and fund educational and welfare projects. This CDF will allow communities in Bang Khen to obtain loans from the fund for communal projects, at an interest rate of 4% per annum, of which 1% will go towards management costs, 1% will go towards the community‘s welfare fund, and 2% will go back into the CDF. (Archer 2010)


CONCLUSION Thailand’s fight against poverty over past decades and its continued economic growth show impressive statistics that illustrate a far more positive outlook than most other Asian nations. Bangkok’s economy continues to grow and provide opportunities to both local and migrating citizens. But the rise of Bangkok has come at a cost, with huge disparities in the quality of life between Bangkok and the rest of Thailand, and also within Bangkok itself. Further work is required to bring equal opportunities to Thais and continue the eradication of poverty throughout the country. One can assert that informal settlements play an important role in urban development. Outside of conventional regulations ingenious solutions can be originate, even if those living structures produce problems such as poor quality of health and hygiene, inadequate infrastructure and waste collection and recycling. The provisional character therefore can provide alternative solutions for Urbanism including bottom up as well as top down, formal and informal processes. In Thailand governmental institutions still mainly control urban planning and housing development. Overcoming standard norms and values, top-down acting and focus flexible local conditions, including climate and material as well as a sensibility to local-based knowledge will be the path to get closer to a sustainable solution. (MOSTAFAVI, DOHERTY 2010: 40) Within the work of NGO’s it has been seen that not all process-steps are formal, but the solutions and existence of poor peoples needs, have to become legal. As long as the government or the economy hold the superiority and the authority power for legal resources, legitimacy will be hardly given to people’s concerned - often minority- issues.

It can be seen that throughout the last 40 years in Thailand there has been a trend of increasing decentralisation. What began as a very large, bureaucratic department has since formed departments designed for a more specific goal on housing Thailand‘s urban poor. Not only this, as CODI has formed and developed, it has continued to encourage the self motivation and action, as well as the expansion of networks, improving potential benefits to the urban poor communities as well as reducing bureaucracy at CODI. There are a number of processes for housing urban poor that have been used in Thailand. Today‘s most common approach is to secure land tenure for urban poor communities either through the purchase of their currently squatted land, or relocation to other securely tenured land. The process is repeated over and over and supported both by CODI and the networks it has helped to form. (Boonyabancha, 2009) It is quite clear that the process is dominated by a very small number of organisations including the NHA and CODI but which however link together numerous organisations such as NGO‘s government authorities and professionals with the communities in need. The case study projects shows how a participatory process can empower communities to do the upgrading process by themselves through the creation of NULICO and CDFs. Baan Mankong shows the importance of secure tenure and also integration of slum-dwellers into society by creating horizontal linkages between them and allowing them to form one big community instead of banishing them to the city outskirts. These kinds of approach try to form sustainable urban development in social relationships within a city.


FIGURES 001 http://buddbkk.files.wordpress. com/2011/04/actor-diagram1.jpg 2012-07-01



The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2011 United Nations

018 Bonkai Slum Reconstruction (CODI 2009)


Urban Poverty and governance


Urban Poverty and governance


housing types of Ruam Samakee housing project (UN HABITAT 2009)


Human Development Report 2011


Raum Samakee upgrading process (CODI 2009).


Human Development Report 2011


Klong Toey Slum Shelley Morris Photography


Perceptions of security of tenure following upgrading process (Archer 2010, P.3)


concept of homogeneity


What made Baan Mankong possible? (Frequency) (Archer 2010, P. 4-5)


social - and right-based movement


negotiation processes


Timeline of changes in housing delivery in Thailand.


Process and linkages of local housing development partnership (CODI 2009)


The community before and after the Baan-Mankong reconstruction program


The community before and after the Baan-Mankong reconstruction program


The activity day arranged by the Klong Bang-bua communities network with a local university

A diagram showing actors and net works of Bang-bua community (Wung patcharapon 2009, P.13)

016 The meeting of Klong Bang-bua com munities network committee on the land tenure issue (photo credits: Wungpatcharapon)


