Border Economic Zones and Development Dynamics in Thailand: A Comparative Study of Bordering Countries

Border Economic Zones and Development Dynamics in Thailand:
A Comparative Study of Bordering Countries
by
Choen Krainara
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Regional and Rural Development Planning
Examination Committee:
External Examiner:
Nationality:
Previous Degree:
Scholarship Donors:
Prof. Jayant Kumar Routray (Chairperson)

Dr. Mokbul Morshed Ahmad
Dr. Winai Wongsurawat
Prof. Sergio Pea Medina

Urban and Environmental Studies Department
El Colegio de la Frontera Norte
Ciudad Jurez, Chihuahua, Mexico
Thai
Master of Science in Urban Environmental
Management
Asian Institute of Technology
Thailand
Royal Thai Government-AIT Fellowship
Asian Institute of Technology

School of Environment, Resources and Development
Thailand
December 2016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express his deepest gratitude to his Advisor Professor Dr. Jayant
Kumar Routray for providing vigorous guidance and inspiration throughout the course of
research. The researcher is extremely grateful to his Committee Members consisting of
Associate Professor Dr. Mokbul Morshed Ahmad and Assistant Professor Dr.Winai
Wongsurawat for contributing helpful comments and suggestions to advance this research.
A special appreciation is extended to Professor Dr. Sergio Pea for seving as external
examiner, as well as rendering constructive comments on the research. A particular
encouragement to the researcher for furthering doctoral study were supported by his
respective superiors at the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board
(NESDB), namely H.E. Arkhom Termpittayapaisith Former Secretary-General of NESDB
and Dr. Porametee Vimolsiri, current Secretary-General of NESDB.
The researcher would also like to express gratefulness to those who rendered various
assistances during field research work. Notable thanks are extended to Chief of
Aranyaprathet district of Sakaeo province for providing insight on local border settings and
facilitation of cross-border movement for doing field research in adjacent OChrov district
of Cambodia. A particular appreciation is extended to the Governor of Banteay Meanchey
province of Cambodia for granting an interview and facilitation of field research in
Cambodia. Specific thanks are extended to both H.E. Apichart Petcharatana, Former Thai
Consul-General in Savanakhet province. Thankfulness is accorded to the Governor of
Savannakhet province for granting an interview and facilitating research work in Lao PDR.
Special thanks are given to Mr. Amonvit Onchanom for providing accommodation during
field research in Muang Mukdahan district. Heartfelt thanks are extended to Dr. Therdkiat
Chinsoranan, Mayor of Maesod City Munipality and Mr. Pramote Chantasri of Maesod
Municipality for facilitation, as well as arranging accommodation during field research in
Maesod district. A particular appreciation is also extended to all respondents for providing
insightful information.
Likewise, the researcher wishes to express particular gratitude for various forms of
assistances being given by Mr. Viroj Naosuwan, his close friend, Mr.Chavavai Krainara
and Miss Natthavee Krainara. He is grateful to Dr. Komwut Wissawapaisal and
Mr. Shahab Saqib Mohmand for providing assistance on statistical analysis. A particular
gratefulness is extended to Mr.Rey Calabdan for editing this research. A special note of
thanks also goes to the Royal Thai Government, AIT, and Dato Faudzi Naim Noh and
friends for generous supports in providing scholarships and research grant. Additional
special thanks are extended to the Mekong Institute for providing partial research grant.
The author wishes to dedicate this research for the advancement of the special border
economic zones in Thailand linking with counterparts in bordering countries of Cambodia,
Lao PDR and Myanmar in particular and for the ASEAN Community in general.
ii
ABSTRACT
Economic interdependence between Thailand and the surrounding less developed countries
has increasingly become much closer since the last few decades. Yet, considerable
development gaps seem to be widening causing persistently asymmetric relations. Since
2003, Thailand has planned to promote integrated development of border economic zones
(BEZs) with bordering countries. The aim of this study is to assess the locational
advantages, economic and social linkages and development potential of 3 strategic crossborder regions along the GMS economic corridors. The study areas included
(1) Aranyaprathet district in Sakaeo province bordering with OChrov district in Banteay
Meanchey province of Cambodia; (2) Muang Mukdahan district in Mukdahan province
bordering with Kaysone Phomvihane district of Savannakhet province in Lao PDR; and
(3) Maesod district in Tak province bordering with Myawaddy district in Kayin state of
Myanmar. The study is primarily a quantitative research design supplemented by a
qualitative research design. The study found that development of BEZs in Thailand is
intermittent and currently moving forward due to enabling policies. Fostered by both
geographical adjacency of structural differences and the contributing factors, the pattern of
local and regional cross-border trade, as well as cross-border transit trade have shown a
rising trend. Macro cross-border trade with Cambodia, Lao PDR, Malaysia and Myanmar
during 2008-2013 has reached significant level sharing average of 30.77 % to intraASEAN trade. Most of the cross-border trader and wholesaler respondents across the
regions are family-based businesses and mainly being SMEs. Thai goods are widely
accepted among bordering countries. However, cross-border traded goods are mainly
produced in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity such as the eastern region. At present,
Thai border cities mainly play distribution role. Industrial respondents in Thai border
districts are mostly SMEs. The Thai border districts are more industrialized than the 2
bordering districts, except in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, which is more
industrialized than the counterpart bordering Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand.
Maesod district has become an important high-end fashion cluster of Thailand while
OChrov district of Cambodia specializes in low-end fashion products. There is an existing
spatial division of labor in Maesod district of Thailand. Household respondents across Thai
border districts have higher monthly household income than the counterpart respondents in
the bordering districts, ranging from 1.1 to 3 times. Complementary linkages exist for
sources of household income between Thai border districts and the counterpart bordering
districts, particularly on labor and cross-border outsourcing activities. Employment of
immigrant labor from bordering countries is widely practiced in economic and household
sectors across Thai border districts. Since 2004, there has been expanding cross-border
investment in the form of contract farming. During 2002-2014, there was a rapid increase
of local and regional cross-border people mobility across the regions. During 2009-2014,
there was also a rapid change in local and regional cross-border vehicle mobility across the
regions. Therefore, promoting holistic and integrated borderlands development policies
and strategies for 3 CBRs in Thailand towards ASEAN Community have subsequently
been recommended.
Keyword: special border economic zone; cross-border region; integrated borderlands
development; Greater Mekong Sub-region; ASEAN Community
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
TITLE
PAGE
Title Page
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Maps
Abbreviations
i
ii
iii
iv
vii
xi
xi
xii
Introduction
1.1 Background of the Research
1.2 Statement of the Problem
1.3 Conceptual Framework
1.4 Hypotheses of the Research
1.5 Objectives of the Research
1.6 Scope and Limitations
Literature Review
Section A:Relevant Theories and Concepts on International Trade 5
and Development
2.1 Classical and Neo-Classical Theory of International Trade
2.2 International Development
2.3 Regional Trade Bloc
2.4 Trade and Development
2.5 Spatial Division of Labor
Section B: Globalization, Regionalization and Cross BorderRegions
2.6 Relationship between Globalization and Regionalization
2.7 Convergent and Divergent Trends of Globalization and
Regionalization
2.8 Cross-Border Regions
Section C: Borderlands Development
2.9 Border Economics
2.10 Border Theories
2.11 Border Economic Zone and Applications
2.12 Consolidated Implications for Adopting Development of Border
Economic Zone Concept
11
11
Research Methodology
3.1 Type of Research
3.2 Type of Research Design
3.3 Unit of Analysis
3.4 Selection of Study Areas and Criteria
3.5 Sampling Design and Procedures
3.6 Target Informants
3.7 Data Sources
26
26
26
26
26
27
30
30
1
1
2
7
9
9
9
iv
11
11
12
12
13
13
13
14
15
18
18
18
20
24
3.8
3.9
4
Data Collection Methods

Selected Data Analyses and Techniques
31
32
Policy Analysis: Development of Special Border Economic Zones

in Thailand
4.1 Evolution of Special Border Economic Zone Development
Policies in Thailand
4.2 Detailed Policy Analysis for Upholding Development of
Special Border Economic Zones
4.3 Key Findings and Reflections
33
Profiles of the Study Cross-Border Regions and Local Border

Entrepreneurs
Section A: Profiles of the Study Locations
Cross-Border Region 1: Aranyaprathet District of Sakaeo Province
in Thailand connects with OChrov District of Banteay Meanchey
Province in Cambodia
5.1 Aranyaprathet District of Sakaeo Province in Thailand
5.2 OChrov District of Banteay Meanchey Province in
Cambodia
Cross-Border Region 2: Muang Mukdahan District of Mukdahan
Province in Thailand Links with Kaysone Phomvihane District of
Savannakhet Province in Lao PDR
5.3 Muang Mukdahan District of Mukdahan Province in Thailand
5.4 Kaysone Phomvihane District of Savannakhet Province in
Lao PDR
Cross-Border Region 3:Maesod District of Tak Province in
Thailand Connects With Myawaddy District of Kayin State in
Myanmar
5.5 Maesod District of Tak Province in Thailand
5.6 Myawaddy District of Kayin State in Myanmar
Section B: Profiles of the Local Border Entrepreneurs
5.7 Local Cross-Border Large Scale Traders
5.8 Local Border Wholesalers
5.9 Local Border Retailers
5.10 Local Border Industrial Developers
49
Macro Level Analysis of Cross-Border Trade Linkages and

Comparative Advantages between Thailand and Neighboring
Countries
6.1 State of Formal Cross-Border Trade Relations between
Thailand and Neighboring Countries
6.2 Thailands Bilateral Cross-Border Trade Problems with
Neighboring Countries
6.3 Factors Contributing to Expansion of Cross-Border Trade
68
Comparative Micro Level Analysis of Local Cross-Border Flows of

Goods and Services
79
33
39
46
49
49
49
49
50
50
50
51
51
52
52
52
56
60
64
65
68
74
75
77
7.1
7.2
8
Local Cross-Border Large Scale Trading

Key Findings and Reflections
79
100
Local Border Wholesaling, Retailing and Cross-Border Shopping

Activities
8.1 Local Border Wholesaling
8.2 Local Border Retailing
8.3 Local Cross-Border Shopping
102
Local and Regional Cross-Border Production Linkages

9.1 Local Border Industrial Development
137
137
169
10
Local Cross-Border Interactions, Employment and Household

Income
10.1 Compositions of Local Border Population
10.2 Local Border Livelihoods
171
Regional and Local Benefits at Different Cross-Border Regions

11.1 Overview of Cross-Border Investment in the Form of Contract
Farming
11.2 Cross-Border People Mobility
11.3 Cross-Border Vehicle Mobility
196
196
Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations

12.1 Summary
12.2 Conclusion
12.3 Recommendations
214
214
225
228
References
235
Appendices
247
11
12
vi
102
114
124
134
171
171
193
201
207
212
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
TITLE
2.1
Globalization and regionalization in East Asia: the two

paths in the convergence between globalization and
regionalization between 1980s and 1997
The main Growth Triangle in Asia since the early 1980s
Major features and variations in the level of interaction
in borderlands
Development contribution of Maquiladoras/Export
Manufacturing Sector or Border Economic Zones
Current development of border economic zones in Asia
Number of all types of border traders and number of
sampling sizes in 2009
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.3
PAGE
14
14
16
21
23
27
Number of sampling sizes of cross-border shoppers

Industrial developers in the study areas and number of
sampling sizes in 2009
Number of sampling sizes for border households in 2009
28
29
4.1
Brief integrated development policies for special border

economic zones in Thailand
35
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
Educational levels of respondents

Nativity of respondents
Monthly income of border wholesalers
Monthly income of border retailers
54
55
57
58
59
61
62
63
6.1
6.2
International trade value of Thailand

Thailand bilateral cross-border trade problems with
bordering countries
69
Cross-border trade segments

Registration of businesses
Lengths of business establishments
Cross-border exported commodities (Multiple responses)
Cross-border imported commodities (Multiple responses)
Sources of procurement (Multiple responses)
Origin of goods (Multiple responses)
Roles of cross-border traders (Multiple responses)
Forms of cross-border payments
Cross-border logistics arrangements
Employment of labor
Employment of immigrant labor
Daily wage rates of local and immigrant labor
79
80
81
82
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
93
93
3.4
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
vii
30
74
7.14
7.15
7.16
7.17
7.18
7.19
7.20
7.21
7.22
Reasons for employing immigrant labor

Cross-border movement patterns of immigrant labor
Gender ratios of immigrant labor
Positive impacts of immigrant labor
Negative impacts of immigrant labor
Cross-border transit trade
Perceptions on condition of cross-border river bridges or
road links
Perceptions on border banking services
Perceptions on Customs, Immigration and Quarantine
services
94
94
95
96
97
98
98
99
100
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
8.11
8.12
8.13
8.14
8.15
8.16
8.17
8.18
8.19
8.20
8.21
8.22
8.23
8.24
8.25
8.26
8.27
8.28
8.29
8.30
8.31
8.32
Registrations of border wholesaling businesses

Dutation of operation of wholesaling establishments
Wholesale commodities (Multiple responses)
Employment of labor
Daily wage rates of local and immigrant labor
Positive impacts of immigrant labor
Negative impacts of immigrant labor
Registrations of businesses
Dutation of operation of border retailing establishments
Retail commodities (Multiple responses)
Employment of labor
Daily wage rate of engaged either local or immigrant labor
Sex of cross-border shoppers
Marital status of cross-border shoppers
Age of cross-border shoppers
Original residents of cross-border shoppers
Shopping places
Shopped commodities
Spending per each cross-border shopping
Frequency of cross-border shopping
Purpose of cross-border shopping
Mode of cross-border transport
102
103
104
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
113
114
115
116
118
119
120
121
122
123
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
133
133
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
Reasons for locating border industries

Establishment purposes
Duration of operation of border industrial establishment
Invested capital
Manufactured goods or provided services
138
139
140
142
144
viii
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
9.10
9.11
9.12
9.13
9.14
9.15
9.16
9.17
9.18
9.19
9.20
9.21
9.22
9.23
9.24
9.25
9.26
9.27
9.28
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13
10.14
10.15
10.16
10.17
10.18
10.19
10.20
Sourcing of raw materials

Cross-border export of raw materials, components and
industrial commodities
Cross-border import of raw materials, components and
industrial commodities
Sources of labor
Border industrial employment
Daily wage rates for local and immigrant labor
Positive impacts of employing immigrant labor
Negative impacts of employing immigrant labor
Voluntary turnover of immigrant labor and local labor
Local backward linkage strategies
Cross-border production linkage strategies
Production arrangements
Border, regional and cross-border sub-contracting linkages
Cross-border joint ventures
Market distributions of manufactured products or
provided services
Cross-border logistics arrangements
Forms of cross-border payment
Perceptions on cross-border road or river bridge conditions
Perceptions on border banking services
Perceptions on Border Customs, Immigration and
Quarantine (CIQ) Services
Monthly income of border households
Monthly expenses of border households
Border family sizes
Home ownership
Nativity and length of border residents
Diverse origins of non-native local residents
Land ownership of border households
Main sources of household income
Supplementary sources of household income
Labor sources
Employment of immigrant labor by border households
Daily wage rate for immigrant labor
Number of family members crossing border for jobs
Involvements with border community-based enterprises
Perceptions on conditions of secondary or district road in
the last 10 years
Perceptions on current conditions of secondary roads
Types of current community road
Marketing channels of border agricultural produce
ix
145
147
148
149
149
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
161
162
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
173
174
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
182
183
184
184
185
186
187
188
188
190
191
10.21
Benefits gained by local border households after opening

the border during the last 5 years
11.1
Cross-border contract farming between Sakaeo province

198
of Thailand and Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia
Cross-border contract farming between Mukdahan province199
of Thailand and Savannakhet province of Lao PDR
Cross-border contract farming between Tak
199
province of Thailand and Kayin state of Myanmar
Cross-border people mobility between Aranyaprathet
204
border checkpoint in Thailand and Poipet border checkpoint
in Cambodia during 2002 to 2014
Cross-border people mobility between Mukdahan
205
border checkpoint in Thailand and Savannakhet border
checkpoint in Lao PDR during 2002-2014
Cross-border people mobility between Maesod
206
border checkpoint in Thailand and Myawaddy border
checkpoint in Myanmar during 2002-2014
Cross-border vehicle mobility through
210
Aranyaprathet border checkpoint in Thailand
during 2009-2014
Cross-border vehicle mobility through Mukdahan
210
border checkpoint in Thailand during 2009-2014
Cross-border vehicle mobility through Maesod
211
border checkpoint in Thailand during 2009-1014
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.8
11.9
12.1
12.2
12.3
192
SWOT Analysis of Aranyaprathet district of Sakaeo

222
province in Thailand
SWOT Analysis of Muang Mukdahan district of Mukdahan 223
province in Thailand
SWOT Analysis of Maesod district of Tak province
224
in Thailand
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
TITLE
PAGE
1.1
1.2
Proposed border economic zones in Thailand and its

potential linkages with neighboring countries
Conceptual framework
2.1
Geographic scales of cross-border cooperation
17
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Cross-border trades between Thailand and Cambodia

Cross-border trades between Thailand and Lao PDR
Cross-border trades between Thailand and Malaysia
Cross-border trades between Thailand and Myanmar
75
75
76
76
6
8
LIST OF MAPS
MAP
TITLE
PAGE
1.1
1.2
GMS corridors network

Locations of border checkpoints in Thailand
xi
2
4
ABBREVIATIONS
AC
ACMECS
ACDD
ACIA
ADB
AFTA
AIA
AICO
AISP
APEC
ASEAN
ATIGA
BOI
BEZ
BIMP-EAGA
CBR
CBTA
CEPT
CIQ
CIT
CLM
CLMV
ESB
EU
EWEC
GATT
GCC
GMS
GT
IAI
ICBTA
IGA
IMS-GT
IMT-GT
INDL
IL
ISN
KNLA
KNU
L.C.
MFN
MSMEs
MTS
NAFTA
NEDA
NESDB
ASEAN Community
Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy
ASEAN Customs Declaration Document
ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement
Asian Development Bank
ASEAN Free Trade Area
ASEAN Investment Area
ASEAN Industrial Cooperation Scheme
ASEAN Integration System of Preference
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
Association of South East Asian Nations
ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement
Board of Investment
Border Economic Zone
Brunei Darussalam-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN
Growth Area
Cross-Border Region
Cross-Border Transport Agreement
Common Effective Preferential Tariff Scheme
Customs, Immigration and Quarantine
Corporate Income Tax
Cambodia-Lao PDR and Myanmar
Cambodia-Lao PDR-Myanmar and Vietnam
Eastern Seaboard
European Union
East-West Economic Corridor
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
Global Commodity Chain
Greater Mekong Sub-region
Growth Triangle
Initiative for ASEAN Integration
Initial Cross-Border Transport Agreement
Investment Guarantee Agreement
Indonesia-Malaysia-Singapore Growth Triangle
Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle
International Division of Labor
Inclusion List
Information Superhighway Network
Karen National Liberation Army
Karen National Union
Letter of Credit
Most Favoured Nation
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Multilateral Trade System
North America Free Trade Area
Office of Neighboring Countries Economic Development
Cooperation
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board
xii
NGOs
NICs
NSEC
NSW
OBM
OEM
POSEZ
RTAs
SBEZ
SEC
SIJORI
SMEs
SWOT
TNCs
UN
U.S.
VAT
WTO
Non-Governmental Organizations
Newly Industrialized Countries
North-South Economic Corridor
National Single Window
Original Brand Manufacturer
Original Equipment Manufacturer
Poipet ONeang Special Economic Zone
Regional Trade Agreements
Special Border Economic Zone
Southern Economic Corridor
Singapore-Johor-Riau
Small and Medium Enterprises
Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat
Transnational Companies
United Nations
United States
Value-Added Tax
World Trade Organization
xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Research
Rapid globalization, which primarily resulted from trade liberalization in recent decades,
has driven the process of regionalization through the formation of trade blocs notably, the
Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), in order to foster economic
complementarities and enhance regional competitiveness. As the progress of development
among ASEAN member countries is quite diverse, the programs consisting of the GMS
Development Cooperation and an Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) have been
created in order to speed up the regional integration towards the goal of ASEAN
Community (AC) by the year 2015 (ASEAN Secretariat, 2009). The potential benefits
from the GMS cooperation are large. Nevertheless, different levels of development may
slow down the growth and full benefits of this sub-regional cooperation (Krongkaew,
2004). It is apparent that economic interdependence between Thailand and the least
developed neighboring countries have increasingly become much closer since the last
decades due to advancement of regional cooperation. Yet, considerable development gaps
seem to be widening due to stark differences on stages of development causing persistently
asymmetric relations. For example, labor cost in Thailand is higher than Myanmar, Lao
PDR and Cambodia at 3.7 to 5.2 times (TDRI, 2012). Thus, Thailand has attracted an
estimate of 6 million unskilled immigrant labor force and family members from these
bordering countries, which has accounted for 9.39% of total national population, to work
and live in the country (Manager Weekly, 2010). Meanwhile, a research conducted by
Prince of Songkhla University found that approximately 0.20 million southern Thai
nationals are out-migrating to Malaysia for jobs (Manager Online, 2008).
The illegal influx phenomenon of immigrants obviously prompts concerns over national
security in particular and subsequent multi-faceted impacts on Thai economy and society
in general. To complement the GMS, Thailand, which is located at the strategic
intersection of the mainland of Southeast Asian region, has initiated the Ayeyawady-Chao
Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy (ACMECS) in 2003 in order to bridge
development gaps with bordering countriesCambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam
(CLMV) by promoting integrated cross-border development based on border economic
zone concept (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, 2008). The GMS spatially adopts a
corridor development approach with a total of nine transborder economic corridors so as to
spearhead cross-border regional development linking both intra-GMS and South Asian and
East Asian regions (ADB, 2007). Out of nine, six GMS corridors are trans-Thai territory
(Map 1.1). Importantly, it strengthens the locational advantage of cross-border regions
towards emerging production and trade zones. This sort of BEZ was pioneered by
Maquiladora or export manufacturing sector, which have been developed to promote
employment along the 2,000 mile-long Mexico and the United States border since 1965
(Weiler and Zerlentes, 2003).
In the Asian region, this concept is proliferating during recent decades. Such zones have
been implemented, i.e. between Guangdong province of China and Hong Kong; between
Indonesia and Singapore; between Johor Bahru state of Malaysia and Singapore and
between North Korea and South Korea. Other existing BEZs along the GMS corridors are
between China and Myanmar; between China and Vietnam; between Vietnam and
Map 1.1 GMS Corridors Network
Source: Asian Development Bank.2007.GMS Transport Sector Strategy, Coast to

Coast and Mountain to Sea: Towards Integrated Mekong Transport Systems.
Cambodia and between Vietnam and Lao PDR. A few BEZs are under planning and
evolution process, i.e.between North Korea and China; between China and Russia and
between India and Pakistan.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Likewise, Thailand is selecting few cross-border regions to be advocated as BEZs linking
with bordering countries, which are in reverse scenario from the Mexican case. This
approach is believed to help distribute growth to the backward border regions in Thailand
in order to significantly bridge both chronic interregional inequalities in which the
Northeastern has long been a backward region followed by Northern region and intraregional differences. It is also considered as a useful means for possible sharing benefits
with counterpart cities in neighboring countries particularly in the Greater Mekong Sub2
region. This is due to the fact that Thailands existing economy size measured in terms of
Gross National Income Purchasing Power Parity and Gross National Income Per Capita is
relatively larger than Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar. Consequently, notably different
stages of economic and social development between Thailand and those neighboring
countries have been observed. Therefore, this becomes a major influencing factor for
migratory out-flow of a large number of legal and illegal migrant labor from Myanmar,
Cambodia and Lao PDR seeking for jobs in Thailand.
Nevertheless, the advancement of physical connectivity in the form of economic corridors
coupled with a range of facilitations on trade, investment and peoples mobility in the
GMS, in particular, have dynamically opened up room to advance border economic zones
in Thailand. The striking substantiation has been the robust cross-border trade flows
between Thailand and neighboring countries since the last decade which consumers in
neighboring countries can gain a wider variety of access to cheaper quality goods from
Thailand. The trading patterns are becoming quite diverse depending on their comparative
advantage, division of labor and specialization of production. This cross-border trade has
mainly transacted through 71 border points which play important roles, either as collection
or distribution nodes. The locations of these border check points appear in Map 1.2.
Above all, the trend of aggregate cross-border trade tends to be growing, while the share of
aggregate international trade is likely to be declining, which corresponds to the greater
physical connectivity and accessibility in the GMS. Thailand alone seems likely to
constantly secure favorable balance of cross-border trade with less developed neighboring
countries, particularly, Cambodia and Lao PDR. It is clearly justified that these border
nodes in Thailand have been playing crucial roles not only to facilitate cross-border trade
and tourism but also to offer opportunity to perform as border production platforms for
goods and services, which are in vast demands in either immediate or nearby neighboring
countries. Such industrial productions at the borders could be endowed with locational cost
advantage, particularly, labor and access to supply networks in neighboring countries.
Combining locational advantages of the major borders with supportive Royal Thai
Governments initiative to foster closer economic integration and cooperation with less
advanced neighboring countries, it is thus rational to place particular priority for
developing border economic zones in three strategic cross-border regions of Thailand,
which are located along the GMS economic corridors as well as overlapping with Asian
and ASEAN Highways routes connecting with respective cities in bordering countries as
mentioned below:
1) Maesod district in Tak province bordering with Myawaddy district in Kayin state
of Myanmar. Maesod district of Tak province is currently a prominent investment
platform along Thailand-Myanmar border area. It also plays a significant role as major
industrial development location in Northern part of Thailand. Maesod district is home to
labor-intensive industry particularly for garment productions. In 2003, Tak province had
464 factories. Maesod alone hosted 235 factories, which accounted for 51% of the whole
provinces total investment capital of 1,500 million Baht, and generated export values of
3,100 million Bahtper year (NESDB, 2003). The key labor-intensive industries were textile
and garment, canned food, wood furniture, jewelry and accessories. In addition, there was
increasing emergence of service industries (e.g., garage and car maintenance shops, etc.).
The principal reason for investors in locating these industrial plants in Maesod was to take
advantage of cheap labor from Myanmar. In 2003, approximately 10,000 Myanmar
workers were employed in Maesod district. By developing Maesod as border economic
Map 1.2 Locations of border checkpoints in Thailand
Source: The Customs Department, Thailand

Remarks: Temporary Border Checkpoint opens in accordance with special official permission. Local Border Crossing
opens for humanitarian reasons and for retail trade. Songkhla and Chantaburi are international checkpoints.
zone, this location can help penetrate manufactured products and services not only to
Myanmar but also to Bangladesh, India, Srilanka, Nepal and Bhutan, etc.
2) Aranyaprathet district in Sakaeo province bordering with OChrov district in

Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia. This location can export manufactured
products and services not only to Cambodia but also to Vietnam and China, etc.
3) Muang Mukdahan district in Mukdahan province bordering with Kaysone
Phomvihane district in Savannakhet province of Lao PDR. This location can export
manufactured products and services not only to Lao PDR but also to Vietnam, China,
Hong Kong, North and South Korea and Japan, etc.
The proposed border economic zones in Thailand and its potential linkages with
neighboring countries are presented in Figure 1.1.
6
Source: Adapted from Vimolsiri, P. (2008). Sub-regional Cooperation in GMS, ACMECS and IMT-GT: The Way Forward to Regional Integration,
NESDB, Bangkok.
Figure 1.1 Proposed Border Economic Zones in Thailand and Its Potential Linkages with Neighboring Countries
Furthermore, it should be noted that the larger size of Thai economy could lead to
excessive extraction of resources from those less developed neighboring countries which
can exacerbate international development gaps in the Greater Mekong Sub-region.
Therefore, it is still a challenge for Thailand to find ways of using border economic zone as
a means to not only bridge interregional and intra-regional disparities in Thailand, but also
to promote spillover effects towards cross-border regional development in the Greater
Mekong Sub-region in order to ultimately help narrow international development gaps
with these less advanced neighboring countries.
In order to cultivate closer economic integration with neighboring countries, a series of
feasibility studies on establishing border economic zones in Thailand have been conducted
in specific locations (e.g., Maesod district in Tak province, Mukdahan province, as well as
in Sadao district of Songkhla province and Chiang Rai province). However, the results
were general analysis and mainly emphasized on development in the Thai context with
limited empirical evidences to strengthen cross-border linkages with cities in neighboring
countries. Therefore, there is no existing document relevant to cross-border interactions
between Thailand and the surrounding less advanced countries particularly for the above
mentioned 3 cross-border regions. As a result, little is known on how Thailand could
further foster cross-border co-production practices under the border economic zone
framework towards integrated borderlands development in response to increasing regional
economic integration.
1.3 Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of the research covers an important array of cross-border
interactions and trade induced prospect for developing border economic zones in Thailand
and linkages with the cities in neighboring countries namely Myanmar, Cambodia and Lao
PDR. It is shown in Figure 1.2 below.
Figure 1.2 Conceptual Framework
Cross-border trade induced interactions between Thailand and

neighboring countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar)
Policy Instruments
Locational Advantages
Locational advantages of strategic cross-border regions along GMS
Economic Corridors and Asian and ASEAN Highway routes:
Maesod district in Tak province links with Myawaddy district in
Kayin state of Myanmar;
Aranyaprathet district in Sakaeo province connects with OChrov
district in Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia; and
Muang Mukdahan district in Mukdahan province links with Kaysone
Phomvihane district in Savannakhet province of Lao PDR
Analysis of both explicit and implicit special border economic zone

development policies formulated and implemented by the Royal Thai
Government.
Joint border economic zones and development

dynamics in Thailand with respect to three
neighboring countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR and
Myanmar) for comparative analysis
8
Demographic aspect
-Composition
of population
-Local
livelihoods
Economic aspect
Trade
-Cross-border
trade
-Border
wholesale
-Border retail
-Cross-border
shopping
Agriculture
-Cross-border
contract
farming
Industry
- Types of
industries
-Local,
regional and
cross-border
out-sourcing
Social aspect
Investment
- Crossborder joint
venture
Tourism
- Crossborder
people and
vehicle
mobility
- Primary
education
-Secondary
education
- Home
ownership
-Immigrant
labor
movement
Recommendations of strategies to integrate border economic zones in the context of regional and national development
1.4 Hypotheses of the Research

The hypotheses of this research are as follows:
1) National and regional level policies and strategies are vital for border economic
zones in order to boost and catalyze respective national and regional development.
2) Locational advantage of border towns/cities with regional transport networks is
essential for fostering socio-economic and local area development.
3) Cross-border trade regions are expected to gain infrastructural, economic, and
service benefits at the regional scale due to production and trading linkages.
1.5 Objectives of the Research
The broad objective of this research is to investigate the pattern and process of
development around cross-border trade points of Thailand with assessment of potential and
benefits gained through international cross-border trade with reference to neighboring
countries.
The specific objectives are:
1) To assess the locational advantages, linkages and potential with respect to the
neighboring countries and to account for flows of goods and services through crossborder trade.
2) To study the social and economic characteristics of the joint border economic zones
for promoting cross-border production linkages and share of employment and
income potentials.
3) To analyze the policy instruments at different levels for upholding development of
border economic zones.
4) To assess the benefits (infrastructural, services, employment and income, etc.)
gained by respective cross-border regions and more particularly at local and
regional levels.
5) To recommend and formulate strategies for integrating development of border
economic zones in the context of national and regional development.
1.6 Scope and Limitations
The research has been carried out at three cross-border regions in Thailand with reference
to Myanmar, Lao PDR and Cambodia. The underlying reasons to select these areas are
attributed to their long established and increasing linkages as a result of regional
cooperation and integration. The scope of this research will firstly focus on investigations
of locational advantages, linkages of border towns in Thailand with respect to the
counterpart cities in neighboring countries, as well as potential development induced by
cross-border trade flows. Secondly, it examined current demographic, socio-economic and
industrial development of the three joint border economic zones and analyzes the outlook
of shared employment and income potentials on both sides of cross-border regions.
Thirdly, it explored the policy instruments at different levels to facilitate the establishment
of border economic zones. Fourthly, it assessed the benefits (infrastructural, services,
employment and income, etc.) gained by respective cross-border regions and more
particularly at local and regional levels. And lastly, it recommended and formulated
strategy for integrating development of border economic zones in the context of regional
and national development.
In terms of limitations, there is limited availability of secondary data on socio-economic

conditions in the study areas both in Thailand and in neighboring countries. This constraint
has been overcome by employing questionnaire survey. However, the research still
encountered limited access to secondary data particularly in border districts of Cambodia
and Myanmar. In addition, there is certain restriction for a foreign researcher to conduct
such field survey in Myanmar allowing this research to be able to collect sampling sizes of
designed field surveys only at the minimum statistical requirements. All these
shortcomings could partly affect the reliability of findings especially for the study area in
Myanmar.
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review is carried out in order to seek out theoretical and empirical
developments relevant to the research topic. It covers a range of global and regional
context, key concepts on international trade, border theories and development of border
economic zones. This can help converge greater understanding on both theoretical
background and actual practices. The coherent contents of the literature review are as
follows:
Section A: Relevant Theories and Concepts of International Trade and Development
2.1 Classical and Neo-Classical Theory of International Trade
David Ricardo initially grounds classical international trade theory so called comparative
advantage in 1817. He states that other things being equal, a country tends to specialize in
and exports those commodities of which it has maximum comparative cost advantage.
Similarly, the country's imports will be of goods having relatively less comparative cost
advantage (Sumitr and Worabuntoon, 2004). Since then, the international trade model has
been evolving over time influenced by increasing complex factors and technological
changes, which gave rise to emergent neo-classical international trade theories. Among
others, Ohlin (1933) proposes resources and trade theory, in which trade occurs from the
differences of resources between two countries. He states that a country will export goods
that use its abundant factors intensively, and import goods that use its scarce factors
intensively. In the two-factor case, he states that a capital-abundant country will export the
capital-intensive goods, while the labor-abundant country will export the labor-intensive
goods. Tinbergen (1962) rationalizes the gravity model that bilateral trade between any
two countries is positively related to their economic sizes and negatively related to the
relative trade costs between them. Currently, this model has been practically applied to
analyze implications and impacts of various regional trade agreements in the world.
Krugman (1980) further conceives home market effect, which is the tendency for large
countries to be net exporters of goods with high transport costs and strong scale of
production. Hanson and Xiang (2004) conducted empirical research on the home market
effect and bilateral trade patterns. They found that for industries with very high transport
costs, the national market size determines national exports. For industries with moderately
high transport costs, it is the neighborhood market size that matters. In this instance,
national market size plus market size in nearby countries determine national exports.
2.2 Concept of International Development
At global scale, there is existence of uneven global patterns of economic and social
development, which shapes international division of labor. Wallerstein (1974) classifies
the world into areas and nations ranging from core states, semi-peripheral and peripheral
areas, so called World System Theory. Classification depends on stage of development and
control over resources. Core areas are in geographically advantaged parts of the world such
as Europe and North America. The semi-peripheral areas are somewhat intermediate; both
being exploited by the core and take some role in the exploitation of the peripheral areas.
While the peripheral areas are the least developed; they are exploited by the core for their
cheap labor, raw materials and agricultural production. The core-periphery model is
applicable to all spatial levels. At national scale, globalization and regionalization also
11
affect both urban and regional development. Three perspectives are influential in
explaining the spatial divisions of labor through the emergence of regional production
network coordinated by transnational companies (TNCs), which contribute to the rise of
Asia as major center of global production and trade. Firstly, the new International Division
of Labor (INDL) perspective, which Frobel et al. (1980) have identified two qualitative
characteristics. These are (1) an increasing production of manufacturing goods competitive
in the world market is now situated in developing countries, and (2) there has been an
increasing subdivision and fragmentation of commodity production to take advantage of
uneven spatial distribution of factor costs through a correct combination of labor and
capital. Different parts of the labor process may now be spatially separated so that labor
intensive production can be relocated to developing countries to take advantage of the
cheap labor there. The free application of peripheral labor power applied to specific labor
processes in the cores is one distinctive trend. Secondly, to link production in developing
countries with the global economy via TNCs, Gereffi et al. (1964) have defined the global
commodity chain (GCC) approach, which is a specific configuration of sets of interorganizational networks clustered around one commodity or product, linking households,
enterprises and states to one another within the world economy. Thirdly, the flying geese
model is the formation of Japanese regional production networks, converged by changing
factor endowments in individual host countries and the technological superiority of
Japanese firms. As a result, the division of labor in Asia is becoming more vertical (Hatch
and Yamamura, 1996).
2.3 Concept of Regional Trade Bloc
At regional scale, globalization drives economic integration into six stages, namely,
preferential trading area, free-trade area, customs union, common market, economic and
monetary union and complete economic integration (Carbaugh, 2009). Since the mid1980s, there has been a profound change in the structure of the international economy due
to the widespread growth and internal enhancement of regional trading blocs in all parts of
the globe. Thus, countries will cooperate in regional trade blocs for two specific reasons;
one is to gain welfare ultimately for their own citizens. The second is to obstruct the
welfare gains from trade for those states that they consider unfriendly (Reardon, et al.
2002). Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) are a major instrumental feature of todays
multilateral trade system (MTS). The number of preferential agreements, as well as the
world share of preferential trade has been steadily increasing over the last five decades.
Sluggish progress in multilateral trade negotiations under the Doha Development Round
appears to have accelerated further the rush to forge RTAs (Crawford and Fiorentino,
2005). As of March 2011, the GATT/WTO has been notified of 297 effective RTAs
(WTO, 2011). In East Asia alone, there were 50 agreements in place, and another 80 or so
currently being prepared (ADB, 2011). As a result, it is intensifying trend of intra-regional
trade. In 2008, the share of intra-regional merchandise trade in Europe, Asia and North
America were as high as 72.80, 50.10 and 49.80% of total regional exports, respectively
(WTO, 2009).
2.4 Concept of Trade and Development
In terms of contribution of trade for competitiveness development, Porter (1990) conceives
internationally competitive advantage of nations for particular industry, which consists of 4
determinants, namely, factor conditions, demand conditions, related and supporting
industries, and firm strategy, structure and rivalry. To deepen insight on trade for
12
development, Krugman, Obstfeld and Melitz (2010) suggest a trade model on specific
factors and income distribution focusing on 3 factors, namely, labor, capital and territory.
They state a country having capital abundance and less land tends to produce more
manufactured products, while a country with territory abundance tends to produce more
food. Products and services to be traded are obtained from industries which use different
factors and resources in the production, thus, enhancing income distribution. Krugman,
Obstfeld and Melitz (2010) also introduce another standard model of trade which
combined ideas from the Ricardian model, specific factors and the resource and trade
model. They state, under constant circumstance, the exchange rate improvement for a
country implies a substantial rise in the welfare of that country. Concerning trade for
national development, UN Millennium Project (2005) emphasized that trade openness can
be a powerful driver of economic growth, which is indispensable to reduce poverty and
foster a countrys development. Trade alone cannot induce for achieving development; it
should therefore be associated with other institutional, macroeconomic and microeconomic
conditions plus well designed social policies to attain development. On the other hand,
opening up markets to international trade may leave local producers flooded with more
competitive foreign producers. Sustained strong economic growth over longer periods is
strongly related to poverty reduction. Therefore, trade and economic growth are strongly
linked. Countries that develop always enhance their integration with the global economy
through export-led growth strategy.
2.5 Theory of Spatial Division of Labor
Massey (1984) conceives the spatial division of labor, which is a functional division
between regions within an industry. She identifies 3 types of companies consistent to their
approach to utilize the different spatial structure between regions. These are:
(1) Locationally concentrated spatial structure - the company trades only in one region,
localizes its activities in this area, which means it fails to utilize regional differences;
(2) Cloning spatial structures - it is identified by the company trading in several regions
with the head office located in metropolitan or core area while other branch offices are
located in the periphery regions. Branch offices are not connected much and the plants are
linked to other companies in the regions (e.g., subcontractors); and (3) Part-process spatial
structure - branch offices are much less vulnerable. This system is based on branch offices
producing only a part of the product and companies locate their branch offices in regions
corresponding to the requirements of production.
Section B: Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border Regions
2.6 Relationships between Globalization and Regionalization
Sum (2002) particularly distinguished the relationships between supranational
regionalization, which is represented by the emergence of regions such as the European
Union (EU), North America Free Trade Area (NAFTA), Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and
globalization in two main ways. First, the old regionalists perceive regional trading bloc
formation as a means to reduce dependence on the wider global economy. This approach
stated globalization and regionalization as divergent or even opposed trends. Second, the
new regionalists, in contrast, presented a geo-economic explanation to replace the old
geopolitical view. They proposed regionalization strategies are no longer linked to the need
to reduce dependence on the global economy but are oriented to promoting globalization
13
by stimulating supply-side competitiveness at the regional level. In this form,

regionalization and globalization should then be mutually reinforcing.
2.7 Convergent and Divergent Trend of Globalization and Regionalization
Sum (2002) indicated that there are two broad types of convergent and divergent trends of
globalization and regionalization. First, deterritorilization can be understood in terms of
globalized flows of production, finance, information, culture and so on, which are not
territorially defined or constrained. Second, reterritorialization involves actors and their
Table 2.1 Globalization and regionalization in East Asia: the two paths in the
convergence between globalization and regionalization between 1980s and 1997
Paths
Structural
Actors
Involved
Examples of new
Contexts
strategies of
Time-space
re-territorialization imagination fixes
Regional-global- Embedded
Local-national- New (sub)-regional
Growth triangles,
ization
exportism
regional actors division of labor
flying geese
and their
networks
Global-regionali- Global
Global
Trade/investment
APECs open
zation
neoliberalism hegemony
liberalization and
regionalism
(Washington (the US)
regional market
Consensus)
access
Source: Sum, N-L. (2002). Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border Modes of Growth in East Asia:
the (Re-) Constitution of Time-Space Governance, in Perkmann, M. & Ling Sum, N. (Eds.),
Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border Regions (pp.50-76). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Table 2.2 the Main Growth Triangles in Asia since the Early 1980s
Name
Date of inception
Possible sources of export

competitiveness
Cross-border manufacturing of
labor- intensive products
Greater China
Early 1980s
ASEAN growth triangle

Indonesia-Malaysia-Singapore
Growth Triangle (IMS-GT)
1989
Production relocation from

Singapore to Johor and Riau
Indonesia-Malaysia Thailand
Growth Triangle (IMT-GT)
1993
Brunei Darussalam-IndonesiaMalaysia-Philippines East ASEAN

Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA)
1994
Improvement of infrastructural links

and enhancement of sub-regional
competitiveness
Joint natural resources development
and transport linkages
ADB growth triangle

Tumen River Area Growth Triangle
1991
Greater Mekong Sub-region
1991

and improvement of infrastructural
links
and improvement of infrastructural
links
Source: Adapted from Ling Sum, N. (2002). Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border Modes of
Growth in East Asia: the (Re-) Constitution of Time-Space Governance, in Perkmann, M. & Ling
Sum, N. (Eds.), Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border Regions (pp.50-76). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
14
networks that are seeking to capture these global flows and refix them in time and space.
More specifically, the de- and re-terrritorialization processes between the 1980s and the
1977 Asian crisis have promoted a general convergence between globalization and
regionalization. Sum (2002) highlighted that such convergence takes two concurrent and
interrelated paths. First, the regional-globalization direction involved local-nationalregional actors taking the initiatives to reterritorialize the global flows of production,
finance and trade across bordering spaces. Second, the global-regionalization track can be
seen in terms of global actor seeking to regionalize their global neoliberal regime of truth
and practices in Asia-Pacific through the APEC. The emergence and expansion of crossborder regions or growth triangles in East Asia can be seen as part of the first path, in
which regional-national actors expand and relocate embedded exportism to new sites.
Please see the convergence of globalization and regionalization in East Asia in Table 2.1
below. There were linkages between the growth triangles and APEC. The growth triangles
play facilitating role, while the APEC serves an enabling role.
Sum (2002) commented that the loosely organized network nature of the APEC and the
lack of formal agreement have provided room for further expansion of embedded
exportism commenced by other NICs, for example, Singapore. Taking on the success of
the self-organized activities across the Greater China border, Singapore constructed the
cross-border region of Singapore-Johor-Riau (SIJORI)/Indonesia-Malaysia-Singapore
(IMS) as a growth triangle (GT) in December 1989. The identification of this crossborder space as growth triangle stressed the complementarities of these sites in building
sub-regional economic cooperation. During the early 1980s and the 1997 Asian crisis, there
were three stages of growth triangle development, namely: stage 1 with ethnic
networking (Greater China); stage 2 with outward-oriented investment regions (for
example, SIJORI); and stage 3, growth triangle as portable strategy or ADB program.
Simultaneously, Japan also sought to further its regional-globalization by initiating the
growth triangle, which is considered as powerful tool for the promotion of export
competiveness. Than et al. (1994) cited in Sum (2002) found five key factors of success in
different growth triangles consisting of economic complementarity, geographical
proximity, policy commitment, policy coordination and infrastructural development. Please
see the main growth triangles in Asia in Table 2.2.
2.8 Cross-Border Regions
At cross-border scale, Perkmann and Sum (2002) have termed cross-border region (CBR)
as a territorial unit that comprises contiguous sub-national units from two or more nationstates. Than (1997) cited by Jessop (2002) states that trade, based on geographical
proximities and complementarities, has flourished throughout history at the regional and
sub-regional level unless participating countries have prohibited cross-border transactions
for political, security or economic reasons. CBRs may engage creating competitive
advantage by exploiting complementarities among sources of supply, for example
Singapore-Johor-Riau (SIJORI) growth triangle, EU member states and post-socialist
economies. Jessop (2002) proposes that there are at least 9 ways in which CBR have
emerged. These are: (1) CBRs may result from recent selective reinforcement of obscure
forms of economic and political organization that have long existed on the borders of
states, even if disapproved by their respective national states; (2) CBRs may involve a
resurgence of suppressed (but potentially still viable) historical economic spaces following
the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Iron Curtain. The examples are Greater
China, the Greater Mekong Sub-region and the Singapore-Johor-Riau (SIJORI) growth
15
triangles; (3) CBRs may emerge from or be reinforced by the spillover of metropolitan
hinterlands and/or the development of complementary towns in either side of a shared
border; (4) CBRs may come from creation of new functional economic spaces, where there
are complementary resources, common problems or a shared peripheral status prompting a
need for cooperation on issues such as the environment or transport infrastructure. The
examples consist of growth triangles, export-processing zones, innovation setting, gateway
cities and learning regions; (5) CBRs may be promoted by national states in the hope of restabilizing the national scale and enabling national economies to compete more effectively.
This involves re-bordering and de-bordering; (6) CBRs may be supranational bodies that
promote CBRs to undermine the national scale through an initiative arising from above and
below; (7) CBRs may be a reaction to uneven development linked with other sub-, supra-,
Table 2.3 Major Features and Variations in the Level of Interaction in Borderlands
Types of borderlands
Features
Degree of
transnationalism
1. Tension prevails.
None to low
1.Alienated
2. Border is functionally closed, and crossborderlands
border interaction is totally or nearly totally
absent.
3. Residents of each country act as strangers to
each other.
1. Stability is an on and off proposition.
Low to moderate
2.Co-existent
2. Border remains slightly open, allowing for
borderlands
the development of limited binational
interaction.
3. Residents of each country deal with each
other as casual acquaintances, but borderlands
develop closer relationships.
1. Stability prevails most of the time.
Moderate to high
3. Interdependent
2.
Economic
and
social
complementarity
borderlands
prompts increased cross-border interaction,
leading to expansion of borderlands.
3. Borderlands carry on friendly and
cooperative relationships.
1. Stability is strong and permanent.
High to very high
4. Integrated
2. Economies of both countries are functionally
borderlands
merged and there is unrestricted movement of
people and goods across the boundary.
3. Borderlands perceive themselves as
members of one social system.
Source: Martinez (1994) cited in Yang, C. (2006). The Pearl River Delta and Hong Kong: an evolving crossboundary region under one country, two systems, Habitat International 30, 61-86.
or transnational region-building processes. Examples are foreign direct investment that

reinforced the primacy cities and core growth regions in ASEAN, and stimulated a concern
to promote growth triangles and cross-border regions in more peripheral areas; (8) CBRs
may emerge as part of national-building projects in multinational territorial states. This
may reflect the need to enhance national autonomy within a federal state; and (9) CBRs
may emerge from career and institution-building initiatives as political entrepreneurs
exploit opportunities created by the crisis of the national scale, melting of the cold war, the
16
availability of EU policies and grants, supranational deregulation allowing regional

regulation, the development of new infrastructure and logistics, and so on. There are two
broad classifications of CBRs. Martinez (1994) as cited by Yang (2006) categorizes four
paradigms of cross-border interactions, namely, alienated borderlands, co-existent
borderlands, interdependent borderlands and integrated borderlands. The features of these
paradigms of cross-border interaction are illustrated in Table 2.3.
Moreover, Krtke (2002) differentiates three types of cross-border cooperation based on
different geographical scales of cross-border linkages between regional economies. They
are: Type A (Long-distance international cooperation) - the impact does not directly affect
the border region, although, it might have the effect of detracting possible investments
from the border region); Type B (Supra-regional structured cooperation) - it omits one part
of the border region, including the linkage between firms in one part of the border region
and firms located outside the border area in neighboring country; and Type C (Regionally
integrated cooperation) - it involves a linkage between firms on both sides of the border
within the border area. The specific features of types of cooperation are exhibited in Figure
2.1.
Source: Kratke, S. (2002). Cross-Border Cooperation and Regional Development in German-Polish Border
Area, in Perkmann, M. & Ling Sum, N. (Eds.), Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border
Regions (pp.125-147). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Figure 2.1 Geographic scales of cross-border cooperation: Type A - long distance

pattern (international); Type B - supra-regional; Type C - regionally
integrated.
17
Section C: Concepts of Borderlands Development

2.9 Concept of Border Economics
Fullerton (2003) argues that border economics is still a new subject area. It has originated
from growing recognition to study economic phenomena within the unique contexts
entailed by geo-politics. It is now gaining much attention due to greater cross-border
economic integration in many regions of the world. He highlights key features of border
economics in which research studies are being undertaken on the following five variables:
Population: Many studies involve border between economies that are characterized by
substantial income differentials such as Mexico and the United States. When accompanied
by high rates of joblessness, income disparities between countries frequently result in
migratory outflows from low earning regions to higher income markets.
Business cycle transmission: Economic integration in association with rapid financial
and commercial liberalization influence border economic performance including retail
border trade.
Exchange rates: Most border economies still conduct business transactions that are
affected by exchange rate transaction in addition to the worldwide emergence of dominant
currencies such as the dollar and the euro. Impacts of currency market fluctuation on retail
segments in border contexts have been directly studied.
Industrial development and labor markets: Devaluation of currency can accelerate
foreign direct investment, for example in Maquiladora or export manufacturing sector,
where both sides of the border/city pairs gained benefits. Nevertheless, it may not be the
case in other parts of the world. Cross-border industrial linkages influence a wide range of
regional economic outcomes.
Natural resources economics: Environmental consequences of industrial expansion
and economic growth at border regions is one of the major concerns particularly on
negative externalities. It is challenging to jointly manage and utilize natural resources and
public utility (e.g., energy services).
2.10 Border Theories
Several studies conceive borders from a spatial perspective, which are derived from
international trade, location and central place theories. For instance, Alegria (1989) as cited
by Pea (2005) categorizes two central premises that determine the inter-urban hierarchy
of border space. (1) The origin, destination and intensity of the flows (capital, goods and
labor) are the key to differentiate the interaction of simultaneous processes in one spacenational, transborder and transnational. (2) The geographical adjacency of structural
differences (price, quality of goods and choices, etc.) intensifies transborder processes.
Krugman and Livas (1992) differentiate between dynamic and static comparative
advantages of regions. Dynamic advantages are those variables that differ across regions
and that are directly related to productivity such as human capital and physical capital.
Static advantages are those attributes that are fixed and unique to a specific region such as
access to the sea or being located at the border. Hanson (1996) supports that static
locational advantages lower transport costs. Therefore, borders and ports are natural sites
to locate production and natural centers for international trade. Sassen (2001) argues that
globalization has produced a worldwide urban hierarchy system, which is a complex
network of production. Consequently, its hierarchy of cities responds to international
system of urban hierarchy rather than a national urban system. This implies that in regions
or cities where international trade plays a key role such as border region, the urban
18
hierarchy of these cities responds to external factors than internal ones. Sassen (2001)
deliberates that there are also tendencies towards specialization among different cities
within a country.
Concerning dynamic internal borders, Houtum (2000) defines trends within geographical
studies in terms of the European Union integration process and discovers commonalities of
themes and methods within them. He then found three different approaches of European
economic and regional geographical border studies, which comprise flows and barriers,
cross-border cooperation, and people. Brunet Jailley (2005) conceptualizes the theory of
borderland studies. He hypothesizes that if each analytical lens enhances or complements
one another, what emerges is a borderland region that is culturally emerging and is
integrating. The four equally important analytical lens include: (1) Market forces and trade
flows - flows of goods, people and investments span the border and borderland; (2) Policy
activities of multiple levels of government on adjacent borders - multilevel governance
spans the border to link Type 1 (local, regional, provincial, state and central governments)
and Type 2 (task specific public and private sector organizations); (3) Local cross-border
political clout - active local civic and political organizations and individuals initiate and
expand local level relations, local policy network, local policy communities, symbolic
regime and local cross-border institutions. All span the border and borderland; and
(4) Local cross-border culture - sense of belonging, common language or ethnic, religious,
and socio-economic background span the border and borderland.
Boehmer and Pena (2012) theorize the determinants of open and closed borders. They
found that the greater the differential in development between neighboring states, the less
likely the richer state will be open to citizens from its poorer neighbor. The presence of
urban settlements, enduring peace and democracy increase the likelihood of border
openness between neighboring states, although international trade has no effect on the
degree of openness. Using a planning perspective, Haselsberger (2014) proposes normative
border concept. It is classified into thick and thin borders. Thick borders are extremely
rigid. While Thin borders are permeable for certain kinds of flows. Haselsberger (2014)
also introduces a dynamic border interpretation framework seeking to create a fundamental
basis in understanding how the different functions and components of boundaries work
together to constantly create and diminish borders. She classifies borders into 4 categories
namely geopolitical, sociocultural, economic and biophysical boundaries.
In relation to emergence of cross-border metropolitan region, Van Geenhuizen and Ratti
(2001) rationalizes the advantages that flow from a greater opening up of borders are
linked to three factors. These are the presence of opportunities for interaction, the limited
impact of any residual barriers, and the capacity of actors to face new challenges. Sohn
(2012) further identifies the forms the border as resource can take for cross-border
metropolises by using four advantages. Firstly, the border as positional benefit: It results
from putting forward the border function of demarcation. The moment a border opens up,
border areas present the undeniable advantage of being located close to the bordering
region helping reduce transport costs. Cross-border metropolis can lead to two particular
forms of advantage. The first results from the gateway status to which certain cities close
to a border can aspire. On the one hand, the function of territorial gateway makes it
possible to capture international flows, people or goods. On the other hand, the proximity
of foreign markets creates opportunity for export businesses (Niebuhr and Stiller, 2002).
Secondly, the border as differential benefit: It rests on the ability to harness the
comparative advantage to be had from border differentials relating to costs (labor, land,
19
currency, water) or in differences in tax regimes and regulations. Based on an international

division of labor, the localization of low-cost industries (tariffs factories) in border regions
adjoining a metropolitan center and characterized by important differentials with respect to
cost, constitutes a remarkable phenomenon of economic interaction, which is at the origin
of the development of cross-border urban areas.
Thirdly, the border as a locus of hybridization: As a setting for the confrontation of
different representations, ideas, values and codes, the border, when it is also a zone of
contact, can equally be a source of stimulus leading to hybrid formations or the invention
of new ways of doing and thinking. Contrary to the rational of a differential benefit, the
opportunity in this case does not stem from optimizing the conditions of production and
consumption for profit, but it is founded on overcoming constraints by enhancing
differences and processes of adaptation, as well as mutual learning negotiated through
daily contacts (Newman, 2003). And lastly, the border as object of recognition: The border
is also exploited in order to promote recognition of cross-border metropolises as places of
special interest. This is a less well-known aspect which stages the property of affirmation.
Having remained for a long time, the priviledge of states who used it to stage their power
or intentions, this function was closely linked to those of differentiation and separation.
Following the revitalization of the role of the state and the recomposition of borders, this
quality of affirmation has since been used by other actors, notably those working to
develop cross-border territorial projects.
2.11 Concept of Border Industrialization/ Export Manufacturing Sector or Border
Economic Zone and Its Applications
1) Origins, Characteristics and Progresses
The Border Industrialization Program commonly known as Maquiladora program/ Export
Manufacturing and Assembly Sector or Border Economic Zone (BEZ) has primarily been
developed in Mexico since 1965 (Pipkin and Samstad, 2005). Brouthers et al. (1999)
summarized the origins of the Maquiladora, which were mostly located in the northwestern
frontier known as the Zona Libre or free zone. It consisted of the state of Baja, California
and certain cities in Sonora that functioned as free ports. In these regions, official Mexican
import substitution policies (high tariffs, import permits and restrictions on foreign
investment) were not followed in the Zona Libre because the Mexican government found it
is very difficult to enforce them in the regions along the westernmost U.S./Mexico border.
As a result, U.S. trade and investment in the free zone was primarily unrestricted. This
facilitated U.S. and Mexican entrepreneurs to develop their business with modest regard
for border between the two countries. The primary businesses in the Zona Libre which
manufactured in Mexico using inputs from the U.S. (without formal recognition from
either the U.S. or Mexican governments), set the stage for the more formalized Maquila
factories that succeeded.
Apart from the favorable conditions generated by the concept of Zona Libre, they further
elaborated that unemployment in Mexico along its border with the U.S. became a concern
for the Mexican government when the U.S. ended the Bracero program in 1964. The
Bracero program had allowed Mexican workers to enter the United States temporarily,
work on U.S. farms, and return to Mexico at the end of season. To promote employment at
the border cities, the Mexican Government therefore formulated the plan to increase border
industrialization by establishment of manufacturing within free zones in the northern
20
border cities, as well as promoting technology transfer to domestic industry (Brannon et

al., 1994).
In relation to the Customs duty, all raw materials, parts and machinery are imported into
Mexico on a temporary duty free basis for up to 18 months. For machinery, this can be
extended indefinitely. For raw materials and parts, they must leave the country as finished
goods on a first in first out basis over the 18 month period. If a Maquiladora desires to
import NAFTA goods into the country on a permanent basis, it may do so without duty,
but the company will have to pay the Mexican VAT rate of 10% on the value of the goods.
The major industries in the Maquiladoras were apparel, electronics and electrical
equipment and automobile sectors (Brannon et al., 1994 and Sargent and Matthews, 2003).
According to Brouthers et al. (1999), Maquiladora manufacturing has expanded in four
distinct stages, namely entrepreneurial expansion, regional expansion, multinational
expansion and NAFTA expansion. Each stage is characterized by increasing
competiveness. They remarked that NAFTA provisions also benefited Maquila
manufacturing, creating additional demand for Maquila plants from firms committed to the
North American market.
2) Recent Discourses on Development Contribution of Maquiladoras/ Border
Economic Zones or Export Manufacturing Sector
After implementing the Maquiladoras for over four decades, there have been criticisms on
its development contribution, either advantages or disadvantages. Relevant researches
commented on both economic and employment advantages. Nevertheless, there existed
some disadvantages comprising of social, environmental, ethical and equitable
development issues. Please see relevant discourse on development contribution of
Maquiladoras in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4 Development Contribution of Maquiladoras/Export Manufacturing Sector
or Border Economic Zones
Advantages
Disadvantages
Sources
1. Impressive economic
performance during 1980s and
1990s. In the early 1993, more than
2,000 plants were established,
mostly foreign owned and
employed over 500,000 workers.
1. It has not yet gone beyond the stage of being

primarily enclave of foreign interests through the
virtually complete industry reliance on imported
materials or less than 2% of Mexican content.
Although the location on Mexican territory of an
economic activity employs workers and generates
value added exports, the contribution to Mexican
economic growth and development falls short of
its potential as it is not integrated into the rest of
the regional economy or the national economy.
2. There have been reports of human rights abuse
for the low-wage Maquila workers. Some jobs
and plant displacements from U.S. to Mexican
maquiladoras.
Brannon et al.,
1994 and CarrilloHuerta and
Urquidi, 1989
cited in Brannon
et al., 1994
3. Dichotomies exist on both sides in

manufacturing and agriculture. Maquiladora did
not provide Mexico with capital goods for its
Pick et al., 2001
2. The establishment of
Maquiladoras and subsequent
growth represent a major change in
Mexicos import substitution and
foreign investment policies. And
Maquilas were in a very
competitive position because the
laws were well-established and
working smoothly by the time
NAFTA went into effect in January
1994.
3. The Maquila is a key economic
driver and attractor of workforce.
Further, the maquiladora industry
21
Brouthers et al.,
1999
Advantages
Disadvantages
on the Mexican side contributed to

the enhanced proportion of service
workers and reduced agricultural
workers than for the rest of the
nation.
domestic market, instead, sold goods almost

exclusively into the U.S. market. Maquildora
industrialization and rapid population growth led
to environmental impacts on native vegetation,
changes to natural river flows and lakes.
3.1 The transformation of the border region
altered the urban order.
3.2 The border in many respects is regarded as
different country so called Amexica.
3.3 A region with population growth constrained
by natural resources will limit border
industrialization.
3.4 Lack of planning on the Mexican side and to a
lesser extent, on the U.S. side.
3.5. Large reaches of rural and sometimes
physically harsh areas are often ignored by
planners of both nations.
4. Often been condemned as dependent on low
wages, substandard working conditions, weak or
nonexistent
unionization
and
negligent
environmental standards.
5. As majority of workers are women, the maquila
industry has been accused of the sexual
exploitation of women, forced overtime, and
illegal working conditions for child labor.
5.1 Profits generated from maquiladoras are
typically sent back to the United States, or other
investor-based countries. Therefore, maquiladoras
do not promote direct economic development
within Mexico.
5.2 Maquiladoras in Mexico have been on the
decline since 2000 due to the competition and
introduction of low-cost offshore assembly like
Taiwan, China, and countries in Central America.
5.3 Environmental degradation is mainly from
intense industrialization. Environmental hazards
associated with some maquiladoras include
polluted rivers and contaminated drinking water.
4. A source of much needed

employment growth and foreign
exchange earnings throughout the
1980s and 1990s.
5. By the late twentieth century, the
industry accounted for
approximately 25 percent of
Mexicos gross domestic product,
and 17 percent of total Mexican
employment.
5.1 Maquiladoras, in general are
best represented among operations
that are particularly assembly
intensive.
5.2 In 2002, despite the decline,
there still exists over 3,000
maquiladoras along the 2,000 milelong United StatesMexico border,
providing employment for
approximately one million workers,
and importing more than $51
billion in supplies into Mexico.
Sources
Samstad and
Pipkin, 2005
Compiled by the
Author.
3) Applications of Border Economic Zone Concept in Asia

In Asian region, this concept is proliferating during recent decades. Such zones have been
implemented, i.e. between Guangdong province of China and Hong Kong; between
Indonesia and Singapore; between Johor Bahru state of Malaysia and Singapore and
between North Korea and South Korea. Other existing BEZs along the GMS corridors are
between China and Myanmar; between China and Vietnam; between Vietnam and
Cambodia; and between Vietnam and Lao PDR. A few BEZs are under planning and
evolution process, i.e. between North Korea and China; between China and Russia; and
between India and Pakistan. The current key border economic zones in Asian regions are
shown in Table 2.5 below.
22
Table 2.5 Current Development of Border Economic Zones in Asia

Name of Border
Economic Zones
Bordering
Countries
Year of
Establish
ment
2003
Employ
ment
Area
Type of trade and

industries promoted
NA
NA
Export processing
zone, free trade zone,
free service and logistic
center
NA
1. Savan Seno Special

Economic Zone in
Savannakhet province
Lao PDR and

Thailand
2. Myawaddy Special
Border Economic Zone in
Kayin state
3. Iskandar Malaysia
in Johor state
Myanmar and
Thailand
2008
NA
173
hectares
Malaysia and
Singapore
2006
NA
4. Xa Mat Economic Border

Gate in Tay Ninh province
Vietnam and
Cambodia
2003
NA
221,634.1
0 hectares
(2,216.3
Km2)
34,197
hectares
5. Moc Bai Border

Economic Zone in Tay Ninh
province
6. Lao Bao Special
Commercial and Economic
Zone in Quang Tri Province
7. Ruili Border Economic
Cooperation Zone in
Yunnan province
Vietnam and
Cambodia
2005
NA
21,283
Hectares
Vietnam and
Lao PDR
2005
NA
NA
NA
China and
Myanmar
1992
NA
NA
8. Wanding Border
Economic Cooperation Zone
in Yunnan province
China and
Myanmar
1992
NA
6 Km2.
9. Hekou Border Economic

Cooperation Zone in
Yunnan province
China and
Vietnam
1993
NA
NA
North Korea and

South Korea
2003
By 2012,
created
725,000
jobs
By 2012,
covered
25 Sq.
mile
Import and export trade

includes the processing
industry, local
agriculture and
biological resources
Development in
trading, processing,
agriculture resources
and tourism
Main export products
include clothing, cotton
yarn, ceresin wax,
mechanical equipment,
batteries, fruits, rice
seeds and tobacco
Low-end and labor
intensive industry such
as shoes, clothes and
watches
10. Kaesong Industrial

Complex
An economic,
industrial and services
cluster
Wood processing,
office products,
handicrafts,
manufacture of
electronic components,
electrical appliances,
household goods and
garments
NA
Source: Compiled by the Author.
4) Proposed Development of Special Border Economic Zones in Thailand

In 2004, Thailand designated Maesod district of Tak province as a pilot BEZ. However,
the implementation of this plan got delayed due to lack of understanding on BEZ among
the stakeholders. However, there is current effort to revive translating BEZ into real
practice. As a result, Thailand is under planning process of formulating comprehensive
strategies for development of border economic zones in 5 cross-border regions consisting
of: 1) Northern region comprising Maesai, Chiangsaen and Chiang Khong districts of
Chiangrai province and Maesod district of Tak province; 2) Northeastern region consisting
23
of Mukdahan, Nakhon Phanom and Nongkhai provinces; 3) Eastern region comprising of

Sakaeo and Trad provinces; 4) Western region representing Kanchanaburi province; and
5) Southern region consisting of Sadao district in Songkhla province and Narathiwat
province (Manager Online, 2014).
2.12 Consolidated Implications for Adopting Development of Border Economic Zone
Concept
The consolidated implications for adopting development of border economic zones
particularly based on the United States and Mexico practical experiences can be
categorized into 4 levels as follows:
1) At the Bilateral Level
Border economic zones can foster cross-border production, trade and investment linkages.
NAFTA drives demands for different goods, as well as attract operations of border
industrialization for supplying North American market. However, some jobs and plant
displacements from U.S. to Mexican maquiladoras have been reported.
2) At the National Level
The Maquila is a key economic driver and attractor of workforce and foreign exchange
earnings of Mexico throughout the 1980s and 1990s.The establishment of Maquiladoras,
which are mainly assembly intensive production and subsequent growth, represent a major
change in Mexicos import substitution and foreign investment policies. Further, the
maquiladora industry on the Mexican side contributed to the enhanced proportion of
service workers and reduced agricultural workers than for the rest of the nation. In the
early 1993, more than 2,000 plants were established, mostly foreign owned and employed
over 500,000 workers. By the late twentieth century, the industry accounted for
approximately 25 percent of Mexicos gross domestic product and 17 percent of total
Mexican employment. In 2002, despite the decline due to the competition and introduction
of low-cost offshore assembly such as Taiwan, China, and countries in Central America,
there still exists over 3,000 maquiladoras along the 2,000 mile-long United StatesMexico
border, providing employment for approximately one million workers and importing more
than $51 billion in supplies into Mexico. Nevertheless, Maquiladoras did not provide
Mexico with capital goods for its domestic market, instead, sold goods almost exclusively
into the U.S. market. And profits generated from maquiladoras are typically sent back to
the United States, or other investor-based countries. Therefore, maquiladoras do not
promote direct economic development within Mexico.
3) At the Regional Level
Although the location on Mexican territory of an economic activity employs workers and
generates value added exports, the contribution to Mexican economic growth and
development falls short of its potential as it is not integrated into the rest of the regional
economy or the national economy. Also, it has not yet gone beyond the stage of being
primarily enclave of foreign interests through the virtually complete industry reliance on
imported materials or less than 2% of Mexican content. Dichotomies exist on both sides in
manufacturing and agriculture. The transformation of the border region altered the urban
order in Mexico. The border in many respects is regarded as different country so called
Amexica. A region with population growth constrained by natural resources will limit
border industrialization. And there is a lack of planning on the Mexican side and to a lesser
extent, on the U.S. side.
24
4) At the Local Level

It is a key source of local economic driver and employment. But, it is often condemned as
dependent on low wages, substandard working conditions, weak or nonexistent
unionization. Maquiladora industrialization and rapid population growth led to
environmental impacts on native vegetation, changes to natural river flows and lakes.
Large reaches of rural and sometimes physically harsh areas are often spatially excluded
by planners of both nations. As majority of workers are women, the Maquila industry has
been accused of the sexual exploitation of women, forced overtime, and illegal working
conditions for child labor.
25
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In order to carry out the preceding research objectives, the research design has consistently
been undertaken following essential research methodology elements. The detailed research
design and procedures are as follows:
3.1 Type of Research
This comparative study is a combination of descriptive and explanatory research with
distinct justifications as follows:
Descriptive research in the sense that it presents a picture of the specific
details of economic and social settings of the studied cross-border regions between
Thailand and neighboring countries including Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar, as well
as highlights cross-border interactions.
Explanatory research in the sense that it explains cross-border linkages in order to
rationalize on why it happens in that way, as well as proposes prospective integrated
development strategies of joint cross-border economic zones.
3.2 Type of Research Design
It is primarily a quantitative research through survey design utilizing various types of
questionnaires. The research is also supplemented with qualitative research design
employing multiple methods, namely, reconnaissance survey, key informant interview,
non-participant observation and focus group discussion with border community leaders.
3.3 Unit of Analysis
There are multi-unit of analysis covering household, individual business unit or company,
industrial plant, border city, national and bilateral levels. Multi-unit of analysis is helpful to
reflect linkages between different dimensions of study. These are derived from the above
mentioned objectives. Please find a detailed research coordination schema in Appendix A.
3.4 Selection of Study Areas and Criteria
The selection of study areas mainly apply purposive sampling based on the specific
criteria, in which it should be the most strategic cross-border regions linking Thailand with
neighboring countries consisting of Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar. The study areas
possess highest development potentials of becoming special border economic zones due to
strong intensity of cross-border trade flow, people and vehicle mobility and local border
industrial development. The study areas likewise are located along the GMS economic
corridors, as well as overlapping with Asian and ASEAN Highways routes. As a result, the
study areas corresponding to the above mentioned criteria are as follows:
Cross-Border Region 1: Aranyaprathet district in Sakaeo province bordering with
OChrov district in Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia;
Cross-Border Region 2:Maesod district in Tak province bordering with Myawaddy
district in Kayin state of Myanmar; and
Cross-Border Region 3: Muang Mukdahan district in Mukdahan province
bordering with Kaysone Phomvihane district in Savannakhet province of Lao PDR.
The locations of these cross-border regions appear in Figure 1.1.
26
3.5 Sampling Design and Procedures

The research adopts Stratified Random Sampling. The sampling design is divided into 6
major groups which are cross-border traders, border wholesalers and retailers, industrial
developers, cross-border shoppers, and border households. The research applied Stratified
Random Sampling using a Simplified Formula developed by Yamane (1967) to calculate
the sample size as follows:
N
n
1 N (e) 2
Where n is the sampling size, N is the population size, and e is the level of precision.
The research adopts 5% level of precision. If there is a large number of population, the
research strictly follows the equation. If the total number of population is less than 30, the
research shall then take all population to represent as sampling size. Also, if the total
number of population is unknown, the research shall take the minimum of 30 samples.
Therefore, the total number of all types of field questionnaires is 1,692 samples. The
specific sampling designs for each group are as follows:
1) Border traders. They are divided into three categories of respondents
comprising a total of 578 sampling size as follows:
Table 3.1 Number of all types of border traders and number of sample size in 2009
Cross-Border Region
Thailand
Aranyaprathet district in
Sakaeo province
Number of population
Border
Border
Crossretailers
wholesalers border
traders
NA
NA
37
Number of sample size

Border
Border
Crossretailers
wholesalers border
traders
48
30
22
(22 are in
operation )
15
NA
15
31
15
Cambodia
OChrov District of
Banteay Meanchey
province
Thailand
Muang Mukdahan
465
NA
75
57
30
district in Mukdahan
province
Lao PDR
Kaysone Phomvihane
NA
NA
56
30
30
district in Savannakhet
province
Thailand
Maesod district in Tak
NA
59
100
30
33
province
Myanmar
Myawaddy district in
NA
NA
NA
30
30
Kayin state
Total
465
74
283
226
171
Source: Number of cross-border traders obtained from border customs authorities in Thailand,
Cambodia and Lao PDR in 2009.
Number of border retailers and wholesalers obtained from field surveys.
Note: NA stands for no exact data are available.
27
15
30
30
54
30
181
Cross-border traders consist of either registered companies or registered merchants

who regularly conduct either cross-border trade with neighboring countries or transit trade
with nearby countries on a commercially large scale basis.
Local border wholesalers represent those registered merchant shops which are
mainly operated on wholesaling basis.
Local border retailers are either formal retailers who are registered and
permanently located their retail shops in the border cities, or informal retailers regardless
of nationality, who are unregistered and temporarily cross the border for trading.
2) Cross-border shoppers. The study applies random sampling of cross-border
shoppers at the cross-border regions. There is a total of 332 samples across the crossborder regions presented in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Numbers of sample size of cross-border shoppers in 2009
Cross-Border Region
Thailand
Aranyaprathet district in Sakaeo province
Cambodia
OChrov District of Banteay Meanchey province
Thailand
Muang district in Mukdahan province
Lao PDR
Kaysone Phomvihane district in Savannakhet
province
Thailand
Maesod district in Tak province
Myanmar
Myawaddy district in Kayin state
Total
Number of sample size

30
30
106
106
30
30
332
Source: Field surveys.