REFERENCES Glassman J. ‚‘The Provinces Elect Governments, Bangkok Overthrows Them‘‘: Urbanity, Class and Post-democracy in Thailand Jim Glassman Urban Stud 2010 47: 1301 DOI: 10.1177/0042098010362808 Marwah R. & Hoontrakul P. (2007) Urban Poverty and Governance in Thailand – A Case Study of Bangkok Phatharathananunth, S. (2006) Civil Society and Democratization: Social Movements in Northeast Thailand, NIAS : California Somsook Boonyabancha, S. (2009) “Land for housing the poor -- by the poor: experiences from the Baan Mankong nationwide slum upgrading programme in Thailand” Environment and Urbanization 21: 309 Baker, c. (2001) “Thailand‘s Assembly of the Poor: background, drama, reaction” South East Asia Research, 8, 1, pp. 5–29 Van Wey, K. (2005) “Land Ownership as a Determinant of International and Internal Migration in Mexico and Internal Migration in Thailand” International Migration Review, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 141-172 (2009) Thailand Millennium Development Goals Report 2009 Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board : Bangkok United Nations Development Programme (2011) Multidimensional Poverty Index [online], available: [accessed: 29 May 2012] United Nations Development Programme (2011) Human Developmental Index and its components [online], available: [accessed 29 May 2012] Shelley Morris Photography, Bangkok – Klong Toey Slum [images online], available: http://www. [accessed 2 June 2012] Archer, D. (2010) Emproving the Urban poor through community-based slum upgrading: the case of Bangkok, Thailand, 46th ISOCARP Congress 2010 Boonyabancha, S. (2005), Baan Mankong: going to scale with slum and squatter upgrading in Thailand, Environment & Urbanization Vol 17 No 1 April 2005 Thailand Central Office of the Registrar General Department website, available from: http://stat. [accessed 25 July 2012] CODI, (undated) Achieving Land Tenure Security and Upgrading of Urban Poor Communities At City-Wide Scale, Powerpoint presentation, available from: [accessed 20 January 2007] CODI (2008) CODI update: 50 Community Upgrading Projects, Bangkok, Community Organizations Development Institute.


CODI (2008) CODI update: 50 Community Upgrading Projects, Bangkok, Community Organizations Development Institute. CODI (2009), Workshop on Shelter Security and Social Protection for the Urban Poor and the Migrants in Asia At Ahmedabad, India (February 11-13, 2009), power point presentation, available from: [accessed 24 July 2012] Chuanpis Chaimuenvong, 2004, National Housing Authority: Helping Thais improve their standard of living, The Post Publishing Public Co, viewed 17/7/12, <http://www.bangkokpost. com/58years/nati.html> Somsook Boonyabancha, 2003 ‚A Decade of Change: From the Urban Community Development Office (UCDO) to the Community Organizations Development Institute (CODI) in Thailand‘ IIED working paper 12. UN HABITAT, 2009, ‚Slum Upgrading Facility (SUF) Working Paper 11‘, United Nations Human Settlement Program, viewed 21/6/12, < aspx?publicationID=2678> Somsook Boonyabancha, 2009, ‚Land for housing the poor – by the poor: experiences from the Baan Mankong nationwide slum upgrading programme in Thailand‘, Environment and Urbanisation, vol. 21(2), pp. 309-329. Shlomo Angel and Somsook Boonyabancha, ‚Land Sharing as an Alternative to Eviction‘, Third World Planning Review, 10 (2) 1988. Gustavo Ribeiro and Angunthip Srisuwan, 2005, ‚Urban development discourses, environmental management and public participation: the case of the Mae Kha canal in Chiang Mai, Thailand‘ Sage Publications, Environment and Urbanisation, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 171-183. Somsook Boonyabancha, 1999, ‚The urban community environmental activities project and its environment fund in Thailand‘ Environment and Urbanisation, vol 11, no. 1, pp. 101-115. MC VEY, Ruth (2000) Money and Power in provincial Thailand, Singapore, Northern Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS) RÜLAND, Jürgen (1993) Local Associations and Municipal Government in Thailand, Freiburger Beiträge zu Entwicklung und Politik, Hersg.: OBERNDÖRFER, Prof.Dr. Dieter, HANF, Prof. Dr. Theodor, Arnold Bergstraesser Institu HEIDERSBACH, Dirk (2001) Thailand Rundschau 3/2001 available: TR_2001_3.pdf 2012-07-01 CHAOWARAT, Pondej (2010) Participatory Planning in Municipal Development in Thaiand, Fakultät VI -Planen Bauen Umwelt der Technischen Universität Berlin, Dissertation WONGPREDEE, Achakorn (2007) Asien and African Area Studies, 6(2) p454-470, available: PHONGPAICHIT, Pasuk (1999) Thailand‘s Illegal Economy and Public Policy, Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, available: 201207-04 UNITED NATIONS 2011 The Millennium Development Goals Report, New York pdf 2012-07-25


Housing the Urban Poor: Thailand  

An in depth look at the informal housing situation in Thailand as part of studies at the Technical University of Berlin.

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you