3) Local border industrial developers
Department of Industrial Works of Thailand (2009) classifies major industries into 21
categories as follows:
(1) Basic agro-industry
(2) Food
(3) Beverage
(4)Textile
(5) Wearing apparel
(6) Leather products and footwear
(7) Wood and wood products
(8) Furniture and fixture
(9) Paper and paper products
(10) Printing, publishing, allied products
(11) Chemical and chemical products
(12) Petroleum products
(13) Rubber products
(14) Plastic products
(15) Non-metal products
(16) Basic metal products
(17) Fabricated products
28
(18) Machinery
(19) Electrical machinery and supplies
(20) Transport equipment
(21) Other manufacturing industries
The specific types of industrial plants operated in the cross-border regions between
Thailand and Myanmar, Cambodia, and Lao PDR are identified in accordance with the
above classification of industries. There are a total of 253 samples which appear in Table
3.3 below.
Table 3.3 Industrial developers in the study areas and numbers of sample size in 2009
Cross-Border
Region
Number
of
Factory
Capital
Investment
(Million
Baht)
Thailand
Aranyaprathet
district in Sakaeo
province
40
(20
factories
in
operation)
NA
456.30
Labor Force
(Person)
Male
Female
293
611
Total
Labor
Force
(Person)
904
Number of
Sample
Size
(Number
of Factory)
20
NA
NA
NA
NA
30
Cambodia
OChrov District
of Banteay
Meanchey
province
Thailand
Muang district in
227
2,872
1,803
600
2,403
43
Mukdahan
province
Lao PDR
Kaysone
412
NA
NA
NA
NA
61
Phomvihane
district in
Savannakhet
province
Thailand
Maesod district
251
2,055.99
9,704
25,298
35,002
69
in Tak province
Myanmar
Myawaddy
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30
district in Kayin
state
Total
910
5,384.29
11,800
26,509
38,309
253
Source: Provincial Industrial Development Offices in the border cities of Thailand and Lao PDR in
2009.
Note: NA means there is unavailable of exact data.
4) Local border households. Using survey questionnaires, the study conducted interview
of heads of local border households. A total of 529 samples across the cross-border regions
are covered. The sampling size in a particular cross-border region is shown in Table 3.4.
29
Table 3.4 Numbers of sample size for border households in 2009

Cross-Border Region
Number of
Number of Number of
population
household sample size
(Person)
(Household)
Thailand
Aranyaprathet district in Sakaeo
province
87,018
33,554
58
Cambodia
129,315
25,950
103
OChrov District of Banteay
Meanchey province
128,886
41,516
101
Thailand
Muang Mukdahan district in
Mukdahan province
Lao PDR
Kaysone Phomvihane district in
117,821
19,018
159
Savannakhet province
Thailand
Maesod district in Tak province
119,471
44,977
78
Myanmar
Myawaddy district in Kayin
53,000
10,150
30
state
Total
635,511
175,165
529
Source: Numbers of population and numbers of household gathered from district offices in the
studied border cities of Thailand, Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar.
Note: Normal sample sizes are based on sampling calculation. But sample sizes in both OChrov
district in Cambodia and Kaysone Phomvihane district in Lao PDR are collected above
minimum statistical sampling requirements due to convenient arrangements during field
surveys.
3.6 Target Informants

The target informants consist of various sources as follows:
Cross-border traders, border wholesalers and border retailers;
Industrial developers;
Customs and provincial trade officials;
Cross-border shoppers;
Cross-border transportation service providers;
Members of provincial and local chambers of commerce;
Members of provincial industry federation;
Heads of village and Tambon (sub-district);
Tambon (Sub-District) Administration Organization representatives;
Provincial and district administration officers; and
Central government informants involved in cross-border trade promotion, industrial
development, infrastructure, transportation and services along border areas.
3.7 Data Sources
The data are derived from both secondary and primary sources as follows:
3.7.1 Secondary Data Sources. Data related to relevant theoretical supports are
collected from books and journal articles. In Thailand, data are gathered from various
government organizations (e.g., Department of Customs, provincial offices, National
30
Statistical Offices, Office of the Board of Investment, Bank of Thailand, Office of the
National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), line ministry agencies,
provincial commercial offices, industry and transport offices, provincial and national
chamber of commerce and relevant internet websites). They are also collected from similar
organizations in Myanmar, Cambodia and Lao PDR. Such required data across the crossborder regions consist of profiles of the study locations, statistics of cross-border trade and
tourism flows between Thailand and Myanmar, Cambodia and Lao PDR, existing urban
development, statistics on industrial and commercial registrations, joint venture company
registrations, cross-border outsourcing activities, current value chain management and
statistics on border infrastructure, logistics and services.
3.7.2 Primary Data Sources. Primary data are gathered from various sources as
follows:
Survey using questionnaires covering demographic, economic and social aspects of
cross-border traders, border wholesalers and retailers in the cross-border regions are
conducted. Please find detailed questionnaires in Appendix B, C and D.
Questionnaires of cross-border shoppers appear in Appendix E.
Local border industrial developer questionnaires appear in Appendix F.
Local border household questionnaires are shown in Appendix G.
Checklist for focus group discussion with community leaders on perceptions of
development dynamics of border cities towards promotion as border economic zones
appears in Appendix H.
Checklist for key informant interview of border provincial governors appears in
Appendix I.
Checklist for key informant interview of border provincial chamber of commerce,
industrial federation and cross-border logistics service providers appears in Appendix J.
3.8 Data Collection Methods
The data collection methods employed are as follows:
3.8.1 Primary Data Collection Methods. It is linked with 3.7.2 where secondary data
are unavailable. At least 5 methods are subsequently applied which are:
1) Reconnaissance survey. It was undertaken in July 2009 in order to get oriented to the
study areas and to be familiar with local border people in the study areas. It was also
helpful to search for records or statistics relevant for research, as well as to identify
necessary resources and contacts needed in carrying out the research.
2) Questionnaire survey. It was conducted in August 2009 to February 2012 by asking 6
target groups of informants comprising of cross-border traders, border wholesalers and
retailers, cross-border shoppers, border industrial developers and border households.
3) Non-Participant Observation. It was performed both during reconnaissance surveys
and while conducting field questionnaire surveys. This could help in gaining insights on
characteristics of study areas, socio-economic and cultural interactions, problems of crossborder trade, infrastructure development and services, urban development patterns, urban
environmental problems, community life styles, people and vehicle mobility at the crossborder regions between Thailand and Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar.
4) Key Informant Interview/Checklist. This was carried out through interview with
major stakeholders including local and provincial administration, customs and trade
31
officials, border and provincial industrial developers and local border community-based
enterprises, local border NGOs in the cross-border regions, etc.
5) Focus Group Discussion. This was held to collect data from community leaders on
communities perception and impacts resulting from changing border economic and social
conditions (e.g., employment of illegal immigrant labor from neighboring countries, likely
formation of community-based enterprises and linkages with local industries, as well as
impact of governments policies on cross-border contract farming, etc.).
3.8.2 Secondary Data Collection Methods. It is linked with 3.7.1 by conducting
thorough literature review from various sources (e.g., journal articles, internet websites,
books, government and private sectors reports and relevant statistics of government
organizations, etc.).
3.9 Selected Data Analysis and Techniques
The study uses both qualitative and quantitative analysis and techniques as follows:
3.9.1 Quantitative analysis This consists of:
Locational and trend analysis focus on flows of cross-border trade of goods,
vehicle and peoples mobility and cross-border contract farming.
Descriptive statistics are frequency, percentage, mean and standard
deviation and statistical tests e.g., Chi Square and Fisher Exact.
3.9.2 Qualitative Analysis This applies literature review, content and policy
analysis, as well as comparative cross-border and SWOT analysis.
Results of the above mentioned analysis are presented in the form of graphs, tables and
charts.
32
CHAPTER 4
POLICY ANALYSIS: DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIAL BORDER
ECONOMIC ZONES IN THAILAND
This chapter presents policy analysis in Thailand conducive to development of special
border economic zones. It includes evolution and analysis of current special border
economic zone development policies. It seeks to understand why and how the policy is
developed at a particular time and the intended effects of those policies.
4.1 Evolution of Special Border Economic Zone Development Policies in Thailand
Thailand adopts 5-year national development plan to guide development paths. Over 54
years of national development planning, spatial development policies are continually
evolving in line with national and sectoral development progress, which can be classified
into 4 distinct periods. Each period is characterized by specific spatial development
advancement. The first period (1961-1966) focuses on developing key infrastructure
projects as backbone for national development, as well as attracting private investments.
The second period (1967-1981) emphasizes on promoting regional and rural development
including creating jobs and income distribution to peripheral regions. The third period
(1982-2001) adopts Area Approach planning for identifying development programs and
projects by promoting regional development, which concentrates on fostering regional
growth centers and the Eastern Seaboard Development Program. It also focuses on urban,
rural and specific areas development. The fourth period (2002-2015) recently shifts
towards upholding rural-urban relations and development of special border economic
zones (SBEZs) along the Greater Mekong Economic Corridors in order to grasp potential
of proliferating regional cooperation and integration programs particularly for the
Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy (ACMECS), the
Greater Mekong Sub-region Economic Cooperation Program, and the ASEAN Economic
Community as integral part of the ASEAN Community.
To materialize the concept of SBEZ, its ultimate goals are not only to reduce both interregional and intra-regional disparities, but also to create production bases along border
areas, as well as coping with border labor shortage. It also aims to minimize impacts of
continuing influx of illegal immigrant labor and low quality agricultural produce from
neighboring countries into Thailand. Yet, progress has been gradually made because this
concept is truly new for Thailand. As a result, different efforts have been made in various
governments. Chronologically, the Thaksin Administration initially announced to promote
the first SBEZs in both Chiang Rai and Tak provinces since 2003. However, it encountered
severe resistance from both local authorities and general public who were aware of being
profoundly displaced from their local administration function by new local authorities
under the proposed special border economic zone law. This subsequently generated wide
criticism on pros and cons of the SBEZ within Thai society. Coupled with political
discontinuity, the initiative to implement these two pilot SBEZs was consequently sluggish
for almost 8 years.
As Thailand approached full entry into the ASEAN Community by the end of 2015, the
Abhisit Administration reapproved on October 19, 2010 to develop Maesod district in Tak
province as a pilot special border economic zone. On March 22, 2011, a total budget of
14.04 million Baht was then allocated to carry out a research for the formulation of
development plan of Maesod Special Border Economic Zone. In 2013, the Yingluck
33
Administration renewed support on the scheme by setting up a mechanism so called

Special Border Economic Zone Development Policy Board. Subsequently, a strategic plan
for promoting special border economic zones has been formulated in 2014 covering 5
regions across the country. This consists of: 1) Northern border region comprising of
Maesai, Chaingsaen and Chaingkhong districts in Chiang Rai province and Tak province;
2) Northeastern border region consisting of Mukdahan, Nakhon Phanom and Nongkhai
provinces; 3) Eastern border region representing Sakaeo and Trad provinces; 4) Western
border region comprising of Kanchanaburi province; and 5) Southern border region
including Sadao district of Songkhla province and Narathiwat province. Presently, the
Prayuth Administration promptly carries on hastening the implementation process of these
SBEZs.
There are several direct and indirect policies that influence the special border economic
zones development in Thailand. The concise integrated policies are presented in Table 4.1.
The detailed discussions are described in the following paragraphs.
34
35
Table 4.1 Brief Integrated Development Policies for Special Border Economic Zones in Thailand
Major Policies
Major Features
Execution of Policies (Translated into
action)
Direct Policies
(Explicit Policies)
It serves as core national policy in driving A mechanism to run the SBEZs has been
Policy 1: Special
SBEZ development. At present, the set up by assigning 4 main organizations
Border Economic
Prayuth
Administration
is
keenly to oversee the implementation process
Zone Development
expediting implementation of 10 SBEZs comprising of the Office of the National
Policy
across Thailand dividing it into 2 phases. Economic and Social Development Board
On January 15, 2015, the Prayuth (NESDB), Office of Board of Investment
Government approved 5 pilot SBEZs (BOI), Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
urging to realize early tangible progress by Ministry of Interior. Then, the NESDB in
the end of 2015. Totally, it covers a cooperation with the BOI and related
combination of 36 sub-districts or 10 agencies are tasked to coordinate in
districts in 5 border provinces with a total designing detailed investment targets in
land area of 2,932 Km2. Recently, the the pilots SBEZs. Therefore, 4 different
Royal Thai Government has approved the sub-committees are formed at national
second phase of SBEZs since March 16, level. These are: (1) Sub-Committee on
2015, covering 5 provinces in a Identifying Physical Boundary of SBEZs;
combination of 16 districts or 63 sub- (2) Sub-Committee on Designing
districts.
Investment Incentives, Boundary and One
Stop Service Center; (3) Sub-Committee
on Infrastructure and Customs House; and
(4) Sub-Committee on One Stop Service
on Labor, Public Health and National
Security. An Act on Development of
Special Economic Zones is being drafted
and will take effect by 2016. The
Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand
has been tasked as implementing agency
35
Impacts/Implications for Thailand

vis--vis neighboring countries
Fast progress for defining priority

development locations and setting up
of supportive mechanism for
implementing the targeted special
border economic zones.
Major Features
Policy 2:
International Trade
and Cross-Border
Trade Policies
The Royal Thai Government persistently

reaffirms policies to expand regional
cooperation particularly on trade at
different levels.
The specific international trade policies at

different levels have been formulated.
These are at ASEAN level, GMS level
and Bilateral level.
Explicit policies on international

trade and cross-border trade helps
increase regional and cross-border
trade flows.
Policy 3: Customs
Facilitation Policy
Thailand has already signed an Agreement

to Establish and Implement the ASEAN
Single Window since 2005 in order to
facilitate greater flow of international trade
between ASEAN member countries.
Within this agreement, ASEAN member
countries decided to implement the
ASEAN Single Window Pilot Project
consisting of linkages of Certificate of
Origin under ASEAN Trade in Goods
Agreement (ATIGA Form D) and ASEAN
Customs Declaration Document (ACDD).
The Royal Thai Customs Department has

fully executed e-Customs through the
National Single Window (NSW) since
2008. As of September 15, 2014, it can
electronically link the data on licenses
and certificates via the NSW with a total
of 21 relevant organizations. The Royal
Thai Customs Department has likewise
collaborated with licensing and certifying
organizations to set up database on
commodity codes that is required to apply
for licenses and certificates, and can be
accessible online.
Customs
facilitation
through
establishment of National Single
Window helps increase intensity of
cross-border trade flows.
Policy 4: Border
Investment and
Industrial
Development Policies
It aims to attract 20% more investments

into these border regions, as well as being
a part of preparation plan for entry into
ASEAN Economic Community by the end
of 2015.
Attractive investment incentives have

already been put in place, which can be
classified into 2 slightly different types.
These are general and specific target
industries. The specific target productions
in the pilot SBEZs consist of 13 industries
covering 61 business activities. Each pilot
SBEZ may have specialization in specific
As of early August 2016, there were 39

private investment projects that sought
approval from the Board of Investment
with capital amount of 7,200 million
Baht in 8 Special Border Economic
Zones comprising of Sakaeo, Tak, Trad,
Songkhla,
Mukdahan,
Nongkhai,
Chiang Rai and Kanchanaburi. Out of
36
Major Policies
Execution of Policies (Translated into Impacts/Implications for Thailand

action)
of the SBEZs.
36
Major Policies
Major Features
Execution of Policies (Translated into

action)
industry based on resource endowments
and complementarity with adjacent
SBEZs in neighboring countries. As an
alternative to the BOIs tax breaks, new
investors can also choose incentives
granted by the Ministry of Finance under
Thailand Plus One scheme, which will
allow a reduction of corporate tax from
20% to 10% for 10 years.
Impacts/Implications for Thailand

these, there were 21 projects amounting
to 3,798 million Baht to be specifically
invested in Tak Special Border
Economic Zone. Likewise, a total of 75
local, regional and international
investors expressed strong interest to
make real investment in Nakhon
Phanom Special Border Economic
Zone.
Provides
national
railways
linking
Bangkok metropolis and regional growth
centers and border provinces in order to
connect with neighboring countries. It also
aims to promote cross-border land
transport networks and efficient logistics
systems.
Additional national railways linking

Bangkok metropolis with key border
provinces
are
being
planned.
Furthermore, it improves cross-border
transport networks (e.g., international
highways, Mekong river bridges and river
ports and logistics systems) linking with
neighboring countries. This can facilitate
transportation services, as well as
reducing logistics costs.
Much progress is underway. It is

likely to facilitate greater crossborder flow of goods, people and
vehicles.
Policy 6: Labor,
Public Health and
National Security
Policies
Permits daily cross-border movement of

immigrant labor from
neighboring
countries into pilot SBEZs while also
taking care of their labor rights. Skill
development should be provided to both
Thai nationals residing along border area
and immigrant labor. Immediate national
security concern should be prioritized and
Relax
cross-border
movement
of
immigrant labor within specified SBEZs.
One Stop Service Centers for Immigrant
Labor have been set up at the pilot
SBEZs. An Agreement between Thailand
and Cambodia on Using Border Passes
for Requesting Work Permits at the
specified SBEZs has been put in place.
Implementation for permitting daily

movement of immigrant labor is still
slow. And, certain restriction on
cross-border movement practice of
immigrant labor is exisitng.
37
Policy 5: National
and Cross-Border
Transport and
Logistics Policies
37
Major Policies
Indirect Policies
(Implicit Policies)
Policy 1: Tourism
and Visa Policies
Major Features
Execution of Policies (Translated into Impacts/Implications for Thailand

action)
managed
to
support
cross-border The border pass will be valid for 30 days.
development cooperation via SBEZ.
Meanwhile,
negotiations
of
such
agreement between Thailand and Lao
PDR and Myanmar are in progress.
Thailand implements regional tourism The initiative helps facilitate greater

cooperation schemes under GMS and cross-border movement of both
ACMECS. ACMECS single visa is an people and vehicles.
important instrument in facilitating
greater people mobility between Thailand
and bordering countries. As a result,
implementation of a pilot ACMECS
single visa between Thailand and
Cambodia has been made effective since
December 16, 2010.
Fosters closer bilateral relations and

regional integration with neighboring
countries. Various forms of Official
Development Assistance should be
provided to neighboring countries in
support of SBEZs cooperation.
Thailand continuously fosters closer

bilateral relations with neighboring
countries. It is implemented in the form of
cooperation at all levels ranging from
public, private, people and media sectors.
Also, official development assistances
from Thailand towards neighboring
countries are underway.
38
Promoting Thailand as a gateway to Asia.
Policy 2:
International
Relations, Regional
Cooperation and
Official Development
Assistance Policies
Source: Compiled by the Author.
38
Continuing regional integration and

official development assistances
from Thailand to bordering countries
help bridge intra-GMS development
disparities.
4.2 Detailed Policy Analysis for Upholding Development of Special Border Economic
Zones
SBEZ policies in Thailand are currently advancing towards rapid implementation of pilot
locations. The Prayuth Government has firmly committed in formulating favorably
integrated policies, as well as accelerating the implementation process. As a result, analysis
of actual integrated policies for upholding special border economic zone development is
undertaken employing qualitative analysis. It can be broadly categorized into 2 major
groups of policies, which are direct and indirect policies as follows:
4.2.1 Direct Policies or Explicit Policies intend to directly lay down strong foundation for
supporting development of pilot SBEZs. Features and progresses of these integrated
policies are as follows:
1) Special Border Economic Zone Development Policies: It serves as core national
policy in driving SBEZ development. At present, the Prayuth Administration is keenly
expediting implementation of 10 SBEZs across Thailand dividing it into 2 phases. It aims
at attracting 20% more investments into these border regions, as well as being a part of
preparation plan for entry into ASEAN Community by the end of 2015. Therefore, on
January 19, 2015, the Prayuth Government approves 5 designated pilot SBEZs along with
major infrastructure development plan and associated private investment incentives. The
Royal Thai Government guides to realize early tangible progress by the end of 2015.
Totally, it covers 5 border provinces in 10 districts or 36 sub-districts with a total land area
of 2,932 Km2. These consist of:
(1) Tak Special Border Economic Zone covering Maesod, Pobpra and Maeramad districts
of Tak province with a total land area of 1,419 Km2;
(2) Mukdahan Special Border Economic Zone comprising of Muang Mukdahan, Wanyai
and Dontan districts in Mukdahan province with a total land area of 578.50 Km2;
(3) Sakaeo Special Border Economic Zone encompassing Aranyaprathet and
Wattananakhon districts in Sakaeo province with a total land area of 332 Km2;
(4) Trat Special Border Economic Zone covering Klong Yai district in Trat province with a
total land area of 50.20 Km2; and
(5) Songkhla Special Border Economic Zone including Sadao district in Songkhla province
with a total land area of 552.30 Km2.
Recently, the Royal Thai Government has approved the second phase of SBEZs on March
16, 2015 covering 5 provinces in 16 districts or 63 sub-districts. These are:
(1) Nongkhai Special Border Economic Zone encompassing 5 districts or a combination of
22 sub-districts namely, Muang Nongkhai, Srakrai, Ponpisai, Thabor and Srichiangmai
districts of Nongkhai province with a total land area of 144.78 Km2;
(2) Nakhon Panom Special Border Economic Zone including 2 districts (or a combination
of 13 sub-districts), namely, Muang Nakhon Panom and Tha-Uthain districts of Nakhon
Panom province;
(3) Chiang Rai Special Border Economic Zone involving 3 districts (or a combination of
21 sub-districts) namely, Maesai, Chiangsaen and Chiang Khong districts of Chiang Rai
province;
(4) Kanchanaburi Special Border Economic Zone covering Muang Kanchanaburi
District with a combination of 2 sub-districts in Kanchanaburi province with a total land
area of 260.78 Km2; and
(5) Narathiwat Special Border Economic Zone comprising 5 districts (or a combination of
39
5 sub-districts), namely, Sungai Kolok, Takbai, Wang, Yi-Ngo and Muang Narathiwat
districts in Narathiwat province with a total land area of 209 Km2.
The Royal Thai Government also set up a mechanism to run the SBEZs by assigning 4
main organizations to oversee implementation process comprising of the Office of the
National Economic and Social Development Board as a secretariat office of the National
Special Border Economic Zone Development Policy Board, Office of Board of Investment,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Interior. Then, the Office of the National
Economic and Social Development Board in cooperation with Office of Board of
Investment and related agencies are tasked to coordinate in designing detailed investment
targets in the pilot SBEZs so that prospective investors can propose investment projects as
soon as possible. Furthermore, four different sub-committees are formed at national level
which are:
1) Sub-Committee on Identifying Physical Boundary of Special Border Economic
Zones chaired by Ministry of Interior. Its task is to consider target provincial proposals for
establishing SBEZs along with public land acquisition for further private lease. This is to
solve problem on increasing land price arising from widespread local land speculation;
2) Sub-Committee on Investment Incentives, Boundary and One Stop Service Center
on Investment, chaired by Permanent Secretary of Finance together with Office of Board
of Investment, Office of Council of State, National Security Council, Department of
Forestry, Office of SMEs Promotion and concerned provinces, local organizations and
private sector;
3) Sub-Committee on Infrastructure and Customs House comprising of 6
organizations, namely, Ministry of Transport (Department of Highways, Department of
Aviation and Marine Department), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture
and Cooperatives, Department of Customs, Office of Thailand Immigration and Industrial
Estate Authority of Thailand;
4) Sub-Committee on One Stop Service on Labor, Public Health and National
Security consisting of 10 organizations, namely, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of
Interior, Ministry of Public Health, Department of Employment, Department of Skill
Development, Office of Thailand Immigration, Office of Social Security, Commission of
Vocational Education, Industrial Federation of Thailand and Thai Chamber of Commerce.
To facilitate rapid implementation of the 5 pilot SBEZs at provincial level, a study is being
done to set up a Special Border Economic Zone Administration Sub-Committee in each
pilot location. The Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand has been tasked as implementing
agency of the SBEZs. Moreover, the Royal Thai Government approved an infrastructure
and customs house development plan of the pilot SBEZs during the year 2015-2020 with
the amount of 98,571 million Baht for a total of 185 projects for specific undertakings as
follows:
Tak SBEZ - construction of the second Moei river bridge, Tak-Mae Sod
highway, improvement of Mae Sod airport, new customs house and immigration offices,
Mae Sod Industrial Estate and Huei Mae Sod reservoir, etc.;
Mukdahan SBEZ building of provincial highway, border logistics center,
residential area of customs officials, Mukdahan Industrial Estate and pumping station
utilizing electricity, etc.;
Trad SBEZ - development of Klongyai Port, border logistics center, customs house
40
and Trad Industrial Estate, etc;

Sakaeo SBEZ - construction of new customs house and Aranyaprathet Industrial
Estate, etc;
Songkhla SBEZ building of border logistics center, Songkhla Deep Seaport 2,
double railway track for Padang Besar-Hat Yai route, new Sadao customs house and
Songkhla Industrial Estate, etc.; and
Nongkhai SBEZ - construction of new highway Nongkhai-Ponpisai route,
new customs house and Ponswang Industrial Estate, etc.
An Act on Development of Special Economic Zones is being drafted and will take effect
by 2016. In relation to urban development in the pilot SBEZs, principal city plans and
design of specific border town plans along with physical zoning and provision of public
utilities are being revised in response to the changing development potential and policies. It
has been physically planned at 3 different levels as follows:
Creation of provincial physical plan for border gateways linking with ASEAN
Community. This level identifies potential development areas and then prepares these areas
to serve as both strategic trade gateways and SBEZs. It formulates integrated development
programs for promoting both urban development and special border economic zones;
Development of both principal provincial, urban and community plans in order to
guide land use, transport and infrastructure development, which will be associated with
regulations corresponding with prospective SBEZs and integrated urban development;
Designing of specific plans of special border economic zones including detailed
design of urban architecture and zoning. It likewise lays out public utilities system
corresponding with principal urban plan system comprising of industrial zone, agricultural
warehouse, cross-border trade and new residential areas.
To counter prevalent local land speculation, on May 15, 2015, the Royal Thai Government
has expropriated degraded forest and public land in the designated SBEZs for further
leasing out to private investors in order to promote rapid starting up of industries and
businesses. Then, the Department of Treasury has been tasked to manage the acquired
land.
2) International Trade and Cross-Border Trade Policies
Cross-border trade between Thailand and CLM has been periodically affected adversely by
political and diplomatic problems during periods of political differences (TDRI, 1997).
After the end of the cold war, Thailand has proclaimed a policy of turning Indochina
battlefields into a marketplace since 1988 in order to foster closer economic
interdependence (Chandoevwit et al., 2005). The Royal Thai Government persistently
reaffirms policies to expand regional cooperation particularly on trade at three different
levels as follows (Thai Government Statements 2008, 2009):
(1) ASEAN Level is a vital trading bloc for Thailand placing significant emphasis on
utilizing full advantage of AFTA through ASEAN Hub policy so as to sustain trading
and investment base particularly in CLMV. It is implemented by means of establishment of
Thailands distribution centers and trading firms in CLMV.
(2) Greater Mekong Sub-region Level is very meaningful due to geopolitics of Thailand
as a strategic crossroad of the GMS. As a result, Thailand has focused on fostering greater
flows in order to increase volume and value of cross-border trade, as well as facilitating
both intra and extra-GMS trade, investment and tourism through the implementation of
41
CBTA. Regional production networks are launched by relocating specific investments to

neighboring countries and transit trade regime is keenly negotiated with neighboring
countries (e.g., China, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam) in order to facilitate free flow of
goods to nearby neighboring countries markets either in Southeast Asian, South Asian, or
East Asian regions.
(3) Bilateral Level with Particular Emphasis on Cross-Border Trade Policy
Thailand places emphasis on common bilateral cross-border trade policies towards
neighboring countries particularly on trade facilitation along major economic corridors. It
correspondingly aims to improve facilities at key border checkpoints to meet international
standards. The Ministry of Commerce of Thailand has set the targeted value for both crossborder trade and transit trade to reach 1.50 trillion Baht or 48,387 million US$ by the year
2015. This plan has been implemented through 4 strategies, namely: 1) development of
competitiveness of Thailand for enhancing trade value; 2) building capacity of personnel
responsible for cross-border trade; 3) promoting outward investment in neighboring
countries; and 4) solving urgent problem and utilization of regional trade agreements.
Furthermore, local border cooperatives are collectively strengthened to actively participate
in cross-border trade of agricultural produce aiming to help minimize the impact of illegal
influx of low quality agricultural produce from bordering countries into Thailand.
3) Customs Facilitation Policy
Thailand has already signed an Agreement to Establish and Implement the ASEAN Single
Window since 2005 in order to facilitate greater flow of international trade between
ASEAN member countries. Within this agreement, ASEAN member countries concurred
to implement the ASEAN Single Window Pilot Project consisting of linkages of Certificate
of Origin under ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA Form D) and ASEAN
Customs Declaration Document (ACDD). In line with this agreement, the Royal Thai
Customs Department has fully executed e-Customs through the National Single Window
(NSW) since 2008. As of September 15, 2014, it can electronically link data on licenses
and certificates via the NSW with a total of 21 relevant organizations. The Royal Thai
Customs Department has likewise collaborated with licensing and certifying organizations
to set up database on commodity codes that required to apply for licenses and certificates,
and can be accessible online.
4) Border Investment and Industrial Development Policies
Pertaining to investment policy, the Board of Investment (BOI) recently revealed the
Seven-Year Investment Promotion Strategies (2015-2021) built on both activities and
merit-based incentives. It also includes investment promotion policy particularly for
investment in special border economic zones, which is equivalent to maximum incentives
provided to the southern border provinces. Applications must be submitted from January 1,
2015 to December 31, 2017. Detailed investment promotion can be classified into 2
slightly different types of incentives as follows:
(1) General Industries
In case general activities are eligible for investment promotion, projects shall receive the
following incentives:
3 additional years of corporate income tax (CIT) exemption;
In cases where projects are already granted an 8-year corporate income tax
exemption, an additional 5-year 50% CIT exemption shall be granted instead;
Double deductions from the costs of transportation, electricity and water supply;
42
Additional 25 % deduction on the cost of installation or construction of facilities;

Exemption from import duty for machinery;
Exemption from import duty on raw materials and necessary components to be
produced for exports for 5 years;
Other non-tax incentives; and
Permission for employing unskilled immigrant labor.
(2) Specific Target Industries
In case of specific target activities for SBEZs as specified by the Special Border Economic
Zone Development Policy Board, projects shall receive the following incentives:
8-year corporate income tax exemption and an additional 5-year 50 %
reduction of corporate income tax.
Double tax deductions from the costs of transportation, electricity and water
supply for 30 years;
Additional 25% tax deduction for the cost of installation or construction of
facilities in addition to normal depreciation costs;
Exemption from import duty for machinery;
A 5-year exemption from import duty for raw materials and necessary components
to be produced for exports;
Other non-tax incentives; and
Permission for employing unskilled immigrant labor.
The BOI has also allowed promoted projects in the pilot SBEZ to use machinery older than
5 years but not exceeding 10 years. On general case, imported used machinery must not
exceed 10 years. In a case where a production base is relocated into Thailand, use of
machinery that is over 10 years old will be allowed in the project. In both cases, no offer of
import duty exemption on machinery will be made and the project will be required to
submit a performance certificate issued by a trusted institute identifying the efficiency of
the machinery, its environmental impact, safety standard and energy usage, as well as its
maintenance profile, and its fair value must be obtained.
As an alternative to the BOIs tax breaks, new investors could also choose incentives
granted by the Ministry of Finance under Thailand-Plus-One scheme, which would allow
a reduction in corporate tax from 20% to 10% for 10 years. Thailand-Plus-One would
then supplement SBEZs investment projects, so that Thailand could forge greater relations
with neighboring countries. This means any ASEAN investor can invest in the SBEZs to
receive privileges from Thailand plus the bordering countries such as Myanmar, Lao PDR,
Cambodia and Malaysia. Thailand-Plus-One is a strategic business model initiated by
Japanese corporations in 2012 to encourage investors to maintain their main operations in
Thailand while diversifying supporting productions in the supply chain to neighboring
countries in order to gain benefits from comparative advantages and regional production
networks. Tak and Sakaeo SBEZs are pioneer areas in Thailand that foster linkages with
Myanmar and Cambodia.
Furthermore, a One Stop Service Center for Investment is to be set up in pilot provincial
halls. Concerning new local investors who do not hold BOI approval, they will not only be
entitled to reduction of corporate tax from 20% to 10% for 10 years, but they will also gain
access to soft loan at maximum credit limit of 20 million Baht provided by the
Government Saving Banks and warranted by Thai Credit Guarantee Corporation. This will
43
play important role for fast track implementation of SBEZs plan. In addition, the
Department of Customs has provided additional investment incentives for establishment in
both free zone and bonded warehouse as follows:
Exemption from import tax for machinery;
Exemption from import tax for raw materials to be manufactured for export;
Exemption from export tax;
Exemption from disposal tax for materials;
Exemption from value-added tax for raw materials to be manufactured for export;
Exemption from value-added tax for import and export commodities; and
Unlimited time for storage of goods in free zone, whereas, storage of goods in
bonded warehouse is allowed only for maximum of 2 years.
In relation to prospective industries in the pilot SBEZs, the Board of Investment prioritizes
specific target productions consisting of 13 major industries covering 61 business activities
as follows:
Agro-industry, fishery and related businesses;
Manufacturing of ceramics product;
Manufacturing of textile, clothing and leather;
Manufacturing of furniture;
Manufacturing of gems and jewelry;
Manufacturing of medical devices;
Manufacturing of automotive, machinery and parts;
Manufacturing of electronics and electrical appliances;
Manufacturing of plastics;
Pharmaceuticals production;
Logistics businesses;
Industrial zones or industrial estates; and
Businesses that support tourism.
Regarding specific target industry in the 5 pilot SBEZs, the Board of Investment has
announced eligible industries and businesses as follows:
Tak Special Border Economic Zone consists of agro-industry, textile and apparel,
wood and wood furniture, and gems and jewelry. It will link with Myawaddy
Border Economic Zone in Kayin State of Myanmar;
Mukdahan Special Border Economic Zone comprises electronics, warehouse,
wholesale, logistics and tourism. It will connect with Savan Seno Special Border
Economic Zone in Savannakhet province of Lao PDR;
Sakaeo Special Border Economic Zone entails retail and wholesale, agro-processed
industry, warehouse and logistics. It will link with Poipet O'neang Special Border
Economic Zone in Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia;
Trad Special Border Economic Zone involves eco-tourism, duty free cross-border
trade, multi-modal transport, warehouse and logistics. It will connect with Koh
Kong Special Economic Zone in Koh Kong province of Cambodia; and
Songkhla Special Border Economic Zone consists of extended area of an industrial
estate for export, natural rubber processing industry, seafood and halal food. It will
cooperate with heavy industrial zone, rubber and halal industry in bordering Kedah
state of Malaysia.
44
As of early August, 2016, there were 39 private investment projects that sought approval
from the Board of Investment with capital amount of 7,200 million Baht in 8 Special
Border Economic Zones comprising of Sakaeo, Tak, Trad, Songkhla, Mukdahan,
Nongkhai, Chiang Rai and Kanchanaburi. Out of these, there were 21 projects amounting
to 3,798 million Baht to be specifically invested in Tak Special Border Economic Zone.
Likewise, a total of 75 local, regional and international investors expressed strong interest
to make real investment in Nakhon Phanom Special Border Economic Zone.
5) Labor, Public Health and National Security Policies
Relax cross-border movement of immigrant labor within specified SBEZs is currently
under implementation. An Agreement between Thailand and Cambodia on Using Border
Passes for Requesting Work Permits at the specified SBEZs has been put in place. The
border pass will be valid for 30 days. Meanwhile, negotiations of such agreement between
Thailand, Lao PDR and Myanmar are in progress. One Stop Service Centers for immigrant
labor have been set up at the pilot SBEZs. Its function is to facilitate permission of
immigrant labor entering the country along with arrangement of medical check-up, medical
insurance and labor protection. Besides these, it will also formulate a skill development
plan to support both Thai nationals residing along the border areas and immigrant labor
working within the SBEZs in response to the training needs of private sector. Provision of
services on public health, education and public safety are in the planning stage. Concerning
national security, urgent matters which should be taken into account include border
demarcation, monitoring of immigrant labor and illegal immigrant, natural resources
management, and preparation of knowledgeable border officials and necessary supporting
equipments, etc.
6) National and Cross-Border Transport and Logistics Policies
Additional national railways linking Bangkok with key border provinces are being
planned. The major routes to be jointly invested with Japan are between Bangkok and
Chiangmai province and between Tak province and Mukdahan province. In addition,
railways linking with neighboring countries are being studied, either between
Kanchanaburi province and Bangkok; Bangkok-Chacheongsao province-Aranyaprathet
district of Sakaeo province and Bangkok-Chacheongsao province-Lamchabang Deep
Seaport. Likewise, other major dual track routes, both between Bangkok and Kangkoi (in
Saraburi province) and between Kangkoi and Maptaphut Deep Seaport, are under planning
process. Also, highspeed rails both between Bangkok and Nakhon Ratchasima province
and between Nakhon Ratchasima province and Nongkhai province are under planning
process. Furthermore, improvement of cross-border transport networks (e.g., international
highways, Mekong river bridges and river ports and logistics systems) linking with
neighboring countries is being done. This can facilitate transportation services, as well as
reduce logistics costs. In addition, this utilizes both GMS and ASEAN connectivity
towards promoting new production platforms with special emphasis on development of
provinces and clustering provinces along major economic corridors. Moreover, it supports
wider transnational connectivity both within ASEAN and Asian Highway Networks.
4.2.2 Indirect Policies or Implicit Policies aim to indirectly sustain development of
SBEZs. These include:
1) Tourism and Visa Policies
Thailand is strategically positioned as tourism gateway to Asia. Thailand also implements
regional tourism cooperation schemes both under GMS and ACMECS. ACMECS single
45
visa is an important instrument in facilitating greater people mobility between Thailand

and bordering countries. It is a good illustration of south-south development cooperation.
As a result, implementation of a pilot ACMECS single visa between Thailand and
Cambodia has been made effective since December 16, 2010.
2) International Relations, Regional Cooperation and Official Development
Assistance Policies
Pertaining to international relations policy, Thailand fosters closer bilateral relations with
neighboring countries. It is implemented in the form of cooperation at all levels ranging
from public, private, people and media sectors. This will strengthen better mutual
understanding, which will lead to intensify several aspects of cooperation, particularly
under sub-regional cooperation and ASEAN. Likewise, building public understanding on
border problem and impact of global change on Thailand will be promoted. Furthermore,
official development assistances from Thailand towards neighboring countries focus on
socio-economic development, regional economic integration, human resources
development and capacity building in the form of exchange of best practices in various
areas ranging from public health, education, agriculture and poverty alleviation, etc.
As the stages of development between Thailand and Cambodia, Lao and Myanmar are
starkly different, the Office of Neighboring Countries Economic Development Cooperation
Agency (NEDA) of Thailand has been established since 2005 aiming to foster
development cooperation with bordering countries. The NEDA, on behalf of Royal Thai
Government, continuously extends financial and technical assistances, as well as
supporting infrastructure development in neighboring countries based on bilateral and
regional cooperation programs (e.g., GMS, ACMECS and ASEAN). As an emerging donor
country, during 2005-2013, Thailand has extended grant to CLM with a total of 283.94
US$ in order to develop cross-border rail links, inter-provincial roads and airports for
enhancing sub-regional transport integration and multimodal linkages (NEDA, 2013).
Similarly, Thailand will extend technical assistance to Myanmar on understanding rules
and regulations of the World Trade Organization.
4.2.3 Policy Gaps
It is apparent that the Royal Thai Government has formulated comprehensive and
integrated SBEZs development policies, which can lead to generate tangible result upon
implementation. However, there still exists certain restrictive labor policy, which would
affect operations of the SBEZs. As labor cooperation is one of the major components of the
SBEZs, the Royal Thai Government created a policy to relax cross-border movement of
immigrant labor within specified SBEZs. It is understood that the ultimate goal is to allow
daily cross-border movement of migrant labor. But in fact, it has gone a lengthy and
complex process to implement this policy. Negotiations on such practices vary from
country to country. However, there is few document that clearly states the allowable daily
movement of immigrant labor. This slow process could partly affect private investment
and free flow of labor.
This section highlights the summary of the preceding policy analysis favorable for
development of special border economic zones in Thailand. Thailand adopts a 5-year
national development plan to guide development paths. Over 54 years of national
development planning, spatial development policies are continually evolving in line with
46
national and sectoral development progress, which can be classified into 4 distinct periods.
Each period is characterized by specific spatial development advancement. Currently, it is
under the fourth period (2002-2015), shifting towards upholding rural-urban relations and
development of special border economic zones (SBEZs) along the Greater Mekong
Economic Corridors in order to grasp the potential of proliferating regional cooperation
and integration programs, particularly for the Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic
Cooperation Strategy (ACMECS), the Greater Mekong Sub-region Economic Cooperation
Program and the ASEAN Economic Community as integral part of the ASEAN
Community. Development of SBEZs in Thailand is intermittent due to political
discontinuity. The Thaksin Administration initially announced to promote the first SBEZs
in both Chiang Rai and Tak provinces since 2003. However, it encountered severe
resistance from both local authorities and general public who are aware of being
profoundly displaced from their local administration function by the new local authorities
under the proposed special border economic zone law. This subsequently generated wide
criticism on pros and cons of the SBEZ within the Thai society. Coupled with political
discontinuity, the initiative to implement these two pilot SBEZs are consequently sluggish
for almost 8 years.
As Thailand approached full entry into the ASEAN Community by the end of 2015, the
Abhisit Administration reapproved on October 19, 2010 to develop Maesod district in Tak
province as a pilot special border economic zone. On March 22, 2011, a total budget of
14.04 million Baht was then allocated to carry out a research for the formulation of
development plan of Maesod Special Border Economic Zone. In 2013, the Yingluck
Administration renewed its support for the scheme by setting up a mechanism so called
Special Border Economic Zone Development Policy Board. Subsequently, a strategic plan
for promoting special border economic zones has been formulated in 2014 covering 5
regions across the country. This consists of: 1) Northern border region comprising of
Maesai, Chaingsaen and Chaingkhong districts in Chiang Rai province and Tak province;
2) Northeastern border region consisting of Mukdahan, Nakhon Phanom and Nongkhai
provinces; 3) Eastern border region representing Sakaeo and Trad provinces; 4) Western
border region comprising of Kanchanaburi province; and 5) Southern border region
including Sadao district of Songkhla province and Narathiwat province.
Presently, the Prayuth Administration promptly carries on hastening the implementation
process of these 10 SBEZs through favorably integrated development policies. These are:
(1) Direct policies or explicit policies consisting of special border economic zone
development policies, international trade and cross-border trade policies, customs
facilitation policy, border investment and industrial development policies, labor, public
health and national security policies, national and cross-border transport and logistics
policies; and (2) Indirect policies aiming to indirectly sustain development of SBEZs,
including tourism and visa policies and international relations, regional cooperation and
official development assistance policies. These integrated policies to some extent attracted
keen interest of private investors to make real investments in the designated SBEZs.
Nevertheless, there is a slight policy gap on labor cooperation policy with bordering
countries, which needs to be aligned to ensure effective implementation of the SBEZs.
According to the above analysis of relatedly existent and ongoing policies, the hypothesis
stating national and regional level policies and strategies are vital for border economic
zones in order to boost and catalyze respective national and regional development is
therefore supported. It is shown that committed political substantiation is crucial to drive
47
development of special border economic zones. It is also apparent that it has taken decades
to gradually evolve from general regional development policies towards currently
integrated special border economic zone development policies influencing the dynamic
regionalization and national spatial development.
48
CHAPTER 5
PROFILES OF THE CROSS-BORDER REGIONS
AND LOCAL BORDER ENTREPRENEURS
This chapter presents profiles of cross-border study locations between Thailand and
neighboring countries. It also provides insight into how different types of local border
trader and border industrial developer respondents evolve towards border
entrepreneurships.
Section A: Profiles of the Study Location
The study areas consist of 3 cross-border regions. The common and region-specific
features of each study location are as follows:
Cross-Border Region 1: Aranyaprathet District of Sakaeo Province in Thailand
bordering with OChrov District of Bantay Meanchey Province in Cambodia
5.1 Aranyaprathet District of Sakaeo Province in Thailand
Sakaeo province is located on a plateau in the eastern region of Thailand. It has a total land
area of 7,195.43 Km2, which is suitable for cultivating farm crops and animal rearing. By
September 30, 2012, Sakaeo province had a total population of 547,751 with 182,448
households. It is divided into 9 districts, in which 4 districts share common border with
Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia. Among others, Aranyaprathet district, which is
located at the main artery road, is the most strategic land gateway along the Southern
Economic Corridor linking the cities of Bangkok (Thailand), Phnom Penh (Cambodia), Ho
Chi Minh City and Van Tau (Vietnam). The district is far from the capital city of Bangkok
at 255 Km. Aranyaprathet district has a total area at 821.26 Km2. In 2009, it had a total
population of 85,387 with density of 103.97 persons/Km2. In terms of administration, it is
further divided into 13 sub-districts and 114 villages. Aranyaprathet district also hosts the
site of Rong Kleua border market, which is the largest of such kind in Thailand. It is also
the largest second-hand clothes market in Asia. In 2012, the urbanization rate in
Aranyaprathet district was rather low at 20.20%. Currently, the urbanization rate is
increasing due to rapid local border economic growth and the presence of large scale
border retail establishments.
5.2 OChrov District of Banteay Meanchey Province in Cambodia
Banteay Meanchey province, the 13th largest province, is located in the far northwest of
Cambodia. It is mostly covered by extensive lowlands with a few uplands to the north and
east. It shares an international land border with Thailand to the west. The total land area is
6,679 Km2. In 2008, it had a total population of 678,033 and ranked the 10th largest in the
nation with density of 100 persons/Km2. During the Cambodian Civil Wars in the 1970s
and 1980s, Banteay Meanchey Province was in the frontlines of much of fighting and as a
result, it is one of the three most heavily mined provinces in Cambodia along with Pailin
and Battambang. Banteay Meanchey is also one of the nine provinces that is part of the
Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve.
The province is divided into 8 districts. Out of 3 districts sharing common border with
Sakaeo province of Thailand, OChrov district is the most strategic location as it is located
49
along the Southern Economic Corridor linking cities of Bangkok (Thailand), Phnom Penh
(Cambodia), Ho Chi Minh city and Van Tau (Vietnam). The district consists of 8
communes and 75 villages. In 2008, the district had a total population of 100,590. Poipet is
the main city and home to 8 border casinos aiming to attract Thai visitors. Altogether, it
generates both local and international employments of 6,011 jobs including 599 Thai
skilled workers. The district is far from its capital city of Phnom Penh, approximately
408 Km. The Poipet ONeang Special Economic Zone (POSEZ) is being developed in
Poipet city on more than 500 hectares of land. POSEZ will contain an industrial zone,
commercial zone, dry port and residential zone. The industrial zone is divided into 4
phases, and construction is expected to be completed in 2018. The target investors are from
China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, Thailand, Japan and local Cambodian investors. In
2012, the urbanization rate in OChrov district was rather high at 45.24%.
Cross-Border Region 2: Muang Mukdahan District in Mukdahan Province of
Thailand bordering with Kaysone Phomvihane District of Savannakhet Province in
Lao PDR
5.3 Muang Mukdahan District of Mukdahan Province in Thailand
Mukdahan province is located in the northeastern region of Thailand. Approximate 20% of
the provincial area is lowland region. It shares common Mekong river border with
Savannakhet Province of Lao PDR with a distance of 72 km. The province is divided into
7 districts. These districts are further subdivided into 53 sub-districts and 493 villages. It
has a total land area of 4,339.8 Km2. In 2011, it had a total population of 340,581 with
density of 78 persons/Km2. In 2006, the Second Thai-Lao Friendship Bridge from
Mukdahan province to Savannakhet province of Lao PDR was opened. The bridge is 1,600
meters long and 12 meters wide, with two traffic lanes.
Out of 3 border districts, Muang Mukdahan district is the most strategic location as it is
located at a border node along the East-West Economic Corridor linking cities of
Myawaddy (Myanmar), Maesod (Thailand), Mukdahan (Thailand), Savannakhet (Lao
PDR), Dansavanh (Lao PDR) and Lao Bao (Vietnam). It is far from its capital city of
Bangkok at 647 Km. It has a total land area of 1,235.07 Km2. In 2009, it had a total
population of 129,162, excluding 2,069 Vietnamese with density of 104.57 persons/Km2 or
37.92% of provincial population. In terms of administration, it is divided into 13 Tambon
(sub-district) Administration Organizations and 143 villages. Muang Mukdahan district
also hosts site of Indochina market, which is a center for distribution of various Indochina
products. It is also a popular local tourist attraction. In 2012, the urbanization rate in
Muang Mukdahan district is rather high at 42.61%. Currently, it is increasing due to the
large scale border retail establishments.
5.4 Kaysone Phomvihane District of Savannakhet Province in Lao PDR
Savannakhet is the largest province in Lao PDR, covering an area of 21,774 Km2. It is
located in the southern part of the country sharing common Mekong river border with both
Nakhon Phanom and Mukdahan provinces of Thailand to the west. The province is
strategically located along the East-West Economic Corridor. Savannakhet province is an
important industrial center in the central region, and is one of the main tobacco producing
areas of Lao PDR. It has numerous natural resources. Sepon is the largest mine in Lao
50
PDR, with reserves of copper and gold. In 2005, it had a total population of 825,879. The
province is divided into 15 districts.
Among others, Kaysone Phomvihane district, a capital city of Savannakhet province, is
also Lao PDRs second most notable city after the capital Vientiane. It has a total land area
of 521 Km2 and far from its capital city of Vientiane at 469 Km. In 2008, it had a total
population of 117,821 with density of 226 persons/ Km2. The district is divided into 67
villages. It forms an important trading area between Thailand and Vietnam. Like all
Laotian cities, Kaysone Phomvihane has a mixed population of Laotian, Thai, Vietnamese
and Chinese, as well as ethnic minority groups from various parts of Lao PDR. Since 2003,
the Lao PDR government has established the Savan-Seno Special Economic Zone in
Savannakhet province on the land area of 954 hectares with capital investment amount of
74 million US$. It consists of 4 development zones, of which 3 zones are situated in
Kaysone Phomvihane district, namely, Zone A (Savan city), Zone B (Logistics park) and
Zone C (Resettlement). The district also hosts a large Savan Vegas casino aiming to attract
Thai visitors with both local and international employments of 1,400 jobs including 1,200
skilled foreign workers. In 2012, the urbanization rate in Kaysone Phomvihane district was
noticeably high at 61%.
Cross-Border Region 3: Maesod District of Tak Province in Thailand bordering with
Myawaddy District of Kayin State in Myanmar
5.5 Maesod District of Tak Province in Thailand
Tak province is located in upper-northern region of Thailand sharing common river border
with Kayin state of Myanmar. It covers an area of 16,406.65 Km2, the 4th largest province
across Thailand. Its geographical setting is mostly forest and mountainous areas
particularly on the west part of the province. In 2012, it had a total population of 526,045
with density of 32.06 persons/Km2, the second least dense population in Thailand. Tak
province consists of 9 districts with 5 districts sharing common border with Myanmar.
Among others, Maesod district, the most vibrant border city adjacent to Myanmar, is
located at the west section of East-West Economic Corridor. It covers an area of 1,986
Km2 or 12.11% of total provincial area. It is situated in the valley between Thanon
Thongchai mountain range in Thailand and a mountain in adjacent Myanmar. Maesod
district is far from its provincial city center at 86 km and is away from its capital city of
Bangkok at 493 Km.
In 2009, it has a total population of 119,125 with density of 59.97 persons/Km2. It has
international character as inhabitants comprise a mixed of local residents, highlanders and
international NGOs. Maesod city is also home to wholesale and retail gemstones, which
mainly originated from Myanmar. It is divided into 10 sub-districts (Tambon) with 88
villages. In terms of local urban administration, there are 4 municipalities, namely,
Maesod, Maegu, Thasailuad and Maetao. Particularly, Maesod municipality alone has an
area of 27.2 Km2 with a total population of 35,124 or 29.48% of the whole population of
Maesod district. The rest of the 6 Tambon Administration Organizations are administered
in rural areas. In 2010, Maesod district also accommodated around 80,000 immigrant
Myanmar workers. Currently, it is increasing due to the large scale border retail
establishments. There are 22 privately operated border warehouses which are supervised
by Maesod Customs House. In 2012, the urbanization rate in Maesod district was rather
high at 40.25%.
51
5.6 Myawaddy District of Kayin State in Myanmar

Kayin state (also a Karen state) is located in southern part of Myanmar. Its capital city is
Hpa-an. It has a total area of 30,383 Km2 with a total population of 1,431,377. It shares
common both land and river borders with Mae Hong Son, Tak, and Kanchanaburi
provinces of Thailand. Kayin State consists of 1 city and 9 towns. It has 3 districts, namely,
Hpa-an, Myawaddy, and Kawkareik districts, 7 townships and 4,092 villages. Kayin is a
minority state. Majority of them are Karen ethnic nationalities while the rest are Bamar,
Mon, Shan and Pa-O. A particular problem in Kayin state is the constant fighting between
the government and the insurgent Karen National Union (KNU) for over 60 years that
created thousands of refugees and internally displaced people. The financial source of
KNU operation is generated from controlling portion of cross-border trade with Thailand.
A large number of Kayin refugees fleeing as a result of battles between Karen National
Liberation Army (KNLA) and Tatmadaw (Armed Forces of Myanmar) are encamped in
the Thai side of the border in this area. Recently, the ceasefire effort is underway paving
the way for accelerating local border economic development. According to official
statistics, less than 10% of primary school students in Kayin State reach high school. All
the institutions of higher education are located in Hpa-An. The public health care system in
the state is almost non-existent due to conflict. Paddy is the main crop in Kayin State.
Winter groundnut is cultivated on silted-land and monsoon groundnut at hill-side farms.
Other crops grown in the state are sesame, beans and pulses, sugarcane, rubber, areca,
coffee, coconut and fruits. Other products such as iron, lead, copper, tin, coal and antimony
are mined in Kayin state as well.
Separated from the Thai border town of Maesod by the Moei River, the Myawaddy border
district is most important trading node between Myanmar and Thailand as it is strategically
located along the East-West Economic Corridor. Myawaddy district has a total area of
4,139.25 Km2 with 1 township and 50 villages. In 2008, it had a total population of 53,000
with density of 12.80 persons/ Km2. It is far from Hpa-an city at 150 km.; far from
Yangon, its former capital city at 437 Km and also far from Naypyidaw, its current capital
city at 628 Km. Myawaddy border-crossing is a major route for the export of Myanmar's
gems. Due to increasing potential of ASEAN economic integration, Myanmar has set up a
special economic zone (SEZ) in Myawaddy city since 2011. The SEZ is a 189-hectare site,
located 10 kilometers away from Myawaddy city. In 2012, the urbanization rate in
Myawaddy district was slightly low at approximately 20%.
Section B: Profiles of the Local Border Entrepreneurs
This section presents common and category-specific profiles of the respondents, which
mainly consist of border trader category, including cross-border large scale traders, local
border wholesalers and retailers. It provides insight into how different types of border
trader and industrial developer respondents evolve towards diverging sizes of
entrepreneurships. The specific feature for each type of respondent is described as follows:
5.7 Local Cross-Border Large Scale Traders
Cross-border large scale traders are entrepreneurs, who regularly practice either export or
import of goods between Thailand and neighboring countries. They are mostly local
traders, and play vital role in fostering closer regional economic integration. The detailed
analysis of cross-border large scale traders are as follows:
52
1) Background of the Cross-Border Large Scale Trader Respondents

In relation to gender, respondents across the cross-border regions are male traders, between
54.40% to 76.70%. Pertaining to comparative analysis, more than half of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district are men. Less than half of respondents are women. While most of
respondents in OChrov district are men, more than a tenth of respondents are women.
Likewise, there are equal men and women cross-border traders in Mukdahan district,
whereas, almost 2 third of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district are men. And
slightly more than a third of respondents are women. Comparably, more than half of
respondents in Maesod district are male traders and less than half of respondents are
female traders. Also, 3 quarters of respondents in Myawaddy district are male traders and
almost a quarter of respondents are female traders. With regard to race, respondents across
5 border districts are mostly their respective nationals, except in Maesod district where
most cross-border trader respondents are Thai nationals and a few are Burmese nationals.
Concerning age, the respondents across all cross-border regions are of the working age,
between 34 to 45 years old. For comparative analysis, respondents in OChrov district are
younger than those in Aranyaprathet district, as more than half of respondents in OChrov
district are aged between 30 to 50 years old. A third of OChrov district respondents are
aged younger than 30 years old and more than a tenth are aged between 50 to 60 years old.
While more than 2 third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district are aged between 50 to 60
years old, more than a quarter are aged younger than 30 years old and few are aged older
than 60 years old. Also, respondents in Muang Mukdahan district are quite younger than
those in Kaysone Phomvihane district. Most of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district
are of working age, as 4 fifth of them are aged between 30 to 50 years old and a fifth are
aged younger than 30 years old. On the contrary, more than half of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district are aged between 30 to 50 years old and a fifth of them are aged
between 50 to 60 years old. A tenth of Kaysone Phomvihane district respondents are aged
either younger than 30 years old or older than 60 years old. Moreover, respondents in
Maesod district are almost of similar age with those from Myawaddy district, between of
43 to 45 years old. More than half of respondents in Maesod district are of middle age
between 30 to 50 years old, a quarter are aged between 50 to 60 years old, and a tenth are
aged younger than 30 years old. A few of the Maesod district respondents are aged older
than 60 years old. While half of respondents in Myawaddy district are aged between 30 to
50 years old, less than half of them are aged between 50 to 60 years old and a few are aged
younger than 30 years old.
With regard to marital status, 59% to 100% of the respondents across the cross-border
regions are married. For comparative analysis, most of respondents in OChrov district are
married and more than a tenth of them are single. In addition, more than half of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district are married, more than a third are still single, and one
respondent is divorced. Similarly, most of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district are
married and more than a tenth of them are still single. Also, almost 3 quarters of
respondents in Mukdahan district are married and a quarter of them are still single.
Correspondingly, all respondents in Myawaddy district are married. Likewise, more than 3
fifth of respondents in Maesod district are married, almost a quarter are single, and very
few of them are either divorced or widowed.
2) Educational Level of Respondents
Educational attainment of respondents vary across the cross-border regions. Respondents
across Thai border districts have higher educational attainment than those counterparts in
bordering cities. A range of 26.50% to 48.60% of the respondents obtained higher
53
education. This means having higher educational attainment could better equip them to
adapt to changing rules and regulations on cross-border trading. For comparative analysis,
respondents in Aranyaprathet district have higher educational levels than those
counterparts in OChrov district, as less than half of these respondents obtained vocational
certificate. Less than half of Aranyaprathet district respondents attained higher education
divided into almost a quarter earning master degree and almost a fifth holding bachelor
degree. Few of respondents finished either primary school or higher secondary school and
Table 5.1 below exhibits educational levels of respondents across three cross-border
regions.
Table 5.1 Educational levels of respondents
Educational level
Cross-Border Region 1
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1. Illiterate
1
4.5
0
0
2. Primary school
1
4.5
1
6.6
3. Lower secondary
0
0
2
13.3
school
4. Higher
1
4.5
8
52.8
secondary school
5. Vocational
10
45.4
0
0
certificate
6. Bachelor degree
4
18.1
4
26.4
7. Masters degree
5
22.7
0
0
Total
22
100
15
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
0
0
1
3.3
2
6.6
1
3.3
3
10
1
3.3
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
1
1.8
3
10
11 20.3
4
13.2
0
0
7
23.1
26.7
10.8
10
33.3
17
56.6
23.3
16.2
16.5
5
3
30
16.5
10
100
11
1
30
36.7
3.3
100
27
0
54
48.6
0
100
1
0
30
3.3
0
100
Source: Field survey during 2009-2012.

Remarks: Thailand (Tha)-Cambodia (Cam): Aranyaprathet District/ OChrov District;
Thailand (Tha)-Lao PDR (Lao): Muang Mukdahan District/ Kaysone Phomvihane
district; Thailand (Tha)-Myanmar (Mya): Maesod District/ Myawaddy District
F means for frequency.
some are illiterate. While greater than half of respondents in OChrov district finished
higher secondary school, more than a quarter of them obtained bachelor degree, more than
a tenth finished lower secondary school, and one respondent completed primary school.
Likewise, respondents in Muang Mukdahan district have slightly higher educational level
than counterparts in Kaysone Phomvihane district, as more than half of them obtained
vocational certificate. Less than a fifth of Muang Mukdahan district respondents gained
bachelor degree, a tenth finished either lower secondary school or master degree, and few
of them finished primary school. Also, more than a third of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district earned bachelor degree, more than a quarter finished higher secondary
school, and almost a quarter hold vocational certificate. There are very few respondents
who finished either primary school, lower secondary school, or master degree while one
respondent is illiterate.
Similarly, respondents in Maesod district attained higher educational levels than those
counterparts in Myawaddy district. Almost half of the respondents in Maesod district
obtained bachelor degree, a fifth finished primary school level, almost a third gained
vocational certificate, a tenth finished higher secondary school level, and one respondent is
illiterate. On the other hand, a third of respondents in Myawaddy district finished higher
54
secondary school level, almost a quarter finished lower secondary school level, less than a
fifth obtained vocational certificate, and a tenth either finished primary school or illiterate.
Only a very small proportion of respondents earned bachelor degree.
3) Nativity
A range of 50% to 76.60% of the respondents in 5 border districts are native local
residents, except in OChrov district, where 93.40% of respondents are non-native local
residents. Regarding non-native local dwellers, the length of residency across the crossTable 5.2 below presents nativity of respondents across three cross-border regions.
Table 5.2 Nativity of respondents
Nativity
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
Native local
14
63.6
1
6.6
resident
10 years
4
18.1
9
60
10-20 years
3
13.6
5
33.3
20-30 years
1
4.5
1
6.6
>30 years
0
0
0
0
Total
22
100
15
100
Mean
12
11
Standard
7.1
6.0
deviation
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
23
76.6
23
76.6
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
28
51.1
15
50
4
3
0
0
30
10
5.1
8
11
2
5
54
17
11
13.3
10
0
0
100
4
2
1
0
30
11
7.5
13.3
6.6
3.3
0
100
14.9
20.4
3.7
9.3
100
9
2
4
0
30
12
9
30
6.7
13.2
0
100
border regions vary from 10 to 17 years. For comparative analysis, respondents in

Aranyaprathet district have more (almost 2 third of respondents) native local residents than
counterparts in OChrov district. Two fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district are
non-local residents, in which almost a fifth reside in the district for less than 10 years and
more than a tenth have residency of 10 to 20 years. Few of respondents dwell in the district
longer than 20 years. Likewise, for non-residents in OChrov district, more than half of
them reside in the district for less than 10 years and a third of them have residency of 10 to
20 years. There are very few respondents dwelling in the district longer than 20 years,
while one respondent is a real native local resident.
Also, there are similar patterns of nativity in both Muang Mukdahan and Kaysone
Phomvihane districts, in which 3 quarters of respondents in both cities are native local
residents. Therefore, a quarter of respondents in both cities are non-local residents. Out of
these, more than a tenth of respondents in both districts reside in their locality for less than
10 years. A tenth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district live in their local area for 11
to 20 years while few of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district reside in their
neighborhood for 10 to 20 years. One respondent dwells in the city for 20 to 30 years. For
comparison, half of respondents in both Maesod and Myawaddy districts are native local
residents. However, respondents who are non-local residents have been staying in Maesod
district for longer duration. Regarding non-native residents, a fifth of respondents stay in
Maesod district for 11 to 20 years, less than 2 fifth for less than 10 years, a tenth for longer
than 30 years, and few of them settle in the district for 20-30 years. While almost a third of
respondents stay in Myawaddy district for less than 10 years, more than a tenth dwell in
the district for 20 to 30 years, and a few of them for 10 to 20 years.
55
5.8 Local Border Wholesalers

Border wholesalers play important role in distributing goods within and across the border.
Their customers, who are either cross-border wholesalers or retailers, procure goods for
further trading. The profiles of local border wholesalers are as follows:
1) Background of Border Wholesaler Respondents
A range of 53.30% to 76.60% of the respondents across 5 border districts, except in
OChrov district, are women. For comparative analysis, slightly more than 3 quarters of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district are women and almost a quarter are men. On the
contrary, 3 fifth of respondents in OChrov district are men and 2 fifth are women.
Similarly, more than half of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district are women and less
than half are men. Also, 2 third of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district are women
and a third are men. There is rather equal gender distribution between male and female
wholesalers in Maesod district. Likewise, 2 third of respondents in Myawaddy district are
female wholesalers and a third are male wholesalers.
Regarding nationality, most of respondents across the study locations (cross-border
regions) are their respective nationals. Most of respondents in Aranyaprathet district are
Thai nationals and a few are Cambodian nationals, while all of respondents in OChrov
district are really Cambodian nationals. Likewise, most of respondents in both Muang
Mukdahan and Kaysone Phomvihane districts are their respective nationals. Only a very
small proportion of respondents in both cities are Chinese nationals. Few of respondents in
Muang Mukdahan district are Vietnamese nationals. Similarly, all of respondents in both
Maesod and Myawaddy districts are their respective nationals.
In terms of age, the respondents across the study locations (cross-border regions) are of the
working age with the average ranging from 31 to 49 years old. For comparative analysis,
the average age of Thai respondents in Aranyaprathet district is 49 years old while the
average age of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia are younger (39 years old).
More than 2 third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district are aged from 50 to 60 years
old, more than a tenth are younger than 30 years old, a tenth are 30 to 50 years old, and a
few are older than 60 years old. While 2 fifth of respondents in OChrov district are 50 to
60 years old, a third of respondents are 30 to 50 years old. More than a quarter of
respondents are younger than 30 years old. Likewise, the average age of respondents in
both Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR
are comparable at 43 years old and 45 years old, respectively. Less than 3 quarters of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district are 50 to 60 years old and slightly less than a
third of respondents are younger than 30 years old. While, more than half of respondents in
Kaysone Phomvihane district are 30 to 50 years old, more than a third are 50 to 60 years
old, and more than a tenth are younger than 30 years old. While the average age of
respondents in Maesod district of Thailand are 31 years old, the average age of respondents
in Myawaddy district of Myanmar is slightly older at 36 years old. A third of respondents
in Maesod district are aged 30 to 50 years old, more than a quarter are less than 30 years
old, and slightly more than a fifth are aged 50 to 60 years old. One respondent is older than
60 years old. In comparison, almost 3 quarters of respondents in Myawaddy district are 30
to 50 years old, a tenth are younger than 30 years old, and few are 50 to 60 years old.
Regarding marital status, all respondents in both Kaysone Phomvihane of Lao PDR and
Myawaddy district of Myanmar are already married while 60.60% to 93.30% of the rest of
56
the respondents in 4 border districts are married. For comparative analysis, most of
respondents in both Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov district of Cambodia
are married while a tenth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district are still single. A few of
respondents are divorced while very few in OChrov district are single. Also, almost 3
quarters of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand are married and slightly
more than a quarter are single. Similarly, 3 fifth of respondents in Maesod district of
Thailand are married, a third are single and one respondent is divorced.
2) Educational attainments
Table 5.3 below presents educational levels of respondents across three cross-border regions.
Educational level
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1. Illiterate
1
3.3
0
0
2. Primary school
14
46.6
5
33.3
3. Lower secondary
0
0
6
40
school
4. Higher
7
23.3
0
0
secondary school
5. Vocational
1
3.3
3
20
certificate
6. Bachelor degree
6
20
1
6.7
7. Master degree
1
3.3
0
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
6
20
4
12.1
8
26.6
11
33.3
2
6.6
9.9
9.1
10
1
33
3.3
14
1
42.4
3.3
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
1
3
1
3.3
2
6.1
12
40
9
27.3
16 53.
3
0
0
1
3.3
1
3
0
0
15
45.5
0
5
15.2
0
0
0
33
100
30 100
Total
30
100
15
100
30
100
30
100
Remarks: Thailand (Tha)-Cambodia (Cam): Aranyaprathet District/ OChrov District; Thailand
(Tha)-Lao PDR (Lao): Muang Mukdahan District/ Kaysone Phomvihane district;
Thailand (Tha)-Myanmar (Mya): Maesod District/ Myawaddy District
F means for frequency.
Thai respondents have higher educational attainments than those counterparts in bordering
districts, as 20% to 45.50 % of these respondents obtained bachelor degree. In contrast,
27.30% to 53.30% of respondents across bordering districts finished lower secondary
schoo. For comparative analysis, more than 2 fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district
finished primary school and almost a fifth either finished higher secondary school or
earned bachelor degree. There are very few of respondents who gained either vocational
certificate or master degree and others are illiterate. Likewise, 2 fifth of respondents in
OChrov district finished lower secondary school, a third finished primary school, 2 fifth
hold vocational certificate and one respondent gained a bachelor degree.
Similarly, respondents in both Muang Mukdahan and Kaysone Phomvihane districts have
rather comparable educational levels as greater than 2 fifth of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane, and almost a third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan districts hold bachelor
degree. A tenth of respondents in both districts gained vocational certificate and only a
small proportion of respondents in both districts obtained master degree. A fifth of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district alone finished either primary school or lower
secondary school and few finished higher secondary school. Also, a third of respondents in
Kaysone Phomvihane district completed lower secondary school and more than a tenth of
57
respondents finished primary school. Correspondingly, almost half of respondents in

Maesod
district hold Bachelor degree, more than a quarter finished higher secondary school, less
than a fifth attained master degree, less than a tenth finished primary school and one
respondent is conferred vocational certificate. While more than half of respondents in
Myawaddy district finished lower secondary school, 2 fifth of respondents completed
primary school level, and one finished higher secondary school. However, one respondent
each in both districts are illiterate.
3) Monthly income
Table 5.4 below presents monthly income of border wholesalers across three cross-border
regions.
Table 5.4 Monthly income of border wholesalers
Monthly income
Cross-Border Region
scale (Baht)
Tha
Cam
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
30,000
0
0
2
13
0
0
1
3
30,000-100,000
3
10
12
80
21
70
17
51
100,000-170,000
10
33
0
0
5
17
11
33
170,000-240,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
240,000-310,000
16
54
0
0
1
3.3
2
6.1
310,000-380,000
0
0
0
0
2
6.3
0
0
>380,000
1
3
1
6.7
1
3.3
2
6.1
Total
30
100
15
100
30
100
30
100
Average (Baht)
Standard deviation
373,334
501
88,001
238
153,334
399
262,834
442
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
24
73
7
23.3
6
18
13
43.3
0
0
0
0
3
9
6
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
13.3
30
100
30
100
202,334
334
254,000
473
Monthly income varies across the cross-border regions. Respondents in Aranyaprathet

district of Thailand have higher average monthly income of 373,334 Baht, while
respondents in bordering OChrov district of Cambodia have much lower average monthly
income of 88,001 Baht. On the contrary, respondents in 2 bordering districts have slightly
higher average monthly income of 202,334 Baht and 262,834 Baht in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and Myawaddy district of Myanmar, respectively. In
contrast, respondents in 2 counterpart Thai border districts have slightly lower average
monthly income of 153,334 Baht and 254,000 Baht, respectively. For comparative
analysis, slightly more than half of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand earn
240,000 Baht to 310,000 Baht per month. A third of respondents generate an income of
100,000 Baht to 170,000 Baht per month, a tenth earn from 30,000 Baht to 100,000 Baht
per month, and one respondent makes more than 380,000 Baht per month. While 4 fifth of
respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia generate income of 30,000 Baht to 100,000
Baht per month, more than a tenth make less than 30,000 Baht per month, and one
respondent earns higher than 380,000 Baht per month.
Similarly, almost 3 quarters of Thai respondents in Muang Mukdahan district earn monthly
income of 30,000 Baht to 100,000 Baht per month, which is rather low if compared with
the size of their businesses. Almost 2 fifth of respondents generate monthly income of
100,000 Baht to 170,000 Baht per month, a few gain 310,000 Baht to 380,000 Baht per
month, and one respondent generates either 240,000 Baht to 310,000 Baht per month or
58
higher than 380,000 Baht per month. On the contrary, respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR gave rather realistic figures as half of them generate monthly income
of 30,000 Baht to 100,000 Baht per month. A third of respondents earn 100,000 Baht to
170,000 Baht per month, few make either 240,000 Baht to 310,000 Baht per month or
higher than 380,000 Baht per month, and one respondent secures 30,000 Baht per month.
Correspondingly, almost 3 quarters of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand generates
monthly income of 30,000 Baht to 100,000 Baht per month, almost a fifth earn 100,000
Baht to 170,000 Baht per month, and almost a tenth generate 240,000 Baht to 310,000
Baht per month. Also, more than 2 fifth of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar
generate monthly income of 100,000 Baht to 170,000 Baht per month, almost a quarter
make 30,000 Baht to 100,000 Baht per month, a fifth earn 240,000 Baht to 310,000 Baht
per month, and more than a tenth of respondents secure higher than 380,000 Baht per
month. It should be noted that a broad range of standard deviations shown in the table
implies that some respondents may have under-reported their monthly income.
4) Nativity
Table 5.5 below presents nativity of respondents across three cross-border regions.
Nativity
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
Native local
7
23.3
2
13.3
resident
<10 years
10
33.3
5
33.3
10-20 years
4
13.3
7
46.6
20-30 years
3
10
1
6.6
>30 years
6
20
0
0
Total
30
100
15
100
Average
3.8
7
Standard
35
12
deviation
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
16
53.3
22
66.7
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
16
48.5
6
20
8
6
0
0
30
6
9.6
10
7
0
0
33
5
10
26.7
20
0
0
100
8
2
1
0
30
11
6.6
24.3
6.1
3
0
100
30.4
21.2
0
0
100
15
9
0
0
30
5
10
50
30
0
0
100
Respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR have the highest number of local
native residents at 66.70%, followed by Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand at 53.30%.
On the contrary, respondents in 2 Thai border districts have higher number of local native
residents at 23.30% and 48.50% in Aranyaprathet and Maesod districts, respectively.
Meanwhile, respondents in 2 bordering districts have fewer local native residents at
13.30% and 20% in OChrov district of Cambodia and Myawaddy district of Myanmar,
respectively. The length of residency of non-native local residents across the cross-border
regions ranges from 4 years to 11 years. For comparative analysis of non-native local
residency, more than 3 quarters of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and
more than 4 fifth of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia are non-local native
residents, in which almost a third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand live
in the district for less than 10 years. A fifth of respondents dwell in the district longer than
30 years, more than a tenth reside in the district for 10 years to 20 years, and a tenth settle
in the district for 20 years to 30 years. Likewise, less than half of respondents in OChrov
district reside in the district for 10 years to 20 years, a third live in the district for less than
10 years, and one respondent stays in the district for 20 years to 30 years.
59
Similarly, a third of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and less than
half of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand are non-native local residents.
A quarter of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district reside in their city for less than 10
years and a fifth live in the city for 20 years to 30 years. Also, almost a quarter of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district reside in the district for less than 10 years, a
few live in the district for 10 years to 20 years, and one respondent dwells in the district for
20 years to 30 years. Correspondingly, slightly more than half of respondents in Maesod
district of Thailand and 4 fifth of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar are nonnative local residents. Almost a third of respondents in Maesod district dwell in the city for
less than 10 years and a fifth live in the city for 10 years to 20 years. Likewise, half of
respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar reside in the city for less than 10 years and
almost a third of respondents live in the city for 10 years to 20 years.
5.9 Local Border Retailers
Border retail is the sale of goods from individuals or businesses to the customers. Retailers
are part of the border supply chains. They sell smaller quantities of goods to the consumers
for a profit. Border retailing can be done in either fixed locations like stores, markets or on
streets. The profiles of border retailers are as follows:
1) Background of the Border Retailer Respondents
With respect to gender, female retailers (60% to 82.5% across the cross-border regions)
play important role in trading. Wth regard to race, a large number of people from bordering
cities perform retailing in adjacent Thai border cities. For instance, 91% of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand are Cambodian nationals. Likewise, less than a tenth of
respondents in Maesod district are Burmese nationals. The rest of respondents in 4 border
districts are real nationals from their respective districs.
In relation to age, the average ages of retailers across Thai border districts are of older
working age ranging from 34 to 49 years old, while respondents across bordering districts
are younger, ranging from 31 to 37 years old. For comparative analysis, more than a third
of respondents in both Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov district of
Cambodia are younger than 30 years old. A third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district
of Thailand are 30 to 50 years old, a quarter are 50 to 60 years old, and one respondent
aged older than 60 years old. While almost half of respondents in OChrov district of
Cambodia are 30 to 50 years old, almost a tenth are 50 to 60 years old. Likewise, more
than 3 quarters of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand are 50 to 60 years
old, almost a fifth are younger than 30 years old, and one respondent aged older than 60
years old. Also, almost 3 quarters of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao
PDR are 30 to 50 years old, less than a fifth are younger than 30 years old, and a tenth are
aged older than 60 years old. Correspondingly, more than 2 third of respondents in Maesod
district of Thailand are still in working ages of 50 to 60 years old, less than a fifth are
younger than 30 years old, a tenth are 30 to 50 years old, and a few of border retailers are
older than 60 years old. Also, more than 3 quarters of respondents in Myawaddy district of
Myanmar are 30 to 50 years old, a fifth are younger than 30 years old, and one respondent
aged 50 to 60 years old.
Regarding marital status, 72.90% to 100% of respondents across the cross-border regions
are already married. For comparative analysis, almost 3 quarters of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and more than 4 fifth of respondents in OChrov district
60
of Cambodia are married. A quarter of respondents in Aranyaprathet district are still single,
one respondent is divorced, while less than a fifth of respondents in OChrov district are
still single. Also, most of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and 3
quarters of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand are married. More than a
third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district are still single, a few are divorced, and
one respondent is widowed. Only a very small proportion of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district are still single. Similarly, more than 4 fifth of respondents in Maesod
district of Thailand and all of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar are already
married. While a tenth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand are still single, a few
of respondents are divorced.
2) Educational levels
Table 5.6 belows exhibits educational levels of respondents across three cross-border
regions.
Educational level
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
6
12.5
0
0
7
14.5
12
38.7
33
68.7
10
32.3
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
1
1.8
0
0
12
21.1
4
13.3
12
21.1
4
13.3
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
1
3.3
6
20
14
46.6
19
63.3
7
23.3
5
16.7
1. Illiterate
2. Primary school
3. Lower secondary
school
4. Higher
1
2
9
29
9
15.8
22
73.3
0
0
0
secondary school
5. Vocational
1
2
0
0
10
17.5
0
0
1
3.3
0
certificate
6. Bachelor degree
0
0
0
0
12
21.1
0
0
6
20
0
7. Master degree
0
0
0
0
1
1.8
0
0
0
0
0
Total
48
100
31
100
47
100
30
100
30
100
30
(Tha)-Lao PDR (Lao): Muang Mukdaharn District/ Kaysone Phomvihane district;
Thailand (Tha)-Myanmar (Mya): Maesod District/ Myawaddy District
F stands for frequency.
Thai respondents across Thai border districts generally have higher educational attainments
than counterpart bordering districts. Ranging from 21.10% to 68.70% of Thai respondents
finished lower secondary school, while 13.30% to 63.30% of respondents across bordering
districts finished primary school. For comparative analysis, only a very small proportion of
Thai respondents in Aranyaprathet district graduated from either lower secondary school or
higher secondary school, earned vocational certificate, and even are illiterate. In
comparison, 2 third of Cambodian border retailer respondents in Aranyaprathet district
finished lower secondary school. Less than a fifth finished primary school and a tenth of
respondents are illiterate. While almost 2 fifth of respondents in OChrov district of
Cambodia finished primary school, almost a third completed lower secondary school, and
more than a quarter graduated from higher secondary school.
Likewise, slightly more than a fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district finished
either primary school or lower secondary school, or earned a bachelor degree. Less than a
fifth of respondents either graduated from higher secondary school or earned vocational
61
0
0
0
0
100
certificate. One respondent holds a master degree and another is illiterate. Similarly, almost
3 quarters of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR finished lower
secondary school and slightly more than a tenth of respondents completed either primary
school or lower secondary school.Correspondingly, less than half of respondents in
Maesod district of Thailand and more than 3 fifth of respondents in Myawaddy district
finished primary school. Almost a quarter of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand
including a Burmese national retailer completed lower secondary school and there are very
few who either received vocational certificate or are illiterate. While less than a fifth of
respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar completed lower secondary school, a fifth
of respondents are illiterate.
3) Monthly income of border retailers
Table 5.7 below presents monthly income of border retailers across three cross-border
regions.
Table 5.7 Monthly income of border retailers
Monthly income scale
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
30,000 Baht
4
8.3
11
30,000-50,000 Baht
5
10.4
8
50,000-70,000 Baht
20
41.6
3
70,000-90,000 Baht
12
25
8
>90,000 Baht
7
14.5
1
Total
48
100
31
Mean (Baht)
65,730
45,484
Standard deviation
23,936
27,922
%
35.5
25.8
9.7
25.8
3.2
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
40
70.2
18
9
15.8
4
7
12.3
3
1
1.8
4
0
0
1
57
100
30
25,614
34,500
17,574
27,183
%
60
13.3
10
13.3
3.3
100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
19
63.3
20
6
20
8
2
6.6
2
1
3.3
0
2
6.6
0
30
100
30
31,167
24,667
26,067
14,430
Respondents across Thai border districts have quite higher average monthly income of
25,614 Baht, 31,167 Baht and 65,730 Baht in Muang Mukdahan, Maesod and
Aranyaprathet districts, respectively. On the other hand, respondents across the bordering
districts have lower average monthly income of 24,667 Baht, 34,500 Baht and 45,484 Baht
in Myawaddy, Kaysone Phomvihane and OChrov districts, respectively. The table shows
a broad variation of standard deviation, which means that the respondents might have
under-reported their monthly income. For comparative analysis, Thai border retailers in
Aranyaprathet district generate monthly income of 65,730 Baht which is higher than the
Cambodian national retailers. A few of Thai respondents in Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand generate income higher than 90,000 Baht per month. There are very few Thai
respondents who earn either 50,000 Baht to 70,000 Baht or 70,000 Baht to 90,000 Baht per
month. Likewise, 2 fifth of Cambodian border retailers in Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand generate monthly income of 50,000 Baht to 70,000 Baht per month. Almost a
quarter of respondents earn 70,000 Baht to 90,000 Baht per month, a tenth gain either less
than 30,000 Baht, or 30,000 Baht to 50,000 Baht or higher than 90,000 Baht per month. In
contrast, the monthly income of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia is much
lower at 24,667 Baht. More than a third of respondents in OChrov district generate
income of less than 30,000 Baht per month and a quarter earn either 30,000 Baht to 50,000
Baht or 70,000 Baht to 90,000 Baht per month. Almost a tenth of respondents generate
50,000 Baht to 70,000 Baht per month and one respondent earns higher than 90,000 Baht
per month.
While the average monthly income of border retailers in Kaysone Phomvihane district of
Lao PDR is much higher at 34,500 Baht, the average monthly income of border retailers in
62
%
66.7
26.7
6.7
0
0
100
Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand is lower at 25,614 Baht. Less than 3 quarters of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand earn less than 30,000 Baht per month
and less than a fifth generate 30,000 Baht to 50,000 Baht per month. More than a tenth of
respondents gain 50,000 Baht to 70,000 Baht per month and one respondent receives
70,000 Baht to 90,000 Baht per month. In comparison, 3 fifth of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district generate less than 30,000 Baht per month, more than a tenth earn
30,000 Baht to 50,000 Baht or 70,000 Baht to 90,000 Baht per month, a tenth gain 50,000
Baht to 70,000 Baht per month, and one respondent secures 90,000 Baht per month.
Correspondingly, the average monthly income of border retailers in Maesod district of
Thailand is higher at 31,167 Baht, whereas, the average monthly income of border retailers
in Myawaddy district is lower at 24,667 Baht. More than half of respondents in Maesod
district of Thailand, including 2 Burmese border retailers, receive monthly income less
than 30,000 Baht. A fifth of respondents generate 30,000 Baht to 50,000 Baht per month,
less than a tenth gain either 50,000 Baht to 70,000 Baht or higher than 90,000 Baht per
month, and a few acquire 70,000 Baht to 90,000 Baht per month. While 2 third of border
retailer respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar generate monthly income less than
30,000 Baht, a quarter earn 30,000 Baht to 50,000 Baht per month, and a few secure
50,000 Baht to 70,000 Baht per month. It should be noted that the broad range of standard
deviations shown in the table implies that some respondents may have under-reported their
monthly income.
4) Nativity
Table 5.8 below presents nativity of respondents across three cross-border regions.
Nativity
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
Native local
3
6.25
1
3.3
resident
Cross-border
44
91.6
0
0
immigrant traders
<10 years
0
0
20
64.4
10-20 years
1
2
10
32.2
>20 years
0
0
0
0
Total
48
100
31
100
Mean
16
10
Standard
15
10
deviation
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
33
57.9
22
66.7
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
7
23.3
6
20
11
11
2
57
12
13
19.3
19.3
3.6
100
8
2
1
33
8
11
24.3
6.1
3
100
10
7
6
30
14
16
33.3
23.3
20
100
14
10
0
30
10
11
46.7
33
0
100
More than half of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and 2 third of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are truly native local residents,
whereas, most of respondents (76.70%, 80%, 93.75% and 96.70%) from the other 4 border
districts (Maesod, Myawaddy, Aranyaprathet and OChrov districts, respectively) are nonnative local residents. Regarding non-native local residents, respondents across Thai border
districts reside in their respective districts for 12 years, 14 years, and 16 years in Muang
Mukdahan, Maesod, and Aranyaprathet districts, respectively. Respondents in the
bordering districts live for shorter time of 8 years in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao
63
PDR to 10 years each in both OChrov district of Cambodia and Myawaddy district of
Myanmar.
For comparative analysis, there are very few respondents in both Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand and OChrov district of Cambodia who are native local-residents. Regarding nonlocal residents, 92% of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand are Cambodian
border retailers, who always cross the border on daily basis. Only a Thai respondent
resides in the district for 10 years to 20 years. On the contrary, almost 2 third of
respondents in OChrov district reside in the district for less than 10 years and almost a
third lived in the district for 10 years to 20 years. Also, almost a fifth of respondents in
Muang Mukdahan district resided in the district either for less than 10 years or for 10 years
to 20 years and a few live in the district longer than 20 years. Similarly, almost a quarter of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR reside in the district for less than
10 years, a few for 10 years to 20 years, and one respondent inhabits in the district for
more than 20 years.
However, 20% and 23.30% of respondents in both Myawaddy district of Myanmar and
Maesod district of Thailand, respectively, are native local residents. Regarding non-native
local residents, a third of respondents lived in Maesod district for less than 10 years, almost
a quarter stay in the district longer for 10 years to 20 years, and a fifth reside in the district
longer than 20 years. Also, almost half of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar
stay in the district for less than 10 years and a third live in the district for 10 years to 20
years.
5.10 Local Border Industrial Developers
The background of border industrial developers is as follows:
Regarding gender, respondents across Thai border districts have more male industrial
developers: 62.30%, 70% and 75% in Maesod, Muang Mukdahan and Aranyaprathet
districts, respectively. Across the bordering districts, the number of male industrial
developers is slightly lower: 55.70%, 66.60% and 70% in Kaysone Phomvihane,
Myawaddy and OChrov districts, respectively. The rest of respondents across the crossborder regions are female industrial developers.
In terms of race, most of respondents are nationals from respective districs across the
cross-border regions. However, there is few cross-border industrial developers in 2 Thai
border districts of Muang Mukdahan and Maesod and in bordering Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR. For comparative analysis, all of respondents in Aranyaprathet district
are Thai nationals. Likewise, most of respondents in Muang Mukdahan and Maesod
districts are Thai nationals, while one respondent in Muang Mukdahan district is a
Vietnamese national. A few of respondents in Maesod district are either Burmese or
Chinese entrepreneurs while all respondents in 2 bordering districts including OChrov and
Myawaddy districts are their respective Cambodian and Burmese nationals. Also, most of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district are Laotian nationals, while a few of
respondents are Thai nationals, and one respondent is South Korean national.
64

The section summarizes the profiles of the 3 cross-border regions between Thailand and
neighboring countries together with characteristics of local border traders and industrial
developer entrepreneurs as follows:
5.11.1 Profiles of the Cross-Border Regions
All 3 cross-border regions share both common and region-specific features. As for the
common features, all study locations are strategic border nodes/gateways located along the
main GMS economic corridors consisting of the East-West Economic Corridor and the
Southern Economic Corridor. These border gateways play crucial role in distributing
goods, services, people and vehicle mobility across the borders, as well as fostering closer
regional integration towards ASEAN Community. Two cross-border regions are located
along the East-West Economic Corridor. These are: (1) Maesod district in Tak province of
Thailand bordering with Myawaddy district in Kayin state of Myanmar; and (2) Muang
Mukdahan district in Mukdahan province of Thailand bordering with Kaysone
Phomvihane district in Savannakhet province of Lao PDR. Likewise, Aranyaprathet
district in Sakaeo province of Thailand, which borders with OChrov district in Banteay
Meanchey province of Cambodia, is located along the Southern Economic Corridor.
All cross-border regions being studied are far from their respective capital cities, ranging
from 225 Km to 647 Km. Also, the populations across the cross-border regions range from
53,000 to 119,125 inhabitants. Thai border districts tend to have higher population and
population density than the counterpart bordering districts. There is diversity of ethnic
groups across the cross-border regions. For instance, Aranyaprathet district has a mixed of
Thais from various parts of Thailand. Likewise, OChrov district has a mixed Cambodian
population from many parts of Cambodia. Moreover, Muang Mukdahan district has a
mixed population of Thai, Laotian and Vietnamese. Kaysone Phomvihane district has a
mixed population of Lao, Thai, Vietnamese and Chinese, as well as ethnic minority groups
from various parts of Lao PDR. Maesod district has international character as inhabitants
comprise of a mixed of local residents, highlanders and international NGOs. On the
contrary, Myawaddy district is in a minority state of Myanmar. Majority of the inhabitants
are Karen ethnic nationals while the rest are Bamar, Mon, Shan and Pa-O. A particular
problem in Kayin state is the constant fighting between the government and the insurgent
Karen National Union (KNU) for over 60 years that created thousands of refugees and
internally displaced people. The financial source of KNU operation is generated from
controlling portion of cross-border trade with Thailand. A large number of Kayin refugees
fleeing as a result of battles between Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) and
Tatmadaw (Armed Forces of Myanmar) are encamped in the Thai side of the border.
All cross-border regions being studied are 20% to 61% urbanized due primarily to rapid
local economic and population growth and increasing border industrialization. A number
of special border economic zones are being developed in the cross-border regions. It is
likewise being planned in Thai border regions. Border bazaar economies have been
existent across the cross-border regions and the notable one is the Rong Klea integrated
border market in Aranyaprathet district. It is the largest border market in Thailand and the
largest secondhand clothes market in Asia. Fast cross-border trade growth leads to
noticeable traffic congestion at the border checkpoints across the Thai border regions. In
addition, large casinos are widely developed in both OChrov district of Cambodia and in
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR. On the other hand, operating a casino is strictly
65
prohibited in Thailand because of huge outflow of local and regional Thai tourists visiting
casinos in these bordering districts. On the contrary, there is a continuing huge influx of
immigrant labor from bordering districts into the counterpart Thai border regions.
5.11.2 Profiles of the Local Border Entrepreneurs
This section presents common and category-specific profiles of the respondents, which
mainly consists of border trader category including cross-border large scale traders, local
border wholesalers and retailers. It provides insight into how different types of local border
traders and industrial developer respondents evolve towards border entrepreneurships. The
specific feature for each type of respondent is described as follows:
1) Local Cross-Border Large Scale Traders
The local cross-border large scale traders play vital role in fostering closer regional
economic integration. Most respondents (54.40% to 76.70%) across the cross-border
regions are male traders. With regards to race, respondents across 5 border districts are
mostly their respective nationals, except in Maesod district where most of cross-border
trader respondents are Thai nationals. A few of the respondents are Burmese nationals. The
average age of respondents across the cross-border regions is 34 years to 45 years old.
Most respondents (59% to 100%) across the cross-border regions are married. Respondents
across Thai border districts have higher educational attainment than those counterparts in
bordering districts. Respondents (26.50% to 48.60%) across Thai border districts obtained
higher education, while 26.70% to 52.80% of respondents across the bordering districts
completed higher secondary school. This means having higher educational attainment
could better equip them to adapt to changing rules and regulations on cross-border trading.
Most respondents (50% to 76.60%) across 5 border districts are native local residents,
except in OChrov district of Cambodia, where remarkably, 93.40% of respondents are
non-native local residents. Regarding non-local dwellers, the average length of residency
across the cross-border regions vary from 10 years to 17 years.
2) Local Border Wholesalers
Most respondents (53.30 % to 76.60%) across 5 bordering districts are women, while 3
fifth of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia are male border wholesalers. The
average age of respondents across the cross-border regions range from 31 to 49 years old.
All of respondents in both Kaysone Phomvihane of Lao PDR and Myawaddy district of
Myanmar are already married, while the rest (60.60% to 93.30%) of respondents across 4
border districts are married. Respondents across the cross-border regions are mostly their
respective nationals. Respondents across Thai border districts have higher educational
levels than counterparts in bordering districts. Monthly incomes also vary across the crossborder regions. Respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand have highest average
monthly income of 373,334 Baht, while respondents in bordering OChrov district of
Cambodia have lowest average monthly income of 88,001 Baht. Respondents in bordering
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR have highest (66.70%) number of local native
residents, followed by 53.30% of respondents from Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand.
Respondents in the 2 Thai border districts have more local native residents, which are
23.30% and 48.50% in Aranyaprathet and Maesod districts, respectively. On the other
hand, respondents in the 2 bordering districts have lower local native residents, which are
13.30% and 20% in OChrov district of Cambodia and Myawaddy district of Myanmar,
respectively. The average length of residency of non-local native residents across the
cross-border regions ranges from 4 years to 11 years.
66
3) Local Border Retailers

Female retailers (60% to 82.5% across the cross-border regions) play important trading
role. The retailers across Thai border districts are aged older (34 years to 49 years old),
while respondents across the bordering districts are younger (31 years to 37 years old).
Most respondents (ranging from 72.90% to 100%) across the cross-border regions are
already married. Respondents across Thai border districts generally have higher
educational levels than counterparts in bordering districts. Respondents across Thai border
districts have quite higher average monthly income of 25,614 Baht, 31,167 Baht and
65,730 Baht in Muang Mukdahan, Maesod and Aranyaprathet districts, respectively. On
the contrary, respondents in the bordering districts have lower monthly income of 24,667
Baht, 34,500 Baht and 45,484 Baht in Myawaddy, Kaysone Phomvihane and OChrov
districts, respectively. More than half of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand and 2 third of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are native
local residents, whereas, most (76.7% to 96.7%) of respondents in the other 4 border
districts are non-native local residents. Regarding non-native local residents, respondents
in Thai border districts reside for longer duration in the respective districts, that is, for 12
years, 14 years and 16 years in Muang Mukdahan, Maesod and Aranyaprathet districts,
respectively. On the contrary, respondents in the bordering districts live for shorter
duration, that is, for 8 years in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and for 10 years
each in both OChrov district of Cambodia and Myawaddy district of Myanmar.
4) Local Border Industrial Developers
Respondents across Thai border districts have higher number of male industrial developers,
that is, 62.30%, 70% and 75% in Maesod, Muang Mukdahan and Aranyaprathet districts,
respectively. Respondents across the bordering districts have slightly lower number of
male industrial developers, that is, 55.70%, 66.60% and 70% in Kaysone Phomvihane,
Myawaddy and OChrov districts, respectively. Most of respondents across the crossborder regions are their respective nationals. However, there is few existing cross-border
industrial developers in the 2 Thai border districts of Muang Mukdahan and Maesod and in
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR.
To sum up, this chapter presented unique features of the study location in the cross-border
regions, where each cross-border region has its own characteristics, economic and
sociocultural boundaries. It also reveals the state of interdependent borderlands between
Thailand and bordering countries. Likewise, the border economic actors play important
role in fostering entrepreneurships, as well as driving a vibrant cross-border economy.
67
CHPATER 6
MACRO LEVEL ANALYSIS OF CROSS-BORDER TRADE LINKAGES AND
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES BETWEEN THAILAND AND NEIGHBORING
COUNTRIES
This chapter describes the key factors contributing to expansion of cross-border trade
consisting of cross-border and regional infrastructure linkages, bilateral and regional trade
agreements, and regional trade facilitation initiatives. Essentially, an overview of crossborder trade relations between Thailand and 4 neighboring countries including CambodiaLao PDR-Malaysia and Myanmar is presented using time series data of 18 years (from
1996-2013). Bilateral cross-border trade problems will also be highlighted.
6.1 State of Cross-Border Trade Relations between Thailand and Neighboring
Countries
Cross-border trade is one of the key indicators of closer economic interdependence
between Thailand and neighboring countries. It expanded rapidly following the relaxation
of border restrictions stemming from occasional political conflicts (Thailand Development
Research Institute, 1997). Thailand possesses strategic geographical advantages at the
junction of mainland Southeast Asian region allowing businesses to conduct both crossborder trade and transit trade to a combined of 2.90 billion population in 9 countries, which
is divided into two groups of countries. The adjacent neighboring country markets can be
transacted through cross-border trade with total prospective consumers of 96.69 million
population in four countries comprising of CLMM. And the nearby neighboring country
markets can be transacted through cross-border transit trade with total prospective
consumers with 2.80 billion population in five countries consisting of Vietnam, India,
Bangladesh, China, and Singapore. However, there is a dichotomy of border trade
activities classified into formal and informal cross-border trade.
6.1.1 Formal Cross-Border Trade
The following analysis primarily focuses on formal cross-border trade between Thailand
and neighboring countries using available time series data of 18 years from 1996-2013.
Fostered by both geographical adjacency of structural differences and the above-mentioned
contributing factors, coupled with advancement of information technology, particularly the
Internet and mobile phones, local and regional cross-border trade has shown a rising trend.
The cumulative value of cross-border trade between Thailand and neighboring countries
significantly reached 200.40 billion US$ with a share of 58.66% of total international trade
value from neighboring countries. The cumulative share of cross-border export to these
neighbors was as high as 59.40%. The cumulative share of cross-border import was
40.59%, contributed by Malaysia (56.15%), Myanmar (35.39%), Lao PDR (6.82%) and
Cambodia (1.62%). As a result, Thailand gained significant cumulative balance of crossborder trade of 37.69 billion US$. The annual average growth of cross-border trade from
1996-2001 was 16.98% despite the fact that Thailand had faced severe financial crisis
during 1998-2001. During enforcement of AFTA from 2002-2013, it significantly kept
increasing to 22.47% per year (Table 6.1). Above all when the specified AFTA tariffs
became 0% in 2010, its annual cross-border trade growth considerably increased to 32.08%
compared with 2009. This growth could partly sustain national macroeconomic stability.
With increasing trend of international trade of Thailand, the intra-ASEAN trade and crossborder trade are also gradually rising though the proportion of share is low. Cross-border
trade during 2008-2013 has reached a significant level with an average share of 30.77% to
68
intra-ASEAN trade. This reflects the combined effects of bilateral and regional trade
agreements and regional trade facilitation initiatives. Similarly, the share of cross-border
trade to Thailands aggregate international trade with the world significantly rose from
1.02% in 1996 to 6.48% in 2012 or equivalent to 7.67% of Gross Domestic Product. Crossborder trade growth may somehow contribute to regional development as both urban and
rural people including the poor along border regions between Thailand and neighboring
countries can also benefit from trade, as well gain access to variety of products. This will
result in better quality of life. However, cross-border traded goods are mainly produced in
Bangkok, national capital city, and its vicinity like eastern region and regional growth
Table 6.1 International Trade Value of Thailand
Regional trade
1996-2001
Average
2002-2013 Average
Total
growth
Total
growth
(Billions of
Per year (Billions of Per year
US$)
(%)
US$)
(%)
1.Extra-ASEAN
584.30
0.82
2,926.17
9.36
2.Intra-ASEAN
123.55
1.74
737.78
13.92
2.1 Cross-border trade
11.49
16.98
188.91
22.47
2.2 Cross-border transit trade
0.30
23.50
21.08
36.91
(Singapore, Vietnam and Southern
region of China)
Total international trade
710.85
0.60
3,663.95
12.18
Source: Trades statistics for the period of 1996-2013 from the Department of Customs,
Thailand.
centers. At present, Thai border cities and towns mainly play a distribution role. In relation
to bilateral cross-border trade of goods with neighboring countries, trading is categorized
into two types consisting of (1) local and regional cross-border trade carried by land
transport and (2) international trade carried by sea and air freights. When both types of
trading are combined, the result will be aggregate international trade value. The bilateral
cross-border trades of goods with reference to neighboring countries are discussed below.
It is revealed that the pattern of cross-border trade and commerce greatly varies depending
on respective comparative advantages as follows:
1) Cambodia: During 1996-2013, the bilateral cumulative cross-border trade value was at
17.47 billion US$. The aggregate cross-border export increased substantially from 50
million US$ in 1996 to 2.78 billion US$ in 2013 with annual average growth of 29.38%
(Figure 6.1). In 2013, the aggregate bilateral cross-border trade with four-neighboring
countries accounted for 9.98% of aggregate cross-border trade value. Aranyaprathet border
checkpoint was the most important gateway accountable for 60% of total cross-border
trade export value. Aranyaprathet district is also the host site of Rong Kleua integrated
border wholesale market, the largest second-hand clothes market in Asia (Daily
Newspaper, 2010). There is an existing cross-border outsourcing of production especially
for ready-to-wear garments from Aranyaprathet district to bordering Poi Pet city of
Cambodia. Then, the finished clothes are re-exported for selling at Rong Kleua border
market. Therefore, this market plays crucial role in distributing goods locally and
regionally to garment clusters in Bangkok and other regional markets in Thailand.
Klongyai border checkpoint stands out in second place with 30% share. The rest is
contributed by 5 other border checkpoints. The major exported goods through
Aranyaprathet border checkpoint are motorcycles and parts, cement, engines, livestock
69
feed and chemical fertilizers, cars, liquefied petroleum gas and printed textiles
(Department of Customs of Thailand, 2013). The total cross-border import from Cambodia
steadily grew from 41 million US$ in 1996 to 261 million US$ in 2013. During the last 18
years, the annual average growth of cross-border import was at 26.11%. In 2013, the share
of Aranyaprathet border checkpoint was as high as 82%, followed by Klongyai border
checkpoint with 14.19%, Chantaburi and Chongchom border checkpoints each with 2%,
and the rest was shared by three other border checkpoints. The major imported goods from
Cambodia through Aranyaprathet border checkpoint are agricultural produce, recycled
products, second-hand clothes and ready to wear clothes (Department of Customs of
Thailand, 2013).
2) Lao PDR: During the last 18 years, the bilateral cumulative cross-border trade value
was 25.84 billion US$. Thailand gained favorable cumulative balance of cross-border trade
of 14.76 billion US$. In 2013, the share of bilateral cross-border trade with 4 neighboring
countries accounted for 14.24% of aggregate cross-border trade value. The aggregate
cross-border export gradually increased from 205 million US$ in 1996 to 3.53 billion US$
in 2013 (Figure 6.2). During the last 18 years, the annual average growth of cross-border
export was at 18.77%. In 2012, Nongkhai border checkpoint was the most important
gateway with highest share of 51% of total cross-border export value, followed by
Mukdahan border checkpoint with 11.00%, and the rest contributed by 6 other border
checkpoints. The major exported goods through Mukdahan border checkpoint were oil
products, cars, pellet cement, woven fabrics, medical equipments, diggers, polymers of
ethylene tiles and tires (Department of Customs of Thailand, 2013). Cross-border exports
from Thailand approximately serve half of Lao PDRs national population especially those
residing along border regions. The aggregate cross-border import from Lao PDR rose from
68 million US$ in 1996 to 769 million US$ in 2013. During almost 2 decades, the annual
average growth of cross-border import is 23.55%. In 2013, Mukdahan border checkpoint
became the most important entryway with share as high as 78%, followed by
Phiboonmangsahan border checkpoint (6%), Nongkhai border checkpoint (5%), and the
rest by six other checkpoints. The major imported goods through Mukdahan border
checkpoint were processed wood, parquet, electrical parts, underwear and clothes for men
and boys, zinc ore and work uniforms (Department of Customs of Thailand, 2013). In
terms of production linkages, outsourcing from Thailand to make clothes for work
uniforms in Lao PDR is important.
3) Malaysia: It is a more advanced developing market economy among bordering
countries. During the last 18 years, the bilateral cumulative cross-border trade value was
114.22 billion US$. The aggregate bilateral cross-border trade value expanded from 0.82
billion US$ in 1996 to 16.31 billion US$ in 2013, representing 54.07% of the aggregate
cross-border trade value with 4 neighboring countries (Figure 6.3). As a result, Thailand
gained favorable cumulative balance of 22.80 billion US$ from cross-border trade. The
aggregate cross-border trade export sharply escalated from 0.54 billion US$ in 1996 to
9.37 billion US$ in 2013. In almost 2 decades, the annual average growth of cross-border
export is 20.16%. In 2013, Sadao border checkpoint was the key export platform
facilitating a high share of 50.18%, followed by Padang Besar border checkpoint (46%),
Betong (1.48%) and Takbai (0.62%). The rest was contributed by 4 other checkpoints. The
major exported goods through Sadao border checkpoint were natural rubber, parts and
accessories of machinery, electrical parts, processed parawood, particle board, rubber hand
glove and print circuit board (Department of Customs of Thailand, 2013). The aggregate
cross-border import also sharply increased from 0.28 billion US$ in 1996 to 6.97 billion
70
US$ in 2013. In almost 2 decades, the annual average growth of cross-border import is
20.66%. Sadao border checkpoint dominated with 84% share, followed by Padang Besar
border checkpoint (14%), Sungai-Golok border checkpoint (1.01%) and the rest shared by
4 other border checkpoints. The major imported goods through Sadao border checkpoint
were electrical parts, parts and accessories of machinery, auto processors, plastic products,
synthetic rubber and chemical fertilizers (Department of Customs of Thailand, 2013).
4) Myanmar: The country has been facing economic sanction by the West since 1997. As
a result, Myanmar has heavily relied on cross-border trade of goods with bordering
countries mostly with Thailand, China and India (Aung, 2010). During the last 18 years,
the bilateral cumulative cross-border trade was at 42.94 billion US$. The aggregate crossborder trade with Myanmar gradually increased from 125 million US$ in 1996 to 6.46
billion US$ in 2013 (Figure 6.4). Its annual average growth of cross-border export is
27.55%. On the contrary, the annual average growth of cross-border import is 64.16%. In
2013, the aggregate bilateral cross-border trade with four-bordering countries accounted
for 21.41% of aggregate border trade value. Maesod, located in the west end of Thailands
section of the East-West Economic Corridor, facilitated as high as 54% of total crossborder export value, followed by Ranong (26%), Maesai (14%), Chiangsaen (3%),
Sangkhlaburi (2%) and the rest contributed by 3 other border checkpoints. The major
exported goods through Maesod border checkpoint were diesel and Benzene oils, vegetable
oil, motorcycles, woven cloth, fishing net, human drugs and consumer goods (Department
of Customs of Thailand, 2013). The aggregate cross-border import value sharply increased
from 21 million US$ in 1996 to 3.83 billion US$ in 2013 mainly resulting from
importation of mainly natural gas utilized for generating electricity in Thailand. As a
result, Thailand faced deficit in cumulative balance of 14.68 billion US$ due to crossborder trade with Myanmar. Sangklaburi temporary border checkpoint alone was the most
important gateway, largely for importing natural gas that contributed 96% of total crossborder import value. Maesod is ranked as second with 2%, followed by Ranong (1%),
Maesai (0.50%), and the rest by 5 others. The major imported commodities through
Maesod border checkpoint were wood, sea aquatic products, live cattle and agricultural
produces (Department of Customs of Thailand, 2013).
6.1.2 Informal Cross-Border Trade
Local border wholesalers play important role in cross-border supply chains as being either
indirect exporter or importer of goods. Despite the permission of local border retailing
functions at border crossing points, there is yet an existing illegal cross-border trade carried
out by both local people and outsiders. Data on the volume of informal cross-border trade
is unavailable. However, its trend seems likely to decline following tariff reductions, as
well as the continuing Royal Thai Government efforts to formalize cross-border trading. In
2011, the leading illegal commodities in the cross-border trade with respective countries
were from Myanmar (narcotics, personal cars, counterfeit bank notes, camera and
batteries); from Lao PDR (game box, clothes, fruits, garlic and narcotics); from Cambodia
(personal cars, dry chili, paddy, cassava, frozen prawn, second-hand clothes and cigar);
and from Malaysia (passenger cars, narcotics, motorcycle parts, compact disc and tractors)
(Department of Customs of Thailand, 2013).
6.1.3 Cross-Border Transit Trade
Consolidated cross-border transit trade is similarly on expanding trend. During 1996-2001,
Thailand transacted cross-border transit trade only with China with total value of 0.30
71
Unit : Millions of US$
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total export of cross-border trade
Total import of cross-border trade
Total export of international trade
Total import of international trade
Source: Data from the Department of Customs, Thailand

Figure 6.1 Cross-Border Trades between Thailand and Cambodia
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010 2011 20122013

Figure 6.2 Cross-Border Trades between Thailand and Lao PDR
72
Unit:Millions of US$
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Figure 6.3 Cross-Border Trades between Thailand and Malaysia
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Figure 6.4 Cross-Border Trades between Thailand and Myanmar
73
billion US$ and average growth of 23.50 % per year, remaining the operation with China
alone until 2006. During 2002-2013, the aggregate cross-border transit trade increased to
21.08 billion US$ with annual average growth of 36.91% per year. Specifically, during
2007-2013, Thailand performed additional cross-border transit trade with 3 countries,
namely, China, Singapore and Vietnam with annual average growth of 77.38% per year. In
2013, the distributions of cross-border trade value with Singapore (via Songkhla province);
Vietnam (via Nongkhai; Mukdahan and Nakhonpanom provinces) and China (via
Chiangrai and Mukdahan provinces) were at 52.31%, 27.72% and 19.97%, respectively
(Department of Foreign Trade, 2013).
6.2 Thailands Bilateral Cross-Border Trade Problems With Neighboring Countries
Cross-border trade patterns between Thailand and neighboring countries considerably
varied from country to country, resulting from different stages of development and diverse
Table 6.2 Thailand Bilateral Cross-Border Trade Problems with Bordering Countries
Common problems
Applied to both Thailand and Cambodia,
Lao PDR and Myanmar (CLM)
1. Inefficient cross-border trade logistics and
long customs procedure at the border
checkpoints leading to high logistics costs.
2. Prevalent culture of corruption by authorities
responsible for trade facilitation resulting in
high cross-border trade transaction costs, which
lead to prevalence of illegally organized trade.
3. Traffic congestion at key border checkpoints
affecting trade flows.
4. Low adoption of Letter of Credit
5. Incidence of cross-border drug abuse and
human trafficking.
6. Government partly losing revenues from
ongoing importing and exporting of illegal trade
along the border.
7. Occasional volatility of Thai Baht currency
that sometimes affects purchasing power in
neighboring countries or lower competitiveness
of exporters-importers giving rise to Thai
products losing market shares. In turn,
currencies of CLM are sometimes not stabilized
resulting in unfavorable trade environment.
8. Tariff and non-tariff discriminatory
measures/barriers imposed by Lao PDR and
Myanmar caused more difficulties to Thai
traders in penetrating their markets and vice
versa.
9. Low trade performance from unilateral free
trade privileges due to complex import-export
procedures either from Thai or neighboring
countries sides resulted in continued shortage of
raw agricultural materials in Thailand.
10. Complex and changing financial system,
relevant rules and regulations and money
transfer procedures in neighboring countries
affecting cross-border trade environment.
11. Cross-border traders in CLM and Thailand
lack knowledge of international trade practices.
Country-specific problems
1. Cambodia
1.1 Frequent changes on applied customs tariffs and customs
practices do not meet international standard.
1.2 Transport of goods through local border crossings is
unable to operate daily.
1.3 Border conflict over co-management of Prasat Pra
Viharn temple in April 2011 led to a 10-15% loss of crossborder trade values between both countries for certain
period.
2. Lao PDR
2.1 Inter-provincial tax charge of 1% for goods movement
causing high cross-border trade costs.
2.2 High customs facilitation cost (e.g., over time charges)
and high import tax leading to illegally organized trade.
2.3 Frequent changes on trade rules and regulations on trade
of wood products (e.g., up to 20% tax charge for export).
2.4 Low trade facilitation performance causing delay on
trade of perishable goods.
2.5 Trade law is not standardized across Lao PDR.
2.6 High cost of cross-border money transfer.
2.7 Imposing import quota on selected commodities (e.g.,
cement, vegetable oil and steel).
3. Malaysia: Some Thai products do not meet Halal
standard.
4. Myanmar
4.1 Internal political uncertainty affecting cross-border trade
environment.
4.2 Unilateral closure of Myawaddy border checkpoint since
July 2010 until December 2011 leading to a loss of 80% of
cross-border trade value per month.
4.3 Frequent changes on applied customs tariffs and customs
formality do not comply with international standard.
4.4 Lack of local and regional road infrastructure.
4.5 Long importation process (2 days).
4.6 Lack of decentralization of power to local officials in
issuing ASEAN Integration System of Preferences (AISP)
certificate.
4.7 Several routes for imported goods are risky as they are in
minority group strongholds, which are not authorized by
Burmese government.
74
Common problems
12. Limited authorized banks in border cities of
CLM, and border trade largely transacted in
informal manner relying on mutual trust,
affecting confidence and diluting business
environment and trade expansion.
Country-specific problems
5.Thailand
5.1Low degree of integration and coordination of agencies
responsible for cross-border trade promotion and facilitation
5.2 Rapid urbanization of border cities causing urban
environmental problems (e.g., slum, solid waste and waste
water, etc.)
Sources: Based on field surveys during 2010-2011.
political and economic systems. Though the trend of cross-border is flourishing, a number
of both common and country-specific bilateral cross-border trade problems still existed, as
presented in Table 6.2 above.
6.3 Factors Contributing to Expansion of Cross-Border Trade
Cross-border trade had been carried out inter-generationally by local inhabitants, gradually
evolving from a very informal manner to become a more formal system as perceived
today. The Department of Foreign Trade of Thailand (2011) defines cross-border trade as
all forms of trade or exchange of goods transacted through border checkpoints by local
people or traders who reside in both sides of provinces or communities along the border.
Currently, there are a total of 71 border checkpoints across Thailand. Their specific
locations are presented in Map 1.1. There are broadly four factors contributing to dynamic
cross-border trade in the context of Thailand, consisting of cross-border and regional
infrastructure linkages, bilateral and regional trade agreements, bilateral and regional
investment agreements and regional trade facilitation initiatives.
6.3.1 Cross-Border and Regional Infrastructure Linkages
Out of 77 provinces of Thailand, 32 provinces share common border with 4 neighbouring
countries (river border with Lao PDR and land border with Cambodia, Malaysia and
Myanmar) with a total length of 5,582 Km, distributed in: 10 western and northern
provinces along Myanmar with a length of 2,400 Km; 11 northeastern provinces along Lao
PDR (1,810 Km); 7 northeastern and eastern provinces along Cambodia (725 Km) and 4
southern provinces along Malaysia with shortest length of (647 Km). Extensive crossborder infrastructure linkages have been developed over the years. As an emerging donor
country, during 2005-2009, Thailand has extended cumulative grant to Cambodia, Lao
PDR and Myanmar (CLM) with a total of 201.87 million US$ to develop cross-border rail
links, interprovincial roads and airports towards sub-regional transport integration and
multimodal linkages (NEDA, 2009). The major railways linking with neighboring
countries that are currently in operation are from Bangkok to Vientiane, capital city of Lao
PDR and Bangkok to Penang state of Malaysia. Chiangsaen river port in Chiangrai
province, which is in operation since 2003, plays vital role in connecting northern region of
Thailand with southern region of China. And the second Chiangsaen river port was
constructed just about 10 Km away downstream (NESDB, 2008). Thailand participates in
the GMS Information Superhighway Network (ISN), which strengthens GMS-wide
network to support regional integration (ADB, 2007). In addition, Thailand has taken part
in other two overlapping regional highway networks, notably, the ASEAN Highway
Network signed in 1999 and Asian Highway Network signed in 2005, which are extended
over the country at 12 routes with a total road length of 3,430 Km (Department of
Highways of Thailand, 2011).
75
6.3.2 Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements

Thailand has signed bilateral trade agreements with neighboring countries (Lao PDR:
1978; Malaysia: 2000; Cambodia: 2000 and Myanmar: 2010) in order to forge economic
relations and trade facilitation (Department of Trade Negotiations of Thailand, 2000).
There are two pertinent pacts regarding regional trade agreement, the first of which is the
ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), having a large market size of 590 million in terms of
population. The old six member countries of ASEAN have reduced import duties of
Inclusion List (IL) within the Common Effective Preferential Tariff Scheme (CEPT) from
0 to 5% since 2003, and have become 0% since 2010. Moreover, the new member
countries have lowered import duties of IL within CEPT from 0 to 5 % in 2006 by
Vietnam; Lao PDR and Myanmar in 2008; Cambodia in 2010, and have become 0% as
agreed by all 4 countries in 2015. The total number of commodities under CEPT cover
105,123 items (ASEAN Secretariat, 2008). The second pact which is the ASEAN-China
Free Trade Area was signed on November 29, 2004 leading to gradual process of trade
liberalization for two categories. The first category is the Early Harvest program consisting
of specific agricultural products. Regarding this category, China and old ASEAN member
countries started reducing import tariffs from January 1, 2004, and lowered further to 0%
since January 1, 2006. The new ASEAN member countries have reduced the tariff to 0%
since 2010 (Department of Trade Negotiations of Thailand, 2000). The second category is
the Tariff Reduction for General Commoditys program, which is divided into 3 tracks.
The Normal Track which is higher than 20% has become 20% since January 1, 2005. The
Sensitive Track has been reduced to 20% since 2012, and the final tariff will be set at 0%
to 5% by 2018. Finally, for the Highly Sensitive Track, the tariff should be lowered to
become 50% by 2015.
6.3.3 Bilateral and Regional Investment Agreements
These agreements play vital role in fostering intra-ASEAN trade, as well as promoting
ASEAN as single investment destination towards AEC. Thailand has extensively engaged
in bilateral agreements on promotion and protection of investments with 42 contracting
parties all over the world including 4 bordering countries, namely, China (1985), Lao PDR
(1990), Cambodia (1995) and Myanmar (2008) (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2011). The
primary objectives of these agreements were to create favorable conditions for greater
economic cooperation between both states in terms of investment by investors in another
country, as well as to foster free flows of capital (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008). The
regional investment agreements are composed of (1) ASEAN Industrial Cooperation
Scheme (AICO) and (2) ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA). The
AICO Scheme is the latest ASEAN industrial cooperation program which aims to promote
joint manufacturing activities and intra-ASEAN trade between ASEAN-based companies
under the CEPT Scheme for AFTA. It promotes investment from technology-based
industries and enhances value added activities by forming a minimum of 2 companies in 2
different ASEAN countries (ASEAN Secretariat, 2011). The ACIA Scheme, which was
signed on February 26, 2009, was the result of the consolidation and revision of the 1987
ASEAN Investment Guarantee Agreement (IGA) and the 1998 ASEAN Investment Area
(AIA) (ASEAN Secretariat, 2010). ACIA represents a comprehensive investment
agreement covering manufacturing, agriculture, fishery, forestry, mining and quarrying and
services incidental to these five sectors. ACIA thus comprises 4 main pillars which are:
liberalization, protection, facilitation and promotion; clear timelines for investment
liberalization; benefits for foreign-owned ASEAN-based investors; and reaffirmation of
national treatment and MFN treatment.
76
6.3.4 Regional Trade Facilitation Initiatives

These initiatives which encourage to promote cross-border free flows of goods and
peoples mobility comprise of 1) ASEAN Integration System of Preferences (AISP), 2)
ACMECS and 3) regional transport facilitation initiatives. AISP focuses on granting
unilateral free trade treatment from old members to new members (CLMV) in order to
narrow down stages of development among ASEAN member countries. The time frame for
implementing this scheme was from January 1, 2002 until December 31, 2009. In 2005,
Thailand granted cumulative AISP to CLMV for 340, 300, 850 and 63 commodities,
respectively. ACMECS strives to reduce trade barriers, improves transport linkages and
upgrades major border checkpoints. In 2004, Thailand implemented a contract farming
initiative in order to improve livelihood conditions along border areas of Cambodia, Lao
PDR and Myanmar by adopting unilateral free trade including 11 agricultural products by
exporters from CLM into Thailand. These products can be utilized as raw materials for
border industries in Thailand. Through regional transport facilitation initiatives, Thailand
has extensively involved in the promotion of integrated cross-border transport facilitation
efforts right from the Transport Agreement on Carrying of Perishable Goods between
Thailand and Singapore through Malaysia, which has been in effect since 1979. Thailand
already signed the ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitation of Goods in Transit
in 1998 that became effective in 2000. Furthermore, a common navigation rules for
facilitating transport in Mekong river linking Yunnan province of China, Lao PDR, and
Chiangrai province in northern region of Thailand have been effective since 2001
(Ministry of Transport of Thailand, 2011). Thailand also signed the Cross-Border
Transport Agreement (CBTA) on November 26, 1999, which was originally a trilateral
agreement between and among the governments of the Lao Peoples Republic, the
Kingdom of Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. Later, the Kingdom of
Cambodia acceded to the CBTA in 2001, the Peoples Republic of China in 2002, and the
Union of Myanmar in 2003. Its aim was to promote speedy facilitation of cross-border
transport of goods and people at the border-crossing points along the GMS corridors, thus
easing trade flows (NESDB, 2013). By March 25, 2013, Thailand has partially ratified the
CBTA.
This chapter has highlighted the overview of cross-border trade relations between Thailand
and neighboring countries including Cambodia, Lao PDR, Malaysia and Myanmar using
time series data of 18 years from 1996-2013. Fostered by both geographical adjacency of
structural differences and the above-mentioned contributing factors, coupled with
advancement of information technology particularly the Internet and mobile phones, the
pattern of local and regional cross-border trade as well as cross-border transit trade have
shown a rising trend depending on comparative advantages. Thailand mainly exported
consumer goods, oil products, intermediate goods and machinery to neighboring countries.
And it imported natural gas, electrical parts, parts and accessories of machinery, auto
processors and resourcebased products such as agricultural commodities, wood and
aquatic products from neighboring countries.
The cumulative value of formal cross-border trade between Thailand and neighboring
countries significantly reached 200.40 billion US$ with a share of 58.66% of total value of
international trade with neighboring countries. The cumulative share of cross-border export
to these neighbors was as high as 59.40%. On the other hand, the cumulative share of
cross-border import was at 40.59%, contributed by Malaysia (56.15%), Myanmar
77
(35.39%), Lao PDR (6.82%), and Cambodia (1.62%). As a result, Thailand gained
significant cumulative balance of 37.69 billion US$ from cross-border trade. The annual
average growth of cross-border trade from 1996-2001 was 16.98% despite the fact that
Thailand had faced severe financial crisis during 1998-2001. During enforcement of AFTA
from 2002-2013, it significantly kept increasing to 22.47% per year. Above all, when the
specified AFTA tariffs became 0% in 2010, its annual cross-border trade growth
considerably increased to 32.08% compared with 2009. This growth could partly sustain
national macroeconomic stability. With increasing trend of Thailands international trade,
the intra-ASEAN trade and cross-border trade are also gradually rising, though the
proportion of share is low. Cross-border trade during 2008-2013 has reached a significant
level with average share of 30.77% to the intra-ASEAN trade. This reflects the combined
effects of bilateral and regional trade agreements and regional trade facilitation initiatives.
Similarly, the share of cross-border trade to Thailands aggregate international trade with
the world significantly rose from 1.02% in 1996 to 6.48% in 2012 or equivalent to 7.67%
of Gross Domestic Product. Cross-border trade growth may somehow contribute to
regional development as both urban and rural people including the poor along border
regions between Thailand and neighboring countries can also benefit from trade, as well as
gain access to variety of products. This will result in better quality of life. However, crossborder traded goods are mainly produced in Bangkok, national capital city, and its vicinity
like eastern region and regional growth centers. At present, Thai border cities and towns
mainly play distribution role. In addition, there is an existing informal or illegal crossborder trade carried out by both local people and outsiders. There is no available data on
the volume of informal cross-border trade. However, its trend seems likely to decline
because of tariff reductions and continuing efforts to formalize cross-border trading.
Likewise, consolidated cross-border transit trade to Singapore, Vietnam and China is on
expanding trend. Patterns of cross-border trade between Thailand and neighboring
countries considerably varied from country to country, resulting from different stages of
development and diverse political and economic systems. Consequently, a number of
common and country-specific bilateral cross-border trade problems still exist. The factors
contributing to expanding cross-border trade included cross-border and regional
infrastructure linkages, bilateral and regional trade agreements, bilateral and regional trade
agreements and regional trade facilitation initiatives.
It is noticeable that regional integration initiatives such as the ASEAN Community and the
Greater Mekong Sub-region development cooperation play vital role in fostering closer
interdependence within member countries. Spatially, advancement of the Greater Mekong
Sub-region economic corridors has strengthened border cities linking Thailand and
bordering countries to emerge as strategic gateways. Coupled with continued cross-border
infrastructure development and improved trade facilitation, these border cities have
gradually transformed their roles towards becoming new peripheral growth centers,
particularly on both cross-border trade and cross-border transit trade of goods. As a result,
these networks of peripheral growth centers could functionally facilitate intra-ASEAN
trade in particular and Asian and global trade in general. Therefore, the hypothesis staing
cross-border trade regions are expected to gain infrastructural, economic and service
benefits at the regional scale due to production and trading linkages is supported.
78
CHAPTER 7
COMPARATIVE MICRO LEVEL ANALYSIS OF CROSS-BORDER FLOWS
OF GOODS AND SERVICES
This chapter presents comparative cross-border analysis of flows of goods and services at
micro level. The detailed comparative analysis focuses on local cross-border large scale
trading.
7.1 Local Cross-Border Large Scale Trading
The characteristics of local cross-border large scale trading are as follows:
1) Cross-border trade segments
Table 7.1 below presents cross-border trade segments at the cross-border regions.Trade
segments significantly vary across the cross-border regions. Ranging from 23.30% to
48.10% of respondents across the Thai border districts are cross-border exporters only. In
contrast, 33.30% to 83.30% of respondents across the bordering districts are cross-border
importers only, as shown in the following table. More than a tenth of respondents across
the bordering districts are both exporters and importers. For comparative analysis, almost a
third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand are cross-border exporters only.
Almost a fifth are either cross-border exporters and importers or provider of shipping
services. More than a tenth are either a combination of cross-border exporters-importers
and wholesalers or integrated cross-border exporters-importers, wholesalers and retailers.
Few of the respondents are cross-border importers only. In OChrov district of Cambodia,
a third of respondents are either cross-border importers only or both cross-border exporters
and importers. More than a tenth of respondents are either cross-border exporters only or a
combination of cross-border exporters-importers and wholesalers. One respondent is an
integrated cross-border exporter-importer, wholesaler and retailer.
Table 7.1 Cross-border trade segments
Cross-border trade
segment
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
7
31.8
2
13.3
1
4.5
5
33.3
4
18.2
5
33.3
1. Export only
2. Import only
3. Both export and
import
4. Combination of
3
18.6
2
13.3
export-import and
wholesaling
5. Integrated export3
13.6
1
6.7
import, wholesaling
and retailing
6. Shipping services
4
18.2
0
0
7. Re-export only
0
0
0
0
Total
22
100
15
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
7
23.3
0
0
15
50
25
83.3
4
13.3
3
10
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
26
48.1
6
20
7
13
20
66.7
6
11.1
4
13.3
6.7
3.7
16.7
2
0
30
6.7
0
100
0
2
30
0
6.7
100
4
0
54
7.4
0
100
0
0
30
0
0
100
Also, more than a tenth of respondents in both Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are both cross-border exporters and importers.
Half of respondents in that district are cross-border importers only and almost a quarter are
79
cross-border exporters only, doing business with Savannakhet and neighboring provinces
in Lao PDR. Few of respondents are either a combination of cross-border exportersimporters and wholesalers or provider of shipping services. On the contrary, most of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are cross-border importers only,
as well as being sole authorized dealers from Thailand, doing business either within
Savannakhet province or southern region of Lao PDR. Few of respondents are re-exporters
only. For comparison, almost half of the respondents in Maesod district of Thailand are
cross-border exporters only. Almost 2 fifth are integrated cross-border exporters-importers,
wholesalers and retailers and more than a tenth are cross-border importers only. A tenth of
respondents are both cross-border exporters and importers and a few are either shipping
services providers or a combination of cross-border exporters-importers and wholesalers.
While 2 third of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar are cross-border importers
only, a fifth are cross-border exporters only and less than a fifth of respondents are both
cross-border exporters and importers.
The above analysis of local border trade segments comparing Thailand and bordering
countries of Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar clearly reflects different comparative
advantages that each country is specialized. This resulted from the structure of productions
of Thailand, which is classified as an upper middle-income country and more advanced
that less developed bordering countries. Thailand has obviously emerged as a core trading
nation in the Greater Mekong Sub-region in particular and in ASEAN and the global
market in general. On the contrary, the bordering countries tend to act as peripheral areas
of Thailand.
2) Registration of businesses
Table 7.2 below presents the types of businesses registered in border economic zones.
Such types of registration greatly vary across the cross-border regions depending on
specific rules and regulations in doing business in respective bordering countries. Ranging
from 40.70% to 56.70% of the respondents across Thai border districts registered as
partnership limited, whereas, 90% of respondents in both bordering Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR and Myawaddy district of Myanmar registered as company limited
Table 7.2 Registrations of businesses
Type of
registration
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1
4.5
14
93.3
1
6.7
1
6.7
12
54.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
Merchant shop
Tax payer
Partnership limited
Ordinary
partnership
Company limited
9
40.9
0
0
Total
22 100
15
100
Source: Field survey during 2009-2012
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
0
0
3
10
0
0
0
0
17
56.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
16
29.6
0
0
0
0
3
10
22
40.7
0
0
1
1.9
0
0
13
30
15
54
43.3
100
27
30
90
100
27.8
100
27
30
90
100
with much higher practice. For comparative analysis, more than half of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand registered as partnership limited, 2 fifth registered as
company limited, and one respondent registered as merchant shop. In contrast, most of
respondents in OChrov district registered as merchant shop and one respondent registered
as tax payer. Similarly, more than half of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of
80
Thailand registered as partnership limited and less than half as company limited. Likewise,
most of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR registered as company
limited and one tenth have merchant shops. Two fifth have registered their businesses as
partnership limited in Maesod district of Thailand,more than a quarter registered either as
merchant shops or company limited, and one respondent registered as ordinary partnership.
Correspondingly, most of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar registered their
businesses as company limited and a tenth as tax payer.
3) Duration of operation of business establishment
Table 7.3 below provides information about the duration of operation of business
establishments in three cross-border regions.
Table 7.3 Duration of operation of business establishments
Duration of
operation of
establishmen
t
10 years
10-15 years
>15 years
Total
Average
Standard
deviation
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
10
45.4
8
53.3
8
36.3
4
26.7
4
18.0
3
20
22
100
15
100
11
11
4
4
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
11 36.6
12
40.0
18
60.0
9
30.0
1
3.33
9
30.0
30
100
30
100
11
13
3
5.2
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
26
48.2
11 36.6
25
46.3
15
50
3
5.5
4
13.3
54
100
30
100
10
12
4
3.3
2 p-value
0.65
0.009
0.36
Significance Levels: p 0.10; p 0.05; p 0.01

Most of respondents across the cross-border regions are family businesses and mainly
being small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The duration of operation of
establishments across the cross-border regions varies from 10 to 13 years. For comparative
analysis, almost half of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand operate
businesses for less than 10 years. Almost a fifth of respondents run their businesses for
more than 15 years. Similarly, more than half of respondents in OChrov district of
Cambodia run their businesses for less than 10 years and slightly more than a quarter
operate businesses for 10 years to 15 years. A fifth manage their businesses for more than
15 years.
Also, slightly more than a third of respondents in both Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR manage businesses for less than 10
years. Three fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand run businesses
for 10 years to 15 years and one respondent set up business longer than 15 years. Likewise,
almost a third of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR operate
businesses for 10 years to 15 years, and almost a third for longer than 15 years.
Correspondingly, almost half of the respondents in Maesod district of Thailand establish
businesses either for the duration of less than 10 years or for 10 years to 15 years and one
respondent operates businesses longer than 15 years. Likewise, half of respondents of
Myawaddy district in Myanmar run businesses for 10 years to 15 years, slightly more than
a third for less than 10 years, and slightly more than a tenth for 15 years to 20 years.
81
Chi-Square test is applied to the above table to understand the similarities and differences
about the duration of operation of business establishments in the cross-border regions. It is
evident that a significant difference is observed between Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR as its p-value for this test is
significant at 99% confidence level. There is no significant difference in two other crossborder regions (Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov district of Cambodia and
Maesod district of Thailand and Myawaddy district of Myanmar) as indicated by its pvalue.
4) Cross-border exported commodities
Table 7.4 presents cross-border exported commodities in the three cross-border regions.
Table 7.4 Cross-border exported commodities (Multiple responses)
Commodity
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Cam
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
1. Consumer goods
8
25
0
0
5
17.9
0
0
2. Food products
6
18.8
0
0
2
7.1
0
0
3. Electric appliances
5
15.6
0
0
5
17.9
0
0
4. Brand-new clothes
3
9.4
0
0
4
14.3
0
0
5. Brand-new shoes
2
6.3
0
0
1
3.6
0
0
6. Brand-new leather
2
6.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
7. Fruits and vegetables
1
3.1
0
0
1
3.6
0
0
8. Kitchenwares
1
3.1
0
0
3
10
0
0
9. Textile and garment
1
3.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
10. Construction
1
3.1
0
0
2
7.1
0
0
materials
11. Fuel and cooking
1
3.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
gas
12. Spare parts of
1
3.1
0
0
1
3.6
0
0
motorcycle and bicycle
13. Agricultural
0
0
1
20
2
7.1
1
50
produces
14. Secondhand clothes
0
0
1
20
0
0
0
0
15. Woods and
0
0
1
20
0
0
1
50
handicraft products
16. Recycled products
0
0
2
40
0
0
0
0
17. Machinery
0
0
0
0
1
3.6
0
0
18. Live cattle
0
0
0
0
1
3.6
0
0
19. Jewelry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20. Furniture
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
32
100
5
100 28
100
2
100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
16
22.9
0
0
9
12.9
0
0
10
14.3
0
0
4
5.7
0
0
1
1.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2.8
0
0
2
2.8
0
0
1
1.4
0
0
5
7.1
0
0
0
8.6
2.8
55.6
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
33.3
0
2
0
0
1
54
0
2.8
0
0
2.8
70
0
0
0
1
0
30
0
0
0
11.1
0
100
Cross-border traded goods are clearly based on comparative advantages and geographical
adjacency of structural differences. Thai goods are widely accepted among bordering
countries due to high quality control standards, reasonable prices and a variety of choices.
Cross-border exported commodities across Thai border districts are quite similar and
mainly consisting of consumer goods, intermediate and capital goods. Almost a quarter of
respondents in Aranyaprathet and Maesod districts and almost a fifth of respondents in
Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand trade consumer goods. Whereas, cross-border
exported commodities across the bordering districts slightly vary, with half of respondents
82
in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and Myawaddy district of Myanmar

merchandize agricultural commodities, 2 fifth of respondents in OChrov district of
Cambodia trade recycled materials. For comparative analysis, almost a fifth of respondents
in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand distribute food products, less than a fifth trade electric
appliances, almost a tenth export brand-new clothes, and a few export either brand-new
shoes or brand-new leather. Only a small proportion of respondents export fruits and
vegetables, kitchenwares, textile and garment, construction materials, fuel and cooking
gas, and spare parts of motorcycle and bicycle. One fifth of respondents in OChrov district
of Cambodia trade agricultural produce, second-hand clothes, wood and handicraft
products.
Likewise, almost one fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand
distribute electric appliances, more than a tenth trade brand-new clothes, one tenth
merchandise kitchenwares, and few of respondents export either food products, agricultural
produce or construction materials. There are very few respondents who trade either brandnew shoes, spare parts of motorcycle and bicycle, machines, live cattle or fruits and
vegetables. Half of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR trade either
agricultural produce or processed woods. While less than a fifth of respondents in Maesod
district of Thailand export electric appliances, more than a tenth export food products,
almost a tenth export either spare parts of motorcycle and bicycle or construction materials,
and a few trade either brand-new clothes or cosmetics. There are very few respondents
who export pharmaceuticals and medical equipment, agricultural produce, fishing net,
machinery, furniture, kitchenware, brand-new shoes, fruits and vegetables. Whereas a third
of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar export wood and handicraft products,
less than a fifth of respondents export jewelry.
5) Cross-border imported commodities
Table 7.5 below presents cross-border imported commodities in three cross-border regions.
Imported goods are also dependent on comparative advantages and geographical
adjacency of structural differences. Cross-border imported goods across Thai border
districts are mainly resource-based commodities as half of respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand alone bring in processed woods. More than a third of
respondents in both Aranyaprathet and Maesod districts of Thailand trade in agricultural
produces. On the contrary, the cross-border import patterns across the study location in
bordering districts somewhat vary, in which half of respondents in OChrov district of
Cambodia alone import construction materials while half of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, and a fifth of respondents in Myawaddy district bring in
consumer goods.
For comparative analysis, almost a fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand trade in dry freshwater fishes and more than a tenth bring in second-hand clothes.
Only a very small proportion of respondents import either brand-new clothes, second-hand
shoes, second-hand leather, live freshwater fishes or recycled products. Whereas, less than
a fifth of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia bring in either animal feed and
fertilizers or cars and motorcycles, a tenth of respondents import rice, and one respondent
trade in cooking gas. Likewise, more than a third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan
district of Thailand bring in agricultural produces. There are very few respondents who
trade in either brand-new clothes, dry sea fishes or machines. On the contrary, less than a
fifth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR bring in construction
83
materials, more than a tenth of respondents import electric appliances, and only very small
proportion of respondents import either machines, medicines or liquors.
Table 7.5 Cross-border imported commodities (Multiple responses)
Commodity
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Cam
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
1. Agricultural produces
6
37.5
0
0
7
35
0
0
2. Dry freshwater fish
3
18.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
3. Live freshwater fish
1
6.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4. Rice
0
0
2
10.5
0
0
0
0
5. Dry aquatic products
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
6. Second-hand clothes
2
12.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6.3
0
0
1
1
0
0
8. Second-hand shoes
1
6.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
9. Second-hand leather
1
6.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
10. Hand woven clothes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11. Construction materials
0
0
10
52.6
0
0
5
15.2
12. Animal feed and
0
0
3
15.8
0
0
0
0
fertilizers
13. Car and motorcycles
0
0
2
10.5
0
0
0
0
14. Used cars
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15. Auto parts
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
9.1
16. Machinery
0
0
0
0
1
5
1
3
17. Cooking gas
0
0
1
5.3
0
0
0
0
18. Fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19. Consumer goods
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
54.6
20. Cosmetics
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21. Liquour and beverage
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
22. Medicines and
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
medical apparatus
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
12.1
24. Wood furniture
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25. Processed wood
0
0
0
0
10
50
0
0
26. Forest products
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27. Kitchenwares
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28. Fishing net
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
16
100
19
100
28
100
33
100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
9
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
2
4.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
1
2
9
5
3
5
0
2.2
2.2
4.3
2.2
4.3
19.6
10.9
6.5
10.9
0
7
0
2
0
0
0
20
0
35
0
10
0
0
0
100
5
0
0
0
3
2
1
46
10.9
0
0
0
6.5
4.3
2.2
100
6) Sources of procurement
There are strong supply chain linkages across the border districts within Thailand with
Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity and vice versa. This means Bangkok metropolis and
its vicinity play crucial role as a core production region in the Greater Mekong
Sub-region. This is evident from half of respondents in both Aranyaprathet and Maesod
districts, and more than a third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand
who directly obtain goods from Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity. Moreover, 3 quarters
of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia and almost half of respondents in both
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and Myawaddy district of Myanmar also
procure goods directly from cross-border manufacturers in Bangkok metropolis and its
vicinity within Thailand. For comparative analysis, almost a third of respondents in
84
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand procure goods from cross-border wholesalers. There are
very few respondents who acquire goods from either wholesalers, regional wholesalers or
local community enterprises in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity. Correspondingly, less
than a fifth of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia obtain goods from regional
Table 7.6 below presents sources of procurement in three cross-border regions.
Table 7.6 Sources of procurement (Multiple responses)
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
0
17.5
0
1
0
2.8
0
0
0
0
4
5
5.9
7.4
0
6
0
19.4
5.9
2.8
5.9
14
38.9
14
38.9
14
20.6
19.4
3.25
0
0
1
2
2.8
5.6
1
1
2.8
2.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
38.9
5.6
35
51.5
6.5
76.5
11.1
17
47.2
8.8
15
48.4
100
30
100
36
100
68
100
30
100
Sourcing
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1
3.6
0
0
1. Local community
enterprise
2. Local wholesalers
0
0
0
3. Regional
1
3.6
3
wholesalers
4. Wholesalers in
1
3.6
1
capital city
5. Cross-border
9
32.1
0
wholesalers
6. Cross-border
0
0
0
wholesalers in capital
city
7. Local manufactures
0
0
0
8. Regional
0
0
0
manufacturers
9. Manufacturers in
16
57.1
0
capital city and
vicinity
10. Cross-border
0
0
13
manufacturers in
capital city
Total
28
100
17
wholesalers and only a small proportion of respondents procure goods from wholesalers in
Phnom Penh, the capital city of Cambodia. Similarly, more than a third of respondents in
acquire goods from cross-border wholesalers in their adjacent border cities and only a
small proportion of respondents in both districts purchase from local manufacturers. A
tenth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand obtain from cross-border
manufacturers and very few acquire from regional wholesalers. On the contrary, few
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR purchase goods from
manufacturers in Vientiane, the capital city of Lao PDR and very few respondents acquire
goods from either regional manufacturers or wholesalers in Vientiane city. Also, a fifth of
respondents in Maesod district of Thailand procure from cross-border wholesalers and less
than a tenth take from either cross-border manufacturers or regional wholesalers. A few of
respondents acquire either from wholesalers in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity or local
wholesalers. Whereas, almost a fifth of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar
acquire either from regional wholesalers in Myanmar or cross-border wholesalers in
Maesod city of Thailand, a few procure from manufacturers in Yangon, the former capital
85
city of Myanmar. Only a very small proportion of respondents obtained goods from crossborder wholesalers in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity.
7) Origin of goods
Table 7.7 below presents origins of goods in three cross-border regions.
Table 7.7 Origin of goods (Multiple responses)
Country
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1. Thailand
18
47.4
13
76.5
2. Lao PDR
0
0
0
0
3. Cambodia
8
21.1
4
23.5
4. Myanmar
1
2.6
0
0
5. Vietnam
3
7.9
0
0
6. Malaysia
1
2.6
0
0
7. Singapore
1
2.6
0
0
8. China
3
7.9
0
0
9. South Korea
2
5.3
0
0
10. Japan
1
0
0
0
11. USA
0
0
0
0
Total
38
100
17
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
14
37.8
28
57.1
13
35.1
1
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
5.4
5
10.2
0
0
2
4.1
0
0
2
4.1
7
18.9
3
6.1
0
0
3
6.1
1
2.7
0
0
0
0
2
4.1
37
100
49
100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
45
60
24
70.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
22.7
7
20.6
0
0
0
0
1
1.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
6.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
6.7
2
5.9
2
2.7
1
2.9
54
100
34
100
Thai goods hold a large market share at varying range of 38% to 77% of total traded
commodities across the cross-border regions. Collectively, ASEAN goods have high
market share ranging from 78.30% to 100% across the cross-border regions. For
comparative analysis of the goods country of origin, almost half of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and more than 3 quarters of respondents in OChrov
district of Cambodia replied that their goods originate from Thailand. Slightly more than a
fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district indicated Cambodia, a few expressed either
China or Vietnam, a few also stated South Korea and only a very small proportion of
respondents answered either Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore or Japan. Almost a quarter of
respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia stated that traded goods are produced within
Cambodia.
Similarly, more than half of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, and
more than a third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand replied that
goods are made in Thailand. More than a third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district
of Thailand replied that goods are produced in Lao PDR, almost a fifth informed that
goods are produced in China, a few expressed that goods are made in Vietnam and one
respondent stated that goods are manufactured in Japan. Whereas, a tenth of respondents in
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR answered that goods are made in Vietnam, a few
informed that goods are made in either China or South Korea. Few respondents also stated
that goods are produced either in Malaysia, Singapore or USA and only a very small
proportion of respondents expressed that goods are made in either Lao PDR or Cambodia.
Likewise, 3 fifth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand and 3 quarters of
respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar disclosed that goods are made in Thailand.
Slightly a fifth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand acquire goods which are
produced in Myanmar and almost a tenth replied that goods are produced in either China or
86
Japan. There are very few respondents who expressed that goods originated either from
USA or Malaysia. Similarly, a fifth of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar
obtain goods which are made in Myanmar and a few acquire goods which originated either
from Japan or USA.
8) Roles of cross-border traders
Table 7.8 below presents roles of cross-border traders in three cross-border regions.
Table 7.8 Roles of cross-border traders (Multiple responses)
Trading role
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
2
6.6
4
13.3
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
7
12.9
0
0
13.3
28
93.
3
20
66.6
15
27.7
17
56.6
6.7
28
51.8
11
36.6
80
10
6.6
10
100
30
100
30
100
54
100
30
100
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
1. Authorized
distributor
2. Distributor to both
15
68.2
2
border province and
across a
neighboring
country/home country
7
31.8
1
3. Sole exporter across
a neighboring country
4. Sole authorized
0
0
12
distributor across
home
country/bordering
country
5. Being cross-border
0
0
0
franchising
Total
22
100
15
The role of cross-border traders across the cross-border regions remarkably vary depending
on the extent of market penetration. Ranging from 13% to 93% of respondents across the
cross-border regions are distributors to both bordering and other provinces either in a
neighboring country or in their respective home countries. This means that cross-border
traders play important role in promoting cross-border supply chain linkages. For
comparative analysis, more than 2 third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand are distributors in both bordering Banteay Meanchey province and across
Cambodia. Less than a third of respondents are sole exporters across Cambodia. While 4
fifth of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia are sole authorized distributors from
Thailand across Cambodia, more than a tenth are distributors in both Banteay Meanchey
province and across Cambodia and one respondent is sole exporter across Thailand.
Likewise, most of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand are distributors in
both bordering Savannakhet province and across Lao PDR and few of respondents are
authorized distributors across Lao PDR. Similarly, 2 third of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are distributors in both Savannakhet province and across
Lao PDR. More than a tenth of respondents are authorized distributors from Thailand to
both Savannakhet and neighboring provinces and a tenth are either sole authorized
distributors from Thailand across Lao PDR or cross-border franchisers from Thailand.
Also, slightly more than half of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand are sole
exporters across Myanmar, more than a quarter are distributors to both bordering Kayin
87
state and across Myanmar, and more than a tenth are authorized distributors from Thailand
across Myanmar. Correspondingly, more than half of respondents in bordering Myawaddy
district of Myanmar are distributors in both Kayin state and across Myanmar. More than a
third of respondents are sole exporters across Thailand and a few are sole authorized
distributors from Thailand across Myanmar.
9) Forms of cross-border payment
Table 7.9 below presents the forms of cross-border payments in three cross-border regions.
Table 7.9 Forms of cross-border payments
Form of payment
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
11
50
0
0
5
22.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1. Cash
2. Credit
3. Combination of
cash and credit
4. Money transfer
4
18.2
10
66.7
through local banks
in border cities in
Thailand
5. Letter of credit
2
9.1
0
0
6. Money transfer
0
0
5
33.3
from their
headquarters to
suppliers in
Thailand
7. Barter trade
0
0
0
0
Total
22
100
15
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
6
20
9
30
9
30
2
6.7
0
0
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
31
57.4
25
83.3
10
18.5
0
0
4
7.4
5
16.7
12
40
12
40
5.6
3
0
10
0
3
0
10
0
3
0
5.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
100
0
30
0
100
3
54
5.6
100
0
30
0
100
The forms of cross-border payment greatly vary across the cross-border regions. Thai Baht
is the most used exchange currency because it has a sub-regionally strong acceptance and
low fluctuation. Due to convenient arrangement, payment by cash is widely adopted by
20% to 83.3% of respondents across the 5 border districts, except in OChrov district of
Cambodia where 2 third of respondents process payments by money transfer through local
banks in bordering Aranyprathet city in Thailand. For comparative analysis, half of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand pay by cash, almost a quarter pay by
credit, and almost a fifth pay by money transfer through local banks in bordering
Aranyaprathet city in Thailand, as counterpart Cambodian traders can conveniently open
bank account in Thai border city of Aranyaprathet. Almost a tenth of respondents open
Letter of Credit (L.C), whereas, a quarter of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia
answered that their headquarters in Phnom Penh directly transfer money to regional
suppliers in Thailand.
Likewise, utilizing border banking services in Thailand is considered convenient by 2 fifth
of respondents in both Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR who manage money transfer to cross-border suppliers at local banks in
Muang Mukdahan city of Thailand. A tenth of respondents in both districts rely on L.C.,
almost a third in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand pay by credit due to long mutual
trust, and a fifth pay by cash. Whereas almost a third of respondents in Kaysone
88
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR pay by cash, a few make use of credit. Correspondingly,
half of the respondents in Maesod district of Thailand pay by cash and almost a fifth pay
by credit (owing to long mutual trust) which is normally due in 1 month. Almost a tenth
adopt a combination of cash and credit, a few apply either money transfer (through local
banks in bordering Maesod city), barter trade or usage of L.C. Also, more than 4 fifth of
respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar make payments by cash and the rest of
respondents pay by a combination of cash and credit.
10) Cross-border logistics arrangements
Table 7.10 presents cross-border logistics arrangements in three cross-border regions.
Table 7.10 Cross-border logistics arrangements
Logistics mode
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1
4.5
0
0
1. Transported by
cart carriers
2. Rely on local
15
68.2
2
13.3
cross-border
logistics providers
3. Arranged by
0
0
1
6.7
buyers from
bordering cities
4. Arranged by
1
4.5
1
6.7
their own company
5. Arranged by
5
22.7
11
73.3
manufacturers in
Thailand
6. Scheduled bus
0
0
0
0
crossing the
international river
7. Boat crossing the
0
0
0
0
international river
Total
22
100
15
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
20
66.6
18
60
25
46.3
27
90
3.3
11
36.7
3.7
30
3.3
3.8
3.8
22
40.7
10
30
100
30
100
54
100
30
100
Cross-border logistics arrangements considerably vary across the cross-border regions.

Ranging from 20% to 90% respondents across Thai border districts and the 2 bordering
districts widely relied on cross-border logistics services, except in OChrov district of
Cambodia, where almost 3 quarters of respondents relied on arrangements mainly done by
cross-border manufacturers in Thailand. For comparative analysis, more than 2 third of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand utilize local cross-border logistics
services and almost a quarter informed of logistics provided by manufacturers in Thailand.
Only a very small proportion of respondents indicated that they arrange either by their own
company or by transport using informal cross-border cart carriers. Whereas, more than a
tenth of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia utilize cross-border logistics
services, a few of respondents answered either through buyers from Thailand or managed
by their own company.
Similarly, 2 third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and less than 2
third of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR utilize local cross-border
89
logistics services. Almost a third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district told of

arrangement by their own company and very few replied that they arrange through buyers
from bordering Savannakhet province of Lao PDR. On the contrary, more than a third of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR informed of arrangement by
cross-border buyers or sellers, and one respondent replied of arrangement by their own
company. Likewise, respondents in Maesod district of Thailand use various logistics
means. Almost half of them hire cross-border logistics services and 2 fifth of respondents
carry goods by boats crossing the Moei international river. A few of respondents use either
scheduled bus crossing the border; self-arranged by buyers from Myanmar; or transported
goods by their own company. Also, most of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar
hire local cross-border logistics services, and a few of respondents transport by boat
crossing the Moei international river.
11) Employment of labor
Table 7.11 shows employment of labor in three cross-border regions.
Table 7.11 Employment of labor
Number of
labor
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1
4.5
0
0
12
54.5
3
20
8
36.3
4
26.7
1
4.5
8
46.6
22
100
15
100
7
21
2.6
4.5
Self-employed
5 workers
5-15 workers
>15 workers
Total
Mean
Standard
deviation
Fisher-Exact
0.95
p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
4
13.3
0
0
10
10
15
50
13
43.3
9
30
3
10
6
19.6
30
100
30
100
9
12
3
3.4
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
2
3.7
0
0
23
42.6
0
0
19
35.2
8
26.6
10
18.6
22
73.3
54
100
30
100
10
41
3.1
6.3
0.009
0.000

Cross-border trading activities are somewhat labor-intensive. Respondents across the
bordering districts engage a higher average number of local labor ranging from 12 workers
to 41 employees mainly for lifting and moving goods, a size which is attributed to small
enterprises. On the other hand, respondents across Thai border districts employ lower
average number of local and immigrant labor, ranging from 7 workers to 10 local and
immigrant workers, considered as a size for small enterprises as well. Ranging from 3.70%
to 13.30% of respondents across Thai border districts indicated that they are selfemployed. For comparative analysis, respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia employ
higher average number of local labor with 21 workers, while respondents in Aranyaprathet
district of Thailand engaged lower average of 7 local and immigrant workers. Slightly
more than half of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand employ less than 5
local and immigrant workers, and slightly more than a third engage 5 to 15 local and
immigrant workers. One respondent hires more than 15 local and immigrant workers.
Whereas almost half of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia employ more than 15
local workers, slightly more than a quarter use 5 to 15 local workers, and a fifth hire less
than 5 local workers.
90
Likewise, respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR employ higher average
number of labor with 12 local workers. While respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand use lower average of 9 local and immigrant workers, less than half of respondents
in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand engage 5 to 15 local and immigrant workers. A
tenth of respondents employ either less than 5 workers or more than 15 local and
immigrant workers. On the contrary, half of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district
of Lao PDR hire less than 5 local workers, almost a third engage 5 to 15 local workers, and
almost a fifth of respondents employ more than 15 local workers.
Similarly, respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar employ higher average number
of local labor with 41 workers, but respondents in Maesod district of Thailand use lower
average of 10 local and immigrant workers. More than 2 fifth of respondents in Maesod
district of Thailand employ less than 5 local and immigrant workers, more than a third of
respondents hire 5 to 15 local and immigrant workers, and almost a fifth engage more than
15 workers. On the other hand, almost 3 quarters of respondents in Myawaddy district of
Myanmar employ more than 15 local workers and slightly more than a quarter of
respondents hire 5 to 15 local workers.
Fisher-Exact test is applied to the above table to understand the similarities and differences
in terms of employment of labor in the cross-border regions. It is evident that significant
differences are observed in the 2 cross-border regions (Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and Maesod district of Thailand
and Myawaddy district of Myanmar), as the p-value shown in the table is significant at
99% confidence level. On the other hand, there is no significant difference between the
cross-border region of Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov district of
Cambodia as indicated by its p-value.
12) Employment of immigrant labor
Only respondents across Thai border districts employ immigrant labor with average of 6 to
9 workers. Respondents across Thai border districts who do not engage at all in
employment of immigrant labor, are represented by 4.50%, 7.40%, and 80% of
respondents in the districts of Aranyaprathet, Maesod, and Muang Mukdahan, respectively.
No immigrant child labor is hired across Thai border districts. For comparative analysis,
respondents in Maesod district engage the highest average number of immigrant labor with
9 workers. More than 4 fifth of the respondents hire migrant labor registered with the
Ministry of Labor of Thailand. Out of the total employment of immigrant labor, almost
half of the respondents in Maesod district engage less than 5 Burmese immigrant labor, a
third employ 5 to 15 Burmese immigrant labor, more than a tenth use more than 15
Burmese immigrant labor, and a few employ more than 15 Burmese immigrant workers.
Maesod district is followed by Aranyaprathet district with an average employment of 7
immigrant workers. Almost a third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district engage
registered immigrant labor, while almost half replied of hiring none registered immigrant
labor.
Out of total employment of immigrant labor, more than half of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district hire less than 5 Cambodian immigrant workers, more than a third
engage 5 to 15 Cambodian immigrant workers, and only very small proportion of
respondents employ more than 15 immigrant workers. Lastly, in Muang Mukdahan district,
respondents engage the lowest average number of Cambodian immigrant labor with 6
workers who are fully registered immigrant labor. Out of this number, more than a tenth of
91
respondents employ less than 5 Cambodian immigrant labor, and few hire 5 to 15
Cambodian immigrant labor. Chi-Square test is applied to the above table to understand
similarities and differences of employment of immigrant labor across the Thai border
regions. It is evident that significant differences are observed as its p-value indicated
significance at 99% confidence level.
Table 7.12 below presents employment of immigrant labor.
Table 7.12 Employment of immigrant labor
Number of labor
None employment
<5 workers
5-15 workers
>15 workers
Total
Mean
Standard deviation
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
24
80
0
0
4
13.3 0
0
2
6.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
100
0
0
6
0
3.5
0
0.000
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1
4.5
0
0
20
54.5
0
0
1
36.3
0
0
0
4.5
0
0
22
100
0
0
7
0
5
0
2 p-value
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
4
7.4
0
0
25
46.3 0
0
18
33.3 0
0
7
13.0 0
0
54
100
0
0
9
0
8.3
0

13) Daily wage rate of local and immigrant labor
Table 7.13 below presents the daily wage rate of local and immigrant labor.
Table 7.13 Daily wage rate of local and immigrant labor
Daily wage
rate
(Baht)
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
5
22.7
0
0
None
employment
<80 Baht
6
27.2
2
13.3
80-110 Baht
3
13.6
13
86.6
>110 Baht
8
36.0
0
0
Total
22
100
15
100
Mean
135
60
Standard
36
10
deviation
Fisher-Exact
0.003
Test p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
24
80
0
0
0
1
5
30
126
31
0
3.3
16.6
100
5
25
0
30
60
11
0.000
16.7
83.3
0
100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
4
7.4
0
0
6
34
10
54
115
45
11.1
62.9
18.5
100
4
26
0
30
60
10
13.3
86.6
0
100
0.000

Note: During the year 2009-2012, the annual average exchange rate was 31.90 Thai Baht
equivalent to 1 US$.
In 2011, the official minimum daily wage rates for Thai citizen in Thai border provinces of
Sakaeo, Mukdahan and Tak were set at 173 Baht, 165 Baht and 162 Baht, respectively.
Meanwhile, the immigrant labor earn slightly lower than the official minimum daily wage
92
rate at an average of 135 Baht, 126 Baht and 115 Baht in Aranyaprathet, Muang Mukdahan
and Maesod districts, respectively. Moreover, the average wage rates across the bordering
districts are still much lower at 60 Baht per day. Therefore, the average official minimum
daily wage rates across Thai border districts are almost 3 times higher than the counterpart
bordering districts.
For comparative analysis, the registered immigrant labors gain 2 times higher in wages
than those non-registered. The average daily wage for immigrant labor in Aranyaprathet
district of Thailand is 135 Baht. More than a third of respondents pay higher than 110 Baht
per day. Also, immigrant labor in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand gain 3 times higher in
wages than local labor in OChrov district of Cambodia. More than a quarter of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand compensate workers with less than 80
Baht and more than a tenth of respondent remunerate with 80 Baht to110 Baht. On the
contrary, most of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia offer local wage rates of 80
Baht to 110 Baht per day, more than a tenth remunerate with less than 80 Baht per day.
Likewise, the average daily wage for immigrant labor in Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand is 126 Baht. More than a tenth of respondents compensate wth more than 110
Baht per day and one respondent pays 80 Baht to 110 Baht per day. Whereas most of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR compensate with local daily
wages of 80 Baht to 110 Baht, less than a fifth of respondents remunerate with less than 80
Baht per day.
Correspondingly, the average daily wage for immigrant labor in Maesod district of
Thailand is higher at 115 Baht. There is no wage differential between registered and nonregistered immigrant labor in Maesod district. Three fifth of the respondents in Maesod
district of Thailand pay daily wage rate of 80 Baht to 110 Baht to immigrant labor. Almost
a fifth of respondents pay higher than 110 Baht per day and slightly more than a tenth of
respondents pay less than 80 Baht. Whereas the average daily wage rate for local labor in
Myawaddy district of Myanmar is much lower at 60 Baht, most of respondents in
Myawaddy district provide local daily labor wages ranging from 80 Baht to 110 Baht, and
more than a tenth offer less than 80 Baht per day. Fisher Exact test is applied to the above
table to understand similarities and differences of daily wage rates of local and immigrant
labor in three cross-border regions. It is apparent that significant differences are observed
between three cross-border regions as the p-value indicated significance at 99% confidence
level.
14) Reasons for employing immigrant labor
Reasons for employing immigrant labor slightly vary across Thai border districts.
Respondents across Thai border districts replied that immigrant labor in their city is cheap,
so they can reduce managerial cost by 3.30%, 31.50% and 41% in Muang Mukdahan,
Maesod and Aranyaprathet districts, respectively. For comparative analysis, almost a fifth
of respondents in Aranyaprathet district and less than a fifth of respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district expressed that local Thai labor force are selective in terms of jobs.
Almost a fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district reported shortages of Thai labor
force in their city. Likewise, almost 2 fifth of respondents in Maesod district hire
immigrant labor because local Thai labor force refrains to work. More than a tenth of
respondents told that there is shortage of Thai labor force in their city and less than a tenth
of respondents indicated that immigrant labor is competent in communicating bordering
Burmese language. Few of respondents mentioned that local Thai labor force is either
93
selective in terms of jobs or immigrant labor possesses specific skill and craftsmanship.
Table 7.14 below presents the reasons for employing immigrant labor.
Table 7.14 Reasons for employing immigrant labor

Reason
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
5
22.7 0
0
1. None
employment of
immigrant labor
2. Local Thai labor
4
18.1 0
force is choosy for
jobs.
3. Shortage of Thai
4
18.1 0
labor force in their
city
4. Immigrant labor
9
40.9 0
in their city is
cheap, so they can
reduce labor cost
5. Competent
0
0
0
communication of
neighboring
countrys language
6. Possess specific
0
0
0
skill and
craftsmanship
Total
22
100
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
24
80
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
4
7.4
0
0
16.6
20
37
14.8
3.3
17
31.5
5.6
3.7
30
100
54
100
15) Cross-border movement patterns of immigrant labor

Table 7.15 below presents cross-border movement patterns of immigrant labor.
Table 7.15 Cross-border movement patterns of immigrant labor
Cross-border
movement pattern
1. None
employment
2. Daily
3. Seasonal
4. Circular
5. Long-term
immigration with
all family members
Total
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
5
22.7
0
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
24
80
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
4
7.4
0
0
12
0
2
3
54.5
0
9
13.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
2
10
0
3.3
6.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
3
11
15
38.9
5.6
20.4
27.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
100
30
100
0
0.000
54
100
p-value
94
Cross-border movement patterns of immigrant labor considerably vary across Thai border
cities depending on whether there is an existing favorable policy or not. For instance,
Thailand unilaterally permits daily movement of immigrant labor particularly for
Cambodian nationals using Aranyaprathet as a pilot border checkpoint. Therefore, as high
as 55% of respondents in Aranyaprathet district reported daily cross-border movement. In
addition, 10% and 39% of respondents in both Muang Mukdahan and Maesod districts,
respectively, expressed daily movement.
For comparative analysis, more than a tenth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district stated
long-term immigration with all family members, and almost a tenth of respondents
answered circular immigration. Likewise, few of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district
answered long-term immigration with all family members and one respondent expressed
circular immigration. Correspondingly, more than a fifth of respondents in Maesod district
engage long-term immigrant labor with all family members. A fifth of respondents employ
immigrant labor with circular movement and a few of respondents hire seasonally
immigrant labor. Chi-Square test is applied to the above table to understand the similarities
and differences of cross-border movement patterns of immigrant labor across Thai border
regions. It is evident that significant differences are observed across Thai border regions as
its p-value indicated significance at 99 % confidence level.
16) Gender ratios of immigrant labor
Table 7.16 below presents gender ratios of immigrant labor.
Table 7.16 Gender ratios of immigrant labor
Gender ratio (%)
men and women labor
None employment of
immigrant labor
50:50
25:75
75:25
100% male labor
100% female labor
Tha
Cam
F
%
F %
5
22.7
0
0
10
3
2
2
0
45.5
13.6
9.1
9.1
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
24
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
Total
22
100
0
Fisher-Exact Test
p-value
30
6.7
6.7
6.7
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
4
7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
3
12
24
1
18.5
5.6
22.2
44.4
1.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0.000
54
100

Gender ratios of immigrant labor also vary very much across Thai border districts, based
on division of labor by gender differences. Male labor normally involve in lifting and
moving goods, while female labor usually engage in arranging goods in order, as well as in
packing. For comparative analysis, almost half of respondents in Aranyaprathet district
engage equal ratio of men and women at 50%:50%. More than a tenth of respondents
employ the ratio of 25%:75% of men and women and almost a tenth of respondents either
hire 100% men or use the ratio of 75%:25%. Similarly, few of respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district use either 50%:50%, 25%:75% or 75%:25% ratio of men and women.
On the contrary, less than half of the respondents in Maesod district hire 100% male
immigrant labor and slightly more than a tenth of respondents employ the 75%:25% ratio
of male and female immigrant labor. A fifth of respondents hire equal (50%:50%)
95
proportion of men and women and less than a tenth hire men and women at the proportion
of 25%:75%. One respondent engages 100% female immigrant labor. Fisher Exact test is
applied to the above table to understand similarities and differences of gender ratios of
immigrant labor across Thai border regions. It is evident that significant differences are
observed across Thai border regions as its p-value indicated significance at 99%
confidence level.
17) Positive impacts of immigrant labor
Table 7.17 below presents the positive impacts of immigrant labor.
Table 7.17 Positive impacts of immigrant labor
Type of impact
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
4
13.3 0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
21
38.8 0
0
11
36.6
20
37
10
11.1
6.6
5.5
1.8
0
0
10
30
33.3
100
0
0
0
0
3
54
5.5
100
0
0
0
0
Tha
Cam
F
%
F %
4
17.4
0 0
1. Substitute for
shortage of Thai
labor
2. Access to cheap
7
30.4
0
labor
3. Reduce labor
9
40.9
0
cost
4. Increase
1
4.3
0
competitiveness
5. Contribute to
1
4.3
0
local economy
6. No response
0
0
0
Total
22
100
0
The positive impacts of immigrant labor vary very much across the border districts. The
66.70%, 94.50% and 100% of respondents in Muang Mukdahan, Maesod and
Aranyaprathet districts, respectively, informed of immigrant labor having positive impacts.
Ranging from 30.40% to 37% of respondents across Thai border districts expressed that
cheap labor are accessible from bordering districts. For comparative analysis, 2 fifth of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district replied that the impact for them is reduction of labor
cost. Almost a fifth of respondents stated that immigrant labor are substituting the
shortages of local Thai labor force. There are very few respondents who answered that
immigrant labor are increasing business competitiveness, as well as contributing to local
economic growth. In comparison, more than a third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan
district informed of accessibility of cheap labor and more than a tenth told that immigrant
labor are substituting shortages of local Thai labor force. A tenth of respondents indicated
reduction of labor cost and a third did not have any response at all. Furthermore, almost 2
fifth of respondents in Maesod district mentioned either substituting shortages of local Thai
labor force or accessibility of cheap labor. Slightly more than a tenth of respondents
answered reduction of labor cost, a few stated that immigrant labor are increasing business
competitiveness, and one respondent replied that immigrant labor are contributing to local
economic growth. A few of respondents have no response at all.
96
18) Negative impacts of immigrant labor

Table 7.18 below presents the negative impacts of immigrant labor.
Table 7.18 Negative impacts of immigrant labor

Type of impact
Cross-Border Region
Cross-Border Region
1
Tha
Cam
F
%
F %
9
40.9 0 0
1. Create social and

environmental
problems
2. Likely to commit
3
13.6 0
crime
3. Carry diseases
2
9
0
4. Displace local labor
1
4.5
0
5. No response
7
31.8 0
Total
22
100
0
Tha
Lao
Cross-Border Region
3
Tha
Mya
F
%
F %
0
0
0 0
F
1
%
3.3
F
0
%
0
10
14.8
0
0
0
0
1
1
24
30
3.3
3.3
80
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
9
15
54
40.7
16.6
27.7
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
The negative impacts of immigrant labor vary much across Thai border districts.
Respondents in Muang Mukdahan (20%), Aranyaprathet (68.20%) and Maesod (72.30%)
districts stated that immigrant labor have various negative impacts. For comparative
analysis, 2 fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district replied that immigrant labor are
likely to create social and environmental problems. More than a tenth of respondents
expressed that they are likely to commit crime and almost a tenth of respondents told that
immigrant labor are likely to carry communicable diseases. Only a very small proportion
of respondents revealed that immigrant labor can displace local labor and almost a third of
respondents have no response at all. Also, a tenth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan
district stated that immigrant labor are likely to commit crime. There are very few
respondents who expressed that immigrant labor are likely to create social and
environmental problems; carrier of communicable diseases or they may displace local
labor, while 4 fifth of respondents have no response at all. Likewise, 2 fifth of respondents
in Maesod district indicated that immigrant labor are likely to carry communicable diseases
and slightly more than a tenth of respondents replied that they may displace local labor.
Less than a tenth of respondents answered that they are likely to commit crime and slightly
more than a quarter have no response at all.
19) Cross-border transit trade
Respondents across Thai border districts, namely, in Maesod (5.60%), Muang Mukdahan
(16.60%) and Aranyaprathet (22.70%) districts perform cross-border transit trade
activities. Also, slightly more than a quarter of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR conduct cross-border trade activities. In contrast, all of respondents in
both OChrov district of Cambodia and Myawaddy district of Myanmar do not involve in
cross-border transit trade activity at all.
For comparative analysis, almost a quarter of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand perform transit trade with Vietnam. Likewise, a tenth of respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand make transit trade with Vietnam. There are very few
respondents who carry out transit trade with either Japan or USA. Also, a quarter of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR arrange transit trade with
97
Vietnam. Similarly, only a very small proportion of respondents in Maesod district of

Thailand execute transit trade either with China, Bangladesh or Malaysia.
Table 7.19 below presents cross-border transit trade.
Table 7.19 Cross-border transit trade
Destination
country
Tha
Cam
F
%
F %
1. None
17
77.3 0 0
2. Vietnam
5
22.7 0 0
3. Malaysia
0
0
0 0
4.Bangladesh
0
0
0 0
5. Japan
0
0
0 0
6. China
0
0
0 0
7. USA
0
0
0 0
Total
22
100
0 0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
25
83.3
22
73.3
3
10
8
26.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3.3
0
0
30
100
30
100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
51
94.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1.9
0
0
1
1.9
0
0
1
1.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
100
0
0
20) Perceptions on condition of cross-border international river bridges or road links

Table 7.20 below presents the perceptions on condition of cross-border river bridges or
road links.
Table 7.20 Perceptions on condition of cross-border river bridges or road links
Perception/
satisfaction
level
Tha
Cam
(Road)
(Road)
F
%
F
%
3
13.6
3
20
8
36.4
12
80
7
31.8
0
0
4
18.2
0
0
22
100
0
0
Excellent
Good
Moderate
Poor
Total
FisherExact Test
p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
(Bridge)
(Bridge)
F
%
F
%
7
23.3
30 100
23
76.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
100
30 100
0.000
Tha
Mya
(Bridge)
(Bridge)
F
%
F
%
2
3.7
0
0
36
66.7
6
20
11
20.4
21
70
5
9.3
3
10
54
100
30 100

Concerning the quality of cross-border connectivity, perceptions of respondents on
condition of cross-border river bridges or road links greatly vary across the cross-border
regions depending on the stage of infrastructure development in a particular cross-border
region. These international river bridges and road links facilitate cross-border movement of
goods, people and vehicle towards ASEAN community. In relation to cross-border bridge
links, an international river bridge linking Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR is much more developed and with convenient
condition than the international river bridge linking Maesod district of Thailand and
Myawaddy district of Myanmar. For comparative analysis, all of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR stated that the bridge is in excellent condition. Likewise,
3 quarters of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand revealed the bridge is in
98
good condition. Almost a quarter of respondents answered excellent conditions. Whereas

more than half of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand informed of good conditions
of the bridge, a fifth of respondents replied moderate conditions, and less than a tenth of
respondents said that the bridges are in poor conditions. A few of respondents answered
excellent conditions. Also, less than 3 quarters of respondents in Myawaddy district of
Myanmar replied moderate conditions, one fifth of respondents answered good conditions,
and one tenth of respondents stated poor conditions.
Relating to cross-border road links, most of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia
replied good conditions and a fifth of respondents informed of excellent conditions.
Whereas more than a third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand informed
of good conditions, almost a third of respondents answered moderate conditions. Almost a
fifth of respondents expressed poor conditions and more than a tenth of respondents stated
excellent conditions. Fisher Exact test is applied to understand similarities and differences
of perceptions on condition of cross-border river bridges or road links. It is obvious that
significant differences are observed across three cross-border regions as its p-value
indicated significance at 99 % confidence level.
21) Perceptions on border banking services
Table 7.21 below presents perceptions on border banking services.
Table 7.21 Perceptions on border banking services

Perception/
satisfaction
level
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
Excellent
3
13.6
0
0
Good
9
40.9
11
73.3
Moderate
9
40.9
2
13.3
Poor
1
1.5
2
13.3
Total
22
100
15
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
1
3.3
0
0
20
66.7
30 100
9
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
100
0
100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
3
5.6
0
0
29
53.7
0
0
21
38.9
19
63.3
1
1.9
11
36.7
54
100
30
100
With regard to border financial services, border banking services in Thailand are well
developed than those counterpart bordering districts. This is reflected by the excellent
satisfaction of respondents across Thai border districts of Muang Mukdahan (3.30%),
Maesod (5.60%) and Aranyaprathet (13.60%). For comparative analysis, 2 fifth of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand reported either good or moderate
satisfaction and one respondent replied poor satisfaction. Whereas almost 3 quarters of
respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia expressed good satisfaction, more than a
tenth of respondents expressed either moderate or poor satisfaction.
For comparison, 2 third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand expressed
good satisfaction in the financial services and almost a third of respondents indicated
moderate satisfaction. Whereas all of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao
PDR interestingly expressed good satisfaction, this may have resulted from the fact that
Laotian respondents culturally do not like to express any complaint. Correspondingly,
slightly more than half of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand answered good
satisfactions, almost 2 fifth replied moderate satisfaction, and one respondent answered
poor satisfaction. Whereas less than 2 third of respondents in Myawaddy district of
99
Myanmar replied moderate satisfaction, more than a third of respondents answered poor
satisfaction.
22) Perceptions on Border Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) services
Table 7.22 below presents perceptions on border customs, immigration and quarantine
services.
Table 7.22 Perceptions on Border Customs, Immigration and Quarantine Services
Perception/
satisfaction
level
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
Excellent
2
9.1
0
0
Good
13
59.1
13
86.7
Moderate
7
31.8
2
13.3
Poor
0
0
0
0
Total
22
100
0
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
3
10
0
0
16
53.3
30 100
11
36.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
100
0
100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
4
7.4
0
0
34
63
0
0
15
27.8
19
63.3
1
1.9
11
36.7
54
100
30
100
In relation to cross-border trade facilitation, border CIQ services in Thailand are also well
developed than counterpart bordering districts. This is reflected by the excellent
satisfaction of respondents across Thai border cities of Maesod (7.40%), Aranyaprathet
(9.10%) and Muang Mukdahan (10%). For comparative analysis, more than half of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand indicated good satisfaction and almost a
third of respondents said they are moderately satisfied. Whereas most of respondents in
OChrov district of Cambodia answered good satisfaction, more than a tenth of
respondents told that they are moderately satisfied. Also, more than half of respondents in
Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand expressed good satisfaction and more than a third of
respondents replied that they are moderately satisfied. Whereas all of respondents in
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR once again expressed good satisfaction, this may
also have resulted from the fact that Laotian respondents typically do not like to make any
complaint. Likewise, more than 3 fifth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand
indicated good satisfaction, more than a quarter answered moderate satisfaction, and one
respondent informed of poor satisfaction. Whereas 2 third of respondents in Myawaddy
district of Myanmar replied moderate satisfaction, a third of respondents answered poor
satisfaction.
Cross-border trading is mostly undertaken by local border residents across the cross-border
regions. Most of the cross-border trader respondents across the regions are family based
businesses and mainly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The duration of
operation of the establishments across the regions is 11 years to13 years. Thai goods are
widely accepted among bordering countries due to high quality standards and reasonable
prices. Cross-border exported commodities across the Thai border districts are quite
similar, mainly consisting of consumer goods, intermediate and capital goods, whereas
cross-border imported commodities from bordering districts are mostly agricultural
commodities. There are strong supply chain linkages between Thai border districts with
Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity and vice versa. However, cross-border traded goods
are mainly produced in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity such as eastern region and
other centers. At present, Thai border cities and towns mainly play distribution role and
100
cross-border traders play important role in promoting cross-border supply chain linkages.
Thai goods hold a large market share at the varying range of 38% to 77% of total traded
commodities across the cross-border regions. Collectively, ASEAN goods hold high
market share in the range of 78.30% to 100% across the regions.
As a matter of convenience, payment by cash is widely adopted across the cross-border
regions. Cross-border trader respondents across the bordering districts engaged a higher
number of local labor, with 12 to 41 workers mainly for loading and unloading activities,
whereas, respondents across Thai border districts have employed lower number of local
and immigrant labor of 7 to 10 workers. Only respondents across the Thai border districts
employed immigrant labor of 5 to 9 workers. The daily wage rates across the Thai border
districts are approximately 3 times higher than counterpart bordering districts. Respondents
across Thai border districts of Maesod (5.60%), Muang Mukdahan (16.60%) and
Aranyaprathet (22.70%) have conducted cross-border transit trade with Vietnam.
Improvement of cross-border connectivity (e.g., roads and international river bridges)
significantly facilitated cross-border trade activities. The respondents perceived that border
banking and Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) services across the border
districts of Thailand are noticeably well-organized than the counterpart bordering districts.
This chapter reflects the characteristics and flows of strategic trading commodities of local
origin that contribute to the large-scale cross-border trade between Thailand and bordering
countries of Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar. The chapter also has identified the
linkages of local cross-border trade with regional, national and cross-border production
networks. It has explained the current logistics and supply chains, and trade facilitation
practices of cross-border trade and cross-border transit trade. It is obvious that
geographical and comparative advantages associated with contributing factors have upheld
the studied border cities between Thailand and bordering countries towards becoming vital
cross-border trade regions, which are relied upon for livelihoods by a large number of local
residents. Therefore, local large-scale cross-border trading plays an important role in
establishing networks of commodities flowing both locally and nationally, as well as
contributing to rapid growth of local and cross-border economy. As a result, the Thai
border cities have been evolving into newly peripheral growth centers and increasingly
performing important role in the national urban hierarchy. Finally, the preceding findings
and reflections support the hypothesis stating that cross-border trade regions are expected
to gain infrastructural, economic, and service benefits at the regional scale due to
production and trading linkages.
101
CHAPTER 8
LOCAL BORDER WHOLESALING, RETAILING
AND CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING ACTIVITIES
This chapter highlights local border wholesaling and retailing activities and trader
entrepreneurships. It also includes cross-border shopping and behaviors of shoppers. The
characteristics of local border trade and cross-border shopping are presented in the
following sections.
8.1 Local Border Wholesaling
The distinctive features of local border wholesaling are as follows:
1) Registrations of wholesaling businesses
Table 8.1 below exhibits border wholesaling business registrations in three cross-border
regions.
Table 8.1 Registrations of border wholesaling businesses
Type of registration
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
29
96.6
0
0
0
0
15
100
None
Merchant shop
Tax payer
registration
Partnership limited
1
3.4
0
0
Ordinary partnership
0
0
0
0
Company limited
0
0
0
0
Non-governmental
0
0
0
0
organization
Total
30
100
15
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
27
90
30
100
0
0
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
1
3
0
0
22
66.6
30 100
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
3.3
0
6.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
2
1
1
18
6
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
100
30
100
33
100
30
100
Registrations of wholesaling businesses vary much across the cross-border regions.

Respondents across Thai border districts have higher types of business registration than
counterpart bordering districts depending on specific rules and regulations in individual
countries. For comparative analysis, all of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia
register their businesses as tax payer. Likewise, most of respondents in Aranyaprathet
district of Thailand register as merchant shop and a respondent registers as partnership
limited. Also, most of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and all of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR register as merchant shop. Few
of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district register as company limited and one
respondent registers as partnership limited. In comparison, 2 third of respondents in
Maesod district of Thailand register as merchant shop, almost a fifth register as partnership
limited, less than a tenth register as ordinary partnership. There are very few respondents
who register either as company limited or non-governmental organization and one
respondent have no registration at all. Moreover, all of respondents in Myawaddy district
of Myanmar register as merchant shop.
102
2) Duration of operation of wholesaling establishments

Most of respondents across the cross-border regions are family businesses and mainly
small and medium-sized enterprises. The average duration of operation of the
establishments across the cross-border regions are typically 10 years to 17 years. Table 8.2
below presents duration of operation of wholesaling establishments in three cross-border
regions.
Table 8.2 Duration of operation of wholesaling establishments
Duration of
Cross-Border Region
operation
Cross-Border Region 1 Cross-Border Region 2 Cross-Border Region 3
Tha
Cam
Tha
Lao
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
5 years
11 36.6 11 73.3 14 46.6 13 43.3 12 36.4 17 56.6
10-15 years
15
50
3
20
16 53.3 12 40.0 20 60.6 11 36.6
>15 years
4
13.3
1
6.7
0
0
5 16.6
1 3.0
2
6.6
Total
30 100 15 100 30 100 30 100 33 100 30 100
Mean
14
10
12
17
12
12
Standard
6.1
5.8
11
7.4
5.7
5.6
deviation
Fisher Exact
0.067
0.069
0.157
Test p-value

For comparative analysis, respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand have operated
their businesses at an average of 14 years, longer than counterparts in bordering OChrov
district of Cambodia, which is at an average of 10 years. Half of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand operate for 10 years to 15 years and slightly more than a
third of respondents run businesses for less than 5 years. More than a tenth of respondents
set up businesses for more than 15 years. Whereas almost 3 quarters of respondents in
OChrov district of Cambodia manage businesses for less than 5 years, a fifth of
respondents operate businesses for 5 years to 10 years. One respondent runs businesses
longer than 15 years.
Similarly, respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR have established
businesses at average of 17 years, much longer than counterparts in bordering Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand, which are at an average of 12 years. More than half of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand manage businesses for 10 years to 15
years and less than half of respondents set up businesses for less than 5 years. Likewise,
slightly more than 2 fifth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR run
businesses for less than 5 years and 2 fifth of respondents manage businesses for 10 years
to 15 years. Less than a fifth of respondents run businesses for more than 15 years.
Correspondingly, respondents in both Maesod district of Thailand and Myawaddy district
of Myanmar share average duration of operation of 12 years. Three fifth of respondents in
Maesod district of Thailand operate their businesses for 10 years to 15 years and more than
a third of respondents run businesses for less than 5 years. A respondent sets up businesses
longer than 15 years. Whereas more than half of respondents in Myawaddy district of
Myanmar establish businesses for less than 5 years, slightly more than a third of
respondents run business for 10 years to 15 years, and a few of respondents manage
businesses longer than 15 years.
103
Fisher Exact test is applied to the above table to understand similarities and differences of
the duration of operation of business establishments between three cross-border regions. It
is evident that significant differences are observed in two cross-border regions
(Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov district of Cambodia and Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR) as its
p-value indicated significance at 90% confidence level. On the other hand, there is no
significant difference in the cross-border region of Maesod district of Thailand and
Myawaddy district of Myanmar as shown by its p-value.
3) Wholesale commodities
Table 8.3 presents the wholesale commodities in three cross-border regions.
Table 8.3 Wholesale commodities (Multiple responses)
Commodity
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Cam
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
1. Consumer goods
3
9
5
33.3
12
35.2
8
18.6
2. Cosmetics
0
0
1
6.6
0
0
3
6.9
3. Food products
5
15.1
0
0
3
8.8
0
0
1
3
0
0
2
5.8
3
6.9
9
27.2
2
13.3
7
20.5
17
39.5
6. Brand-new shoes
2
6
0
0
0
0
4
9.3
7. Fruits and
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
vegetables
8. Kitchenwares
4
12.1
1
6.6
6
17.6
2
4.6
9. Construction
0
0
4
26.6
0
0
1
2.3
materials
10. Fuel and cooking
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
gas
11. Sparepart of
0
0
1
6.6
1
2.9
3
6.9
motorcycle and bicycle
12. Agricultural
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
produces
13. Woods and
0
0
0
0
2
5.8
0
0
handicraft products
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15. Jewelry
5
15.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
16. Furniture
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17. IT products
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
18. Stationery
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
19. Antique objects
0
0
1
6.6
0
0
0
0
20. Souvenirs
0
0
0
0
1
2.9
0
0
21. Liquor and
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2.3
beverage
22. Phamaceutical and
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2.3
medical apparatus
23. Household goods
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
33
100
15
100
34
100
43
100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
6
18.7
12
33.3
2
6.2
0
0
5
15.6
1
3
3
9.3
1
2.9
0
0
5
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
18.7
0
0
2
0
5.4
3.1
3.1
8.3
8.3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
4
6.2
3.1
3.1
0
0
0
0
12.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13.5
0
32
0
100
3
36
8.3
100
Respondents across the cross-border regions sell a wide range of essential commodities.
Respondents in the 4 border districts, namely, Maesod district of Thailand (18.70%),
104
OChrov district of Cambodia (33.30%), Myawaddy district of Myanmar (33.30%), and

Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand (35.2%) wholesale consumer goods. Whereas
slightly more than a quarter of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and
almost 2 fifth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR distribute brandnew clothes. For comparative analysis, more than a tenth of respondents in Aranyaprathet
district of Thailand wholesale either food products, jewelry or kitchenware and almost a
tenth of respondents trade consumer goods. A few of respondents market brand-new shoes
and one respondent sells either electric appliances, fruits and vegetables, IT products,
stationery, second-hand shoes, or household goods. Whereas slightly more than a quarter
of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia trade construction materials, a tenth of
respondents wholesale brand-new clothes. A respondent trades either kitchenware,
cosmetics, spare parts of motorcycle and bicycle, or antique objects.
Also, less than a fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand trade
kitchenware, a fifth wholesale brand-new clothes, less than a tenth vend food stuffs, and
few of respondents trade either electric appliances or wood products. A respondent
wholesales either spare parts of motorcycle or souvenirs. Likewise, almost a fifth of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR wholesale consumer goods.
Almost a tenth of respondents trade brand-new shoes. A few of respondents supply either
electric appliances, cosmetics, or spare parts of motorcycles and bicycles. Few of
respondents trade kitchenware and one respondent wholesales either construction
materials, liquor and beverages, or pharmaceutical and medical apparatuses.
Similarly, almost a fifth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand sell kitchenware,
less than a fifth supply food products, more than a tenth sell liquor and beverages, and less
than a tenth wholesale either electric appliances, cosmetics, or recycled products. A
respondent sells either jewelry, furniture, spare parts of motorcycles, or fuel and gas.
Correspondingly, more than a tenth of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar
wholesale either brand-new clothes or liquor and beverages. Less than a tenth of
respondents trade either agricultural produce, household goods, or spare parts of
motorcycles and bicycles. Few of respondents vend construction materials and one
respondent puts on the market either food stuffs, electric appliances, or pharmaceuticals
and medical apparatuses.
Sources of procurement greatly vary across the cross-border regions. There are 3 types of
cross-border supply chain linkages consisting of: (1) between a border city and its capital
city; (2) between a border city and capital city in a bordering country; and
(3) integrated cross-border supply chain linkages. Respondents across Thai border districts
of Aranyaprathet (8.30%), Muang Mukdahan (36.20%), and Maesod (65.10%) districts
acquire from manufacturers in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity. Respondents across the
bordering districts of OChrov district of Cambodia (38.70%), Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR (42.60%) and Myawaddy district of Myanmar (74.30%) obtain goods
from cross-border wholesalers in Thailand. Table 8.4 below presents sources of
procurement in three cross-border regions.
For comparative analysis, more than 2 fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand acquire from wholesalers in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity, and a fifth of
respondents procure from local wholesalers. More than a tenth of respondents obtain from
cross-border wholesalers and a few of respondents purchase from local community-based
105
enterprises. Very few of respondents secure goods from either regional wholesalers or
cross-border community-based enterprises. Likewise, a tenth of respondents in OChrov
district of Cambodia also obtain goods from manufacturers in Bangkok metropolis and its
vicinity in Thailand. Almost 2 fifth of respondents obtain goods from cross-border
wholesalers and almost a quarter procure from wholesalers in Phnom Penh. More than a
tenth of respondents gain goods from manufacturers in Phnom Penh and one respondent
acquires from either regional wholesalers, local wholesalers, or produces by own business.
Likewise, more than a third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand
procure from cross-border wholesalers in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR.
Sourcing
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
2
5.6
0
0
1.Local community
enterprise
2.Local wholesalers
7
19.4
1
3.2
3.Regional
1
2.8
1
3.2
wholesalers
4.Wholesalers in
16
44.4
7
22.6
capital city
5.Cross-border
5
13.9
12
38.7
wholesalers
6.Cross-border
0
0
0
0
wholesalers in
capital city
7.Local
0
0
0
0
manufacturers
8.Cross-border
0
0
4
12.9
manufacturers in
Bangkok
metropolis/
bordering city
9.Regional
0
0
0
0
manufacturers
10.Manufacturers
3
8.3
5
16.1
in capital city
11.Produced by
1
2.8
1
3.2
their own business
12.Cross-border
1
2.8
0
0
community-based
enterprises
13.Cross-border
0
0
0
0
importers
Total
36
100
31
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
2
4.3
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
1
2.3
0
0
3
1
6.4
2.1
6
0
11.1
0
4
0
9.3
0
0
4
0
11.4
8.5
15
27.8
2.3
14.3
17
36.2
23
42.6
11.6
26
74.3
14.8
4.7
4.7
2.1
17
36.2
28
65.1
4.3
3.7
30
100
54
100
43
100
35
100
Almost a tenth of respondents purchase from wholesalers in Bangkok metropolis and its
vicinity and a few of respondents obtain from local wholesalers. A few of respondents
acquire from either their own businesses or local community-based enterprises and very
lfew buy from either regional wholesalers or regional manufacturers. Also, more than a
quarter of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR acquire from either
106
wholesalers in Vientiane or cross-border trade brokers in Muang Mukdahan city of

Thailand. More than a tenth of respondents obtain from either cross-border wholesalers in
bordering Muang Mukdahan city or Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity in Thailand. A
tenth of respondents procure from local wholesalers and a few purchase from local crossborder importers.
Similarly, almost 2 third of respondents in Maesod districts of Thailand get goods from
manufacturers in capital city of Bangkok and its vicinity. Slightly more than a tenth of
respondents obtain goods from cross-border wholesalers. Less than a tenth of respondents
procure from local wholesalers, few obtain from either local manufacturers or cross-border
Burmese manufacturers, and one respondent gained from either local community-based
enterprises or wholesalers in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity. Whereas almost 3
quarters of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar procure from cross-border
wholesalers, less than a fifth of respondents acquire goods from wholesalers in Yangon
capital city of Myanmar. Slightly more than a tenth of respondents purchase from regional
wholesalers.
5) Origins of goods
Table 8.5 shows the origins of goods in three cross-border regions.
Country
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1. Thailand
27
69.2
12
52.2
2. Lao PDR
0
0
0
0
3. Cambodia
0
0
10
43.5
4. Vietnam
1
2.6
1
4.3
5. Malaysia
0
0
0
0
6. Myanmar
7
17.9
0
0
7. Philippines
0
0
0
0
8. Indonesia
0
0
0
0
9. China
3
7.7
0
0
10. India
1
2.6
0
0
Total
39
100
23
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
27
46.6
29
42
6
10.3
16
23.2
0
0
0
0
11
19
6
8.7
0
0
0
0
1
1.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
20.7
18
26.1
0
0
0
0
58
100
69
100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
30
63.8
28
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2.1
0
0
3
6.4
0
0
5
10.6
7
20
2
4.3
0
0
1
2.1
0
0
4
8.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
100
35
100
Ranging from 46.60% to 80% of respondents across the cross-border regions obtain goods
from Thailand. Respondents (7.70% to 20.70%) across Thai border districts distribute
goods that originated from China. For comparative analysis, more than half of goods sold
in both Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov district of Cambodia are made in
Thailand. Almost a fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand expressed
that their goods are coming from Myanmar, and a few stated that their goods originate
from China. There are very few respondents who informed that their goods originate either
from Vietnam or India. On the contrary, less than half of respondents in OChrov district
of Cambodia answered that goods are produced in Cambodia and one respondent stated
that goods originate from Vietnam.
Likewise, less than half of respondents in both Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR informed that goods are made in Thailand. A
fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand replied that goods are
107
produced either in China or Vietnam. A tenth of respondents expressed that goods are
made in Lao PDR and one respondent stated that goods originate from Myanmar. Whereas
slightly more than a quarter of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR
stated that goods are made in China, almost a quarter of respondents told that goods
originate from Lao PDR. A few of respondents said that goods are made in Vietnam.
Correspondingly, more than 3 fifth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand and 4
fifth of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar acquire goods originating from
Thailand. A tenth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand gain goods produced in
Myanmar and less than a tenth of respondents obtain goods produced in either China or
Malaysia. Few of respondents trade goods produced in the Philippines and one respondent
sells goods made in either Vietnam or Indonesia. Moreover, a fifth of respondents in
Myawaddy district of Myanmar sell goods originating from Myanmar.
Table 8.6 below presents employment of labor in three cross-border regions.
Number of labor
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
19
63.3
10
67
5
16.6
5
33
6
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
100
15 100
7
3
2.9
9
Self-employed
5 workers
5-15 workers
>15 workers
Total
Average
Standard
deviation
Fisher Exact Test
p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
13
43.3
20
60.6
12
40
11
33.3
4
13.3
2
6.1
1
3.3
0
0
30
100
33
100
5
4
6
3
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
0
0
11
36.7
10
30.3
17
56.7
13
39.4
2
6.7
10
30.3
0
0
33
100
30
100
14
4
13.5
1
0.000

Ranging from 36.7% to 66.7% of respondents across the 5 border districts are fully selfemployed, which means these respondents rely heavily on labor force from unpaid family
members. However, all of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand totally employ paid
labor. Concerning those respondents who employ paid labor, the average number of
workers across the cross-border regions greatly vary from 3 to 14 workers, a size classified
as micro and small enterprises. For comparative analysis, respondents across Thai border
districts engage higher number of labor, averaging from 5 to 14 local and immigrant
workers. On the other hand, respondents across the bordering districts employ much lower
number of labor, averaging from 3 to 4 local workers. For comparative analysis,
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand hire an average of 7 local and immigrant
workers, more than those counterpart respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia who
hire an average of 3 workers. A fifth of respondent in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand
employ 5 to 15 local and immigrant workers and almost a fifth of respondents engage
fewer than 5 local and immigrant workers. Moreover, a third of respondents in OChrov
district of Cambodia employ less than 5 local workers.
108
Also, the average number of labor employed in both Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand
and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are almost comparable with 4 to 5 workers.
Two fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand hire less than 5 local
and immigrant workers. More than a tenth of respondents engage 5 to 15 local and
immigrant workers and one respondent engages more than 15 local and immigrant
workers. Similarly, a third of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR
employ less than 5 local workers and few of respondents engaged 5 to 15 local workers.
Correspondingly, respondents in Maesod district of Thailand hire the highest average
number of 14 local and immigrant workers, higher than those counterpart respondents in
Myawaddy district of Myanmar who employ an average of 4 local workers. More than a
third of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand hire 5 to 15 local and immigrant
workers and almost a third of respondents employ either less than 5 local and immigrant
workers or more than 15 local and immigrant workers. Likewise, more than half of
respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar employ fewer than 5 local workers and few
of respondents engage 5 to 15 local workers. Fisher Exact test is applied to the above table
to understand the similarities and differences of labor employment between cross-border
regions. It is evident that significant differences are observed across the cross-border
regions as its p-value indicated significance at 99% confidence level.
Table 8.7 below presents employment of immigrant labor in three cross-border regions.

Number of
immigrant labor
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
19 63.3 0
0
5
16.6 0
0
6
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
100
0
0
7
3
None
<5 workers
5-15 workers
>15workers
Total
Mean
Standard deviation
Fisher Exact
p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
17
56.7
0
0
10
33.3
0
0
3
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
100
0
0
6
2.7
0.000
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
11
33.3 0
0
19
66.7 0
0
0
0
0
0
33
100
0
0
8
7.9

Only respondents across Thai border districts engage immigrant labor, with an average
number of 6 workers in Muang Mukdahan district, 7 workers in Aranyaprathet district, and
8 workers in Maesod districts. For comparative analysis, more than a third of respondents
in Aranyaprathet and Muang Mukdahan districts and all of respondents in Maesod district
engage immigrant labor. However, more than half of respondents in Muang Mukdahan
district and almost 2 third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district do not employ
immigrant labor at all. No immigrant child labor is hired across Thai border districts. For
comparative analysis, a fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district employ 5 to 15
Cambodian immigrant workers and less than a fifth of respondents hire less than 5
Cambodian immigrant workers. Similarly, a third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan
district employ less than 5 Laotian immigrant workers and a tenth of respondents engage 5
to 15 Laotian immigrant labor. Furthermore, all of respondents in Maesod district hire
109
Burmese immigrant labor, in which almost 2 third of respondents employ 5 to 15 Burmese

immigrant workers. A third of respondents hire less than 5 Burmese immigrant workers.
Fisher Exact test is applied to understand the similarities and differences of immigrant
labor employment across Thai border regions. It is evident that there are significant
differences across Thai border regions as its p-value indicated significance at 99%
confidence level.
8) Daily wage rates of local and immigrant labor
Table 8.8 below presents daily wage rate of local and immigrant labor in three cross-border
regions.
Table 8.8 Daily wage rates of local and immigrant labor
Daily wage rate
(Baht)
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
19
63.3
10
66.7
0
0
1
6.7
10
33.3
4
26.7
1
3.3
0
0
30
100
15
100
113
58
28
16
None
50 Baht
50-150 Baht
>150 Baht
Total
Mean
Standard
deviation
Fisher Exact Test
0.69
p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
17
56.6
20
60.6
0
0
5
15.2
7
23.3
8
24.2
6
20.0
0
0
30
100
33
100
109
50
44
19
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
0
0
11
36.7
1
3
7
23.3
26
78.8
12
40
6
18.2
0
0
33
100
30
100
118
51
37
19
0.069
0.000

In 2011, the official minimum daily wage rates for Thai citizens in Thai border provinces
of Sakaeo, Mukdahan and Tak are set at 173 Baht, 165 Baht and 162 Baht, respectively.
While the respondents across Thai border districts offer immigrant labor with daily wage
rate of 109 Baht to 118 Baht which is slightly lower than the official minimum daily wage
rate, respondents across the bordering districts pay local daily wages ranging from 50 Baht
to 58 Baht. This means the average daily wage rates across Thai border districts are
roughly 2 to 3 times higher than in the counterpart bordering districts. For comparative
analysis, a third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand pay 50 Baht to 150
Baht to Cambodian immigrant labor. One respondent remunerates Cambodian immigrant
labor higher than 150 Baht. On the contrary, slightly more than a quarter of respondents in
OChrov district of Cambodia remunerate with local daily wage rate of 50 Baht to 150
Baht. One respondent pays local labor lower that 50 Baht per day. Also, almost a quarter of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand compensate 50 Baht to 150 Baht per
day to Laotian immigrant labor and one fifth of respondents pay Laotian immigrant labor
more than 150 Baht. Whereas almost a quarter of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR remunerate with local daily wage rates of 50 Baht to 150 Baht, more
than a tenth of respondents compensate with less than 50 Baht per day.
Correspondingly, more than 3 quarters of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand pay
daily wages of 50 Baht to 150 Baht to Burmese immigrant labor. Almost a fifth of
respondents compensate Burmese immigrant labor with higher than 150 Baht per day. A
110
respondent pays Burmese immigrant labor with less than 50 Baht per day. While 2 fifth of
respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar pay local wages of 50 Baht to 150 Baht,
almost a quarter of respondents compensate with local daily wage of less than 50 Baht.
Fisher Exact test is applied to the above table to understand the similarities and differences
of the daily wage rates of local and immigrant labor between cross-border regions. It is
evident that significant difference are observed in two cross-border regions of (1) Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and (2)
Maesod district of Thailand and Myawaddy district of Myanmar as its p-value indicated
significance at 90% and 99% confidence level, respectively. But, there is no significant
difference in the cross-border region of Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov
district of Cambodia as indicated by its p-value.
Table 8.9 below describes reasons for employing immigrant labor across Thai border
regions.
Reason
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
19 63.3
0
0
1. None employment
of immigrant labor
2. Local Thai labor
2
6.6
0
force is choosy with
jobs.
3. Shortage of Thai
0
0
0
labor force in their
city
3. Immigrant labor in
7
23.3
0
their city is cheap, so
they can reduce
managerial cost
4. Competent
2
6.6
0
communication of
neighboring
countrys language
Total
30
100
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
17
56.6
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
10
33
27.2
6.6
20
60.6
3.3
30
100
33
100
Reasons for employing immigrant labor really vary across Thai border districts.
Respondents who replied that immigrant labor in their city is cheap and so they can reduce
managerial cost are represented by 6.60%, 23.30% and 60.60% in Muang Mukdahan,
Aranyaprathet and Maesod districts, respectively. For comparative analysis, a few of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district answered either local Thai labor force is choosy with
jobs or immigrant labor are competent in communicating the bordering Cambodian
language. Also, a third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district indicated that local
Thai labor force is selective with jobs. A respondent expressed that immigrant labor are
competent in communication of bordering Laotian language. Likewise, a quarter of
respondents in Maesod district answered that local Thai labor force are choosy with jobs.
A tenth of respondents indicated that there is shortage of Thai labor in Maesod district.
111
Very few of respondents rely on immigrant labor because they are competent in
communication of bordering Burmese language.
Cross-border movement patterns of immigrant labor significantly vary across Thai border
districts depending on whether there is an existing favorable labor movement policy or not.
Table 8.10 below presents cross-border movement patterns of immigrant labor.
Cross-border
movement pattern
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
19
63.3 0
0
7
23.3 0
0
1
3.3
0
0
1
3.3
0
0
2
6.6
0
0
1. None employment
2. Daily
3. Seasonal
4. Circular
5. Long-term
immigration with all
family members
Total
30
100
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
17
56.6 0
0
0
0
0
0
5
16.5 0
0
1
3.3
0
0
7
23.1 0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
1
3
0
0
9
27.2 0
0
21
63.6 0
0
30
33
100
100
In this case, Thailand unilaterally permits daily movement of immigrant labor particularly
for Cambodian nationals using Aranyaprathet as a pilot border checkpoint. As shown in the
table, less than a fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district expressed daily movement.
A few of respondents stated long-term immigration with all family members. Only a very
small proportion of respondents revealed either seasonal or circular immigration. While
almost a quarter of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district expressed long-term
immigration with all family members, less than a fifth of respondents stated seasonal
immigration, and one respondent revealed circular immigration. Correspondingly, more
than 3 fifth of respondents in Maesod district answered long-term immigration with all
family members. More than a quarter of respondents replied circular migration and less
than a tenth of respondents informed of daily cross-border movement. One respondent
expressed seasonal cross-border movement.
11) Positive impacts of employing immigrant labor
Table 8.11 presents the positive impacts of immigrant labor across Thai border regions.
The positive impacts of immigrant labor greatly vary across Thai border districts.
Respondents across Thai border districts of Maesod (27.20%), Muang Mukdahan (36.60%)
and Aranyaprathet (70%) expressed that immigrant labor are accessible and cheap. For
comparative analysis, very few of respondents in Aranyaprathet district stated that
immigrant labor are either substituting the shortages of local Thai labor force; reducing
labor cost, or contributing to local economic growth. A fifth of respondents have no
response at all. Similarly, more than a third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district
informed that immigrant labor are substituting the shortages of local Thai labor force and
more than a tenth of respondents told that they are reducing the labor cost. A tenth of
respondents have no response at all. Likewise, almost a third of respondents in Maesod
district replied reducing labor cost and almost a fifth replied substituting shortages of
local Thai labor force. There are very few respondents who stated that immigrant labor are
increasing business competitiveness and a fifth of respondents have no response at all.
112
Table 8.11 Positive impacts of immigrant labor

Impact
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1
3.3
0
0
1. Substitute shortage
of Thai labor
2. Access to cheap
21
70
0
labor
3. Reduce labor cost
1
3.3
0
4. Increase
competitiveness
0
0
0
5. Contribute to local
economic growth
1
3.3
0
6. No response
6
20
0
Total
30
100
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
11
36.6 0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
6
18.1 0
0
11
36.6
27.2
13.3
10
30.3
3.3
0
0
0
0
3
30
0
10
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
33
0
21.2
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
12) Negative impacts of immigrant labor

Table 8.12 presents the negative impacts of immigrant labor across Thai border regions.
Table 8.12 Negative impacts of immigrant labor
Impact
Tha
Cam
F
%
F %
5
16.5 0 0
1. Create social and

environmental problems
2. Likely to commit
13
43.3 0
crime
3. Carry diseases
5
16.5 0
4. Displace local labor
1
3.3
0
5. No response
6
20
0
Total
30
100
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
1
3.3
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
10
18.1
0
0
0
0
1
1
24
30
3.3
3.3
80
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
6
7
31
36.3
18.1
21.2
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
The negative impacts of immigrant labor also significantly vary across Thai border
districts. Ranging from 20% to 80% of respondents across Thai border districts disclosed
all kinds of negative impacts of immigrant labor. For comparative analysis, more than half
of respondents in Aranyaprathet district informed that immigrant labor are likely to commit
crime. Less than a fifth of respondents told that immigrant labor are likely to either create
social and environmental problems or carry communicable diseases. A respondent stated
that immigrant labor are displacing the local labor. Also, a tenth of respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district stated that they are likely to commit crime. Very few of respondents
expressed that immigrant labor are either likely to create social and environmental
problems, carrier of communicable diseases, or displacing local labor.
Correspondingly, more than a third of respondents in Maesod district replied likely to
carry communicable diseases and almost a fifth of respondents answered either
displacing local labor or likely to commit crime.
113
8.2 Local Border Retailing The specific features of border retailing are as follows:
1) Registration of businesses
Registrations of business slightly vary across the cross-border regions. Ranging from 40%
to 93.80% of respondents across the 5 border districts do not register at all, which means
they are being informal retailers. On the other hand, most of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR register as tax payer. For comparative analysis, few of
Thai respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand register their business as merchant
shop. Table 8.13 presents registrations of retailing businesses in three cross-border regions.
Table 8.13 Registrations of businesses
Type of
registration
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
45
93.8
24
77.4
3
6.3
0
0
0
0
7
22.6
0
0
0
0
None
Merchant shop
Tax payer
Partnership
limited
Total
48
100
31
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
38
66.6
3
9.1
18
31.5
0
0
0
0
30
90.9
1
1.7
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
12
40
23
76.6
18
60
7
23.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
30
100
33
100
100
30
100
On the contrary, most of Cambodian respondents in Aranyaprathet district do not register

at all. Likewise, more than 3 quarters of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia do
not register at all, while less than a quarter of respondents register as tax payer. Also, 2
third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand do not register at all. Almost
a third of respondents register as merchant shop. While most of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR register as tax payer, almost a tenth of respondents do not
register at all. Similarly, more than half of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand and
almost a quarter of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar register as merchant
shop. In contrast, more than 3 quarters of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar
and 2 fifth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand do not register at all.
2) Duration of operation of border retailing establishments
Most of respondents across the cross-border regions are family businesses. Respondents in
the 2 Thai border districts including Aranyaprathet and Maesod districts have longer
average duration of operation at 12 years and 14 years, respectively. Respondents in the
bordering districts consisting of OChrov district of Cambodia and Myawaddy district of
Myanmar have lower average duration of operation at 6 years and 7 years, respectively. On
the contrary, respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR have longer average
duration of operation at 12 years. In contrast, respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand have lower average duration of operation of 8 years.
For comparative analysis, more than 3 fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand run businesses for 5 to 10 years. A quarter of respondents operate businesses for
less than 5 years. Likewise, slightly more than half of respondents in OChrov district of
Cambodia run businesses for less than 5 years. Less than half of respondents set up
Table 8.14 below presents the duration of operation of the establishments in three crossborder regions.
114
Table 8.14 Duration of operation of border retailing establishments

Duration of
Cross-Border Region
operation
Cross-Border Region 1 Cross-Border Region 2 Cross-Border Region 3
Tha
Cam
Tha
Lao
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
5 years
12
25
16 51.6 10 17.5
3
9.1
2
6.6
10 33.3
5-10 years
30 62.5 14 45.2 40 70.2 10 30.3
9
29.7 16 53.3
>10 years
6
12.5
1
3.3
7
12.3 20 60.6 19 63.3
4
13.3
Total
48 100 31 100 57 100 33 100 30 100 30 100
Mean
12
6
8
15
14
7
Standard
6
3
3.3
8.5
6
4
deviation
0.04
0.000
0.000
2 p-value
means Fisher Exact p-value.
businesses for 5 years to 10 years. A respondent operates business longer than 10 years.
Likewise, almost 3 quarters of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand set up
businesses for 5 years to 10 years. Less than a fifth of respondents manage businesses less
than 5 years. More than a tenth of respondents operate businesses longer than 10 years.
Also, 3 fifth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR run businesses
longer than 10 years. Almost a third of respondents manage businesses for 5 years to 10
years. Almost a tenth of respondents run businesses less than 5 years. Correspondingly,
more than 3 fifth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand establish businesses longer
than 10 years. More than a quarter of respondents manage businesses for 5 years to 10
years. Few of respondents operate businesses less than 5 years. While more than half of
respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar run businesses for 5 years to 10 years, a
third of respondents manage businesses less than 5 years and a few of respondents are
doing business more than 10 years.
of the duration of business operation between cross-border regions. It is evident that
significant differences are observed in two 2 cross-border regions (Muang Mukdahan
district and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and Maesod district of Thailand and
Myawaddy district of Myanmar) as its p-value indicated significance at 99% confidence
level. Due to limited number of frequencies, Fisher Exact test is alternatively applied in the
Cambodia. Similarly, significant difference is observed in this cross-border region as its pvalue indicated significance at 95% confidence level.
3) Retail commodities
Respondents in a particular cross-border region sell almost similar kinds of essential
commodities. Ranging from 26.20% to 40.30% of respondents across the cross-border
regions retailed brand-new clothes. For comparative analysis, respondents in both
Table 8.15 below presents retail commodities across three cross-border regions.
115
Table 8.15 Retail commodities (Multiple responses)

Commodity
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
2
3
7
20.5
4
6
2
5.8
10
14.9
0
0
2
3
4
11.7
27
40.3
11
32.3
1
1.5
0
0
2
3
4
11.7
1
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
10.4
2
5.8
0
0
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
3
8.3
8
21.6
0
0
1
2.7
5
13.9
0
0
1
2.8
1
2.7
9
25
14
37.8
0
0
0
0
2
5.6
3
8.1
1
2.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
11.1
2
5.4
0
0
1
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
1.5
3
1.5
1.5
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2.9
2.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
13.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.7
0
0
0
4
2
6
3
0
0
0
2.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
2.9
2.83
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
0
2.8
8.3
2.8
0
1
1
2
0
1
2.7
2.7
5.4
0
2.7
2.7
100
67
100
34
100
36
100
37
100
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1
1.9
2
4.8
1
1.9
4
9.5
1
1.9
0
0
1
1.9
2
4.8
14
26.9
11
26.2
17
32.7
1
2.4
4
7.7
5
11.9
4
7.7
2
4.8
1
1.9
0
0
1
1.9
0
0
3
5.8
6
14.3
4
7.7
0
0
0
0
3
7.1
1. Consumer goods
2. Cosmetics
3. Food products
6. Secondhand clothes
7. Brand-new shoes
8. Secondhand shoes
9. Brand-new leather
10.Secondhand leather
11.Fashion accessories
12. Kitchenwares
13. Liquor and
beverage
14. Cigar
0
0
1
15. Glass and watch
0
0
1
16. Bedding
0
0
1
17. Toys
0
0
0
18. Jewelry
0
0
0
19. Wood products
0
0
0
20. Spare parts of
0
0
0
motorcycles and
bicycles
21. Forest products
0
0
0
22. Dry fresh water
0
0
0
fishes
23. Fruits and
0
0
0
vegetables
24. Machines
0
0
0
25. IT products
0
0
0
26. Home decoration
0
0
0
27. Stationery
0
0
0
28. Construction
0
0
0
materials
29. Agricultural
0
0
0
produce
Total
52
100
42
Aranyaprathet and OChrov districts sell almost similar products. Only a very small
proportion of Thai respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand trade either brandnew clothes, fashion accessories, second-hand leather, or consumer goods. Concerning
Cambodian border retailers, more than a third of respondents retail second-hand clothes.
More than a quarter of respondents trade brand-new clothes and less than a tenth of
respondents vend either brand-new shoes, second-hand shoes, or kitchenware. Few of
respondents retail fashion accessories and there are very few who sell either brand-new
leather, food products, electric appliances, or cosmetics. Similarly, slightly more than a
quarter of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia retail brand-new clothes and more
116
than a tenth sell fashion accessories. Slightly more than a tenth of respondents vend brandnew shoes and a few retail either liquor or beverages or cigar. Few of respondents sell
either second-hand clothes, glasses and watches, beddings, or toys.
Also, respondents in both Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR sell similar kinds of products. Two fifth of respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand sell brand-new clothes. More than a tenth of respondents
trade food products, a tenth vend kitchenwares, and a few retail either cosmetics or forest
products. Few of respondents trade either brand-new shoes, electric appliances, consumer
goods;,dry freshwater fishes, or wood products. There are very few respondents who sell
either second-hand clothes, second-hand shoes, jewelry, spare parts of motorcycle or fruits
and vegetables. Moreover, more than a third of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR sell brand-new clothes, a fifth trade consumer goods, a tenth vend
either brand-new shoes or electric appliances, and few put on the market either
kitchenwares or cosmetics. Only a very small proportion of respondents sell either
machines, wood products, jewelry, or IT products.
of Myanmar also sell similar kinds of necessity. More than a third of respondents in
Myawaddy district and a quarter in Maesod district sell brand-new clothes. More than a
tenth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand sell food products, jewelry or
kitchenwares. Few of respondents trade either second-hand shoes, electric appliances,
stationery, or IT products. Also, there are very few Burmese retailers who vend fruits and
vegetables. Likewise, a tenth of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar retail
brand-new shoes and few sell either kitchenwares, home decorations, or toys. Only a very
small proportion of respondents sell either agricultural produce, electric appliances,
agricultural machines, construction materials, cosmetics, liquor and beverage, IT products,
bicycle or motorcycle and spare parts.
Sources of procurement considerably vary across the cross-border regions. Ranging from
14% to 61% of respondents across the cross-border regions procure goods from crossborder wholesalers, signifying rather strong existence of cross-border supply chain
linkages. For comparative analysis, 3 fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand obtain from cross-border wholesalers in bordering Poipet city of Cambodia. More
than a quarter of respondents acquire from wholesalers in Bangkok metropolis and a tenth
of respondents buy from local wholesalers. One respondent produces by own business.
Also, 2 fifth of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia procure from wholesalers in
Phnom Penh. Almost 2 fifth of respondents acquire from cross-border wholesalers in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand. More than a tenth of respondents obtain from crossborder wholesalers in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity in Thailand. Almost a tenth of
respondents gain from local wholesalers.
Likewise, almost 2 fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand procure
from local wholesalers and more than a quarter of respondents purchase from cross-border
wholesalers. Less than a fifth of respondents acquire from wholesalers in Bangkok
metropolis and a tenth of respondents source from local manufacturers. A few of
respondents produce by their own businesses and a few obtain from either local
117
Table 8.16 below presents sources of procurement across three cross-border regions.
Sourcing
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
1. Local community
enterprises
2. Local wholesalers
6
10.2
5
9.1
3. Regional
0
0
0
0
wholesalers
4. Wholesalers in
16
27.1
22
40
capital city
5. Cross-border
36
61
21
38.2
wholesalers
6. Cross-border
0
0
7
12.7
wholesalers in capital
city
7. Local
0
0
0
0
manufacturers
8. Manufacturers in
0
0
0
0
capital city
9. Produced by their
1
1.7
0
0
own business
10. Cross-border
0
0
0
0
community-based
enterprises
Total
59
100
55
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
2
2.5
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
2
5.6
0
0
31
2
38.3
2.5
6
2
14
4.7
7
1
19.4
2.8
0
3
0
6.5
13
16
11
25.6
16
44.4
16
34.8
22
27.2
21
48.8
13.9
25
54.3
3.7
9.9
8.3
2.8
4.3
2.8
81
100
43
100
36
100
46
100
community-based enterprises or regional wholesalers. Moreover, almost half of

respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR acquire from cross-border
wholesalers in bordering Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and a quarter of
respondents procure from wholesalers in Vientiane. More than a tenth of respondents
purchase from local wholesalers, a few obtain from cross-border wholesalers in Bangkok
metropolis of Thailand, and a few buy from regional wholesalers.
Correspondingly, respondents in Maesod district of Thailand have stronger business
linkages with its capital city, in which less than half of respondents procure from
wholesalers in Bangkok metropolis. A fifth of respondents obtain goods from local
Wholesalers and less than a fifth acquire goods from cross-border wholesalers. Less than a
tenth of respondents purchase goods either from manufacturers in Bangkok metropolis or
local community-based enterprises. A few acquire either from their own businesses, crossborder community-based enterprises, or regional wholesalers. While half of respondents in
Myawaddy district of Myanmar procure goods from cross-border wholesalers in bordering
Maesod district of Thailand, a third of respondents purchase goods from wholesalers in
Yangon, capital city of Myanmar. A few of respondents acquire goods either from regional
wholesalers or produce by their own businesses.
118
5) Origins of goods
Goods originating from Thailand possess 30.30% to 69.20% market share across the crossborder regions. For comparative analysis, almost a third of respondents in both
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov district of Cambodia procure goods
originating from Thailand. There are very few respondents in both districts who said that
their goods originate either from Indonesia or Japan. A quarter of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand informed that their goods are coming from either South
Korea or Hong Kong and a few expressed that their goods originate from either China or
Vietnam. A few of respondents stated that their goods are from Malaysia. In addition,
almost a quarter of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia gain goods originating
from Cambodia and more than a tenth expressed of goods originating from China. A few
of respondents replied that their goods originate from either South Korea, Japan or
Vietnam. A few of respondents stated that goods originate from either Hong Kong or
Singapore and only a very small proportion of respondents told of goods originating from
either Taiwan, USA, Switzerland, or UK.Table 8.17 below presents origins of goods across
three cross-border regions.
Country
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1. Thailand
24
30.3
26
31
2. Lao PDR
0
0
0
0
3. Cambodia
0
0
19
22.6
4. China
6
7.59
13
15.5
5. Vietnam
5
6.32
5
6
6. Malaysia
3
3.79
1
1.2
7. Myanmar
0
0
0
0
8. Indonesia
1
1.26
1
1.2
9. Singapore
0
0
2
2.2
10. India
0
0
0
0
11. South Korea
20
25.3
6
7.1
12. Hongkong
19
24.0
2
2.2
13. Taiwan
0
0
1
1.2
14. Japan
1
1.26
5
6
15. USA
0
0
1
1.2
16. Switzerland
0
0
1
1.2
17. UK
0
0
1
1.2
Total
79
100
84
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
49
43.2
27
46.6
4
3.5
9
15.5
2
1.8
0
0
31
27.4
12
20.7
19
16.8
10
17.2
0
0
0
0
4
3.5
0
0
1
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
113 100
58
100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
27
69.2
20
66.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
7.7
0
0
1
2.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
17.9
10
33.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
100
30
100
Likewise, less than half of respondents both in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR informed of goods originating from Thailand.
More than a quarter of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand replied that
goods originate from China and less than a fifth of respondents expressed that goods
originate from Vietnam. A few of respondents stated that goods are originating from either
Lao PDR or Myanmar and very few said that goods are from either Japan, Cambodia, or
Indonesia. Also, a fifth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR
informed that goods originate from China and less than a fifth of respondents told that
goods are originating from either Vietnam or Lao PDR.
119
Correspondingly, Thai goods are widely available along Thai and Burmese border as
reflected by 2 third of respondents in both Maesod district of Thailand and Myawaddy
district of Myanmar procuring goods from Thailand. Less than a fifth of respondents in
Maesod district of Thailand stated that goods are originating from Myanmar and less than a
tenth of respondents stated that goods are from China. A few respondents disclosed that
their goods originate from either Vietnam or India, while a third of respondents in
Myawaddy district of Myanmar acquire goods from Myanmar.
Table 8.18 below presents employment of labor across three cross-border regions.Ranging
from 63.30% to 100% of respondents across the cross-border regions are self-employed by
engaging unpaid family members as labor force. Concerning labor employment,
respondents across Thai border districts hire a higher number of labor averaging 3 to 7
local and immigrant workers.
Respondents in the 2 bordering districts engage a lower number of labor averaging 3 and 5
local workers in OChrov district of Cambodia and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao
Number of
labor
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
Self38 79.1 29 93.5
employed
5 workers
8
16.6
2
6.5
5-15 workers
2
4.1
0
0
Total
48 100 31 100
Mean
5
3
Standard
3
0
deviation
Fisher Exact
0.29
Test p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
55 96.5 23 76.7
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
19 63.3 30 100
2
0
57
3
0
5
6
30
7
3.7
3.5
0
100
5
2
30
5
3.3
0.000
16.7
6.7
100
16.7
20
100
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
100
0.000

PDR, respectively. For comparative analysis, respondents in Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand employ higher number of labor force than those in OChrov district of Cambodia
as almost a fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district hire less than 5 local and
immigrant workers. A few of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand hire 5 to 15
local and immigrant workers, while a few of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia
employ fewer than 5 local workers.
Also, a few of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand engage less than 5
local and immigrant workers, while less than a fifth of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR employ less than 5 local workers. A few of respondents
engage 5 to 15 local workers. Correspondingly, a fifth of respondents in Maesod district of
Thailand employ 5 to 15 local and immigrant workers and and less than a fifth engage less
than 5 local and immigrant workers. Moreover, all respondents in Myawaddy district of
Myanmar are fully self-employed by engaging unpaid family members as labor force.
120
of employment of labor between cross-border regions. It is evident that significant
differences are observed in two cross-border regions (Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, and Maesod district of Thailand
and Myawaddy district of Myanmar) as its p-value indicated significance at 99%
confidence level. In contrast, there is no significant difference in the cross-border region of
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov district of Cambodia as indicated by its pvalue.
Only respondents across Thai border districts employ immigrant labor. An average number
of immigrant labor engaged across Thai border districts is 3 to 5 workers. No immigrant
child labor is hired across Thai border districts. Table 8.19 below presents employment of
immigrant labor across Thai border regions.
Number of
Cross-Border Region
immigrant
Cross-Border Region 1 Cross-Border Region 2
labor
Tha
Cam
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
F
%
F %
None
38
79
0
0
55
96.5
0
0
<5 workers
8
16.6
0
0
2
3.5
0
0
5-15 workers
2
4.1
0
0
0
0
0
Total
48
100
0
0
57
100
0
0
Average
5
0
3
0
Standard
3
0
0
0
deviation
Fisher Exact
0.000
Test p-value
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
21
70
0
0
8
26.7
0
0
1
3.3
0
0
30 100
0
0
4
0
2
0

For comparative analysis among Thai border districts, one fifth of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district engage non-registered immigrant labor. Out of total employment of
immigrant labor, less than a fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district employ less than
5 Cambodian workers. Few of respondents engaged 5 to 15 Cambodian workers. Likewise,
few of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district hire less than 5 registered Laotian
workers. Similarly, slightly more than a quarter of respondents in Maesod district use less
than 5 registered Burmese workers. A respondent engage 5 to 15 registered Burmese
workers.
Regarding gender of immigrant labor, gender ratios reasonably vary across Thai border
districts. Less than a fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district engage male and female
immigrant labor with a ratio of 75%:25%. A few of respondents employ 100% male labor
and one respondent involves immigrant labor with a ratio 50% men to 50% women
Likewise, a few of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district engage men and women as
labor with a ratio of 50%:50%. Correspondingly, one fifth of respondents in Maesod
district employ 100% immigrant women mainly for selling and arranging goods in order. A
few of respondents engage 100% immigrant men mainly for lifting and moving goods. A
few of respondents hire equal number of men and women immigrants. Fisher Exact test is
121
applied to the above table to understand the similarities and differences of the employment
of immigrant labor across Thai border regions. It is obvious that significant differences are
observed across Thai border regions as its p-value revealed significance at 99% confidence
level.
8) Daily wage rates of local and immigrant labor
In 2011, the official minimum daily wage rate for Thai citizens in Thai border provinces of
Sakaeo, Mukdahan and Tak are set at 173 Baht, 165 Baht and 162 Baht, respectively. In
fact, the respondents across Thai border districts offer daily wage rates to immigrant labor
slightly lower than the official minimum daily wage rate averaging at 118 Baht, 131 Baht
and 138 Baht in Aranyaprathet, Muang Mukdahan and Maesod districts, respectively. On
the other hand, respondents in both bordering districts of OChrov in Cambodia and
Kaysone Phomvihane in Lao PDR compensate with local daily wage rate even lower at 66
Baht. Table 8.20 below presents daily wage rates of local and immigrant labor across three
cross-border regions.
Table 8.20 Daily wage rates of local and immigrant labor
Daily wage rate
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
55
96.40
23
76.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
23
0
3.5
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
100
30
100
131
66
0
0
Tha
Cam
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
None employment
38
79.1
29
93.5
21
70
0
0
50 Baht
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50-80 Baht
0
0
2
6.5
1
3.3
0
0
80-110 Baht
5
10.4
0
0
5
16.5
0
0
110-150 Baht
4
8.3
0
0
4
13.2
0
0
>150 Baht
1
2
0
0
1
3.3
0
0
Total
48
100
31
100
30
100
0
0
Mean
118
66
138
0
Standard deviation
25
0
50
0
Thus, daily wage rates for immigrant labor across Thai border districts are considerably
higher (2 to 2.50 times) than the above 2 bordering districts. For comparative analysis, a
tenth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand compensate immigrant labor
with 80 Baht to 110 Baht per day. Almost a tenth of respondents pay 110 Baht to 150 Baht
per day and one respondent remunerates higher than 150 Baht per day. A few of
respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia pay local daily wages of 50 Baht to 80 Baht.
On the contrary, few of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand compensate
immigrant Laotian labor with 110 Baht to 150 Baht per day, while less than a fifth of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR remunerates with 50 Baht to 80
Baht daily. Few of respondents compensate with 80 Baht to 110 baht per day. In
comparison, more than a tenth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand pay daily
wages of either 80 Baht to 110 Baht or 110 Baht to 150 Baht to immigrant Burmese labor.
Very few respondents compensate with daily wages of 50 Baht to 80 Baht or more than
150 Baht.
122

Reasons for employing immigrant labor rather vary across Thai border districts.
Respondents in both Aranyaprathet (14.60%) and Maesod (17%) districts stated that
immigrant labor in their city is cheap, so they can reduce managerial cost. Respondents
across Thai border districts of Muang Mukdahan (3.50%), Aranyaprathet (6.30%) and
Maesod (6.70%) expressed that local Thai labor are choosy with jobs. A few of
respondents in Maesod district expressed that immigrant labor are competent in
communication using Burmese language. Table 8.21 below distinguishes reasons for
employing immigrant labor across Thai border regions.
Reason
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
55 96. 30 100
4
2
0
0
3.5
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
38
79.2
31 100
1. None employment
of immigrant labor
2. Local Thai labor
3
6.3
0
force is choosy with
jobs.
7
14.6
0
they can reduce
managerial cost
4. Competent
0
0
0
communication of
neighboring countrys
language
Total
48
100
31
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
21
70
30 100
2
6.7
17
6.7
30
30
100
30
57
100
100

Table 8.22 below presents cross-border movement patterns of immigrant labor across Thai
border regions.
Cross-border
movement pattern
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
38
79.2
31 100
1. None
employment
2. Daily
10
20.8
0
3. Seasonal
0
0
0
4. Circular
0
0
0
5. Long-term
0
0
0
immigration with
all family
members
Total
48
100
31
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
55
96.4
30
100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
21
70
30 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
2
17
3.3
3.3
6.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
57
100
30
100
30
100
30
100
123
Cross-border movement patterns of immigrant labor vary very much across Thai border
districts. A fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district and less than a fifth of
respondents in Maesod district answered daily cross-border movement of immigrant labor.
Only a very small proportion of respondents in both Muang Mukdahan and Maesod
districts revealed circular immigration. Few of respondents in Maesod district answered
long-term immigration of Burmese workers with all family members. A few of
respondents indicated seasonal immigration.
8.3 Local Cross-Border Shopping
Cross-border shopping is currently on the rising trend due to adjacency of structural
differences between Thailand and bordering countries (e.g., price differences, variety of
available products, and high quality standards of Thai products). It is also associated with
cross-border tourism. The pattern of cross-border shopping across the cross-border regions
is as follows:
1) Gender of cross-border shoppers
Table 8.23 below presents the gender of cross-border shoppers
Table 8.23 Gender of cross-border shoppers
Gender
Male
Female
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
18
60
14
46.6
12
40
16
53.3
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
66
62.2
49
46.2
40
37.7
57
53.7
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
16
53.3
13
43.3
14
46.6
17
56.6
Total
30
106
30
100 30
0.000
100
100
106
0.000
100
100
30
0.000
p-Value
(Tha)-Lao PDR (Lao): Muang Mukdahan District/ Kaysone Phomvihane district; Thailand
(Tha)-Myanmar (Mya): Maesod District/ Myawaddy District
F means frequency.
The gender of cross-border shoppers significantly varies across the cross-border regions.
Ranging from 53.30% to 62.20% of respondents across Thai border districts are male
shoppers, while 53.30% to 56.60% of respondents across the bordering districts are female
shoppers. For comparative analysis, 3 fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand are men and 2 fifth of respondents are women. Quite the reverse, more than half
of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia are women and less than half of the
respondents are men. Likewise, more than 3 fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan
district of Thailand are men and less than 2 fifth of respondents are women. On the
contrary, more than half of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are
women and less than half of respondents are men. Similarly, slightly more than half of
respondents in Maesod district of Thailand are men and less than half of respondents are
women. Quite the opposite, more than half of respondents in Myawaddy district of
Myanmar are women and less than half of respondents are men. Chi-Square test is applied
to the above table to understand the similarities and differences of the gender of crossborder shoppers across three cross-border regions. It is apparent that significant differences
124
are observed across the cross-border regions as its p-value indicated significance of 99%
confidence level.
2) Marital status of shoppers
The marital status of cross-border shoppers is almost uniform across the cross-border
regions, in which 56.60% to 96.60% of respondents are already married. For comparative
analysis, most of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand are already married.
There are very few respondents who are still single. Likewise, 93.30% of respondents in
OChrov district of Cambodia are currently married and few of respondents are still single.
Also, more than half of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Lao PDR are presently
married and more than a third of respondents are still single. A few of respondents are
divorced. Similarly, more than half of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand are currently married and a third of respondents are still single.
Table 8.24 below presents the marital status of cross-border shoppers across three crossborder regions.
Table 8.24 Marital status of cross-border shoppers
Marital
status
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1
3.3
2
6.7
29
96.6
28
93.3
0
0
0
0
30
100
30
0
0.23
Single
Married
Divorced
Total
Fisher
Exact
Test
p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
35
33
21
19.8
63
59.4
78
73.5
8
7.54
7
6.6
106 100
106
100
0.000
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
7
23.3
13
43.3
23
76.6
17
56.6
0
0
0
0
30
100
30
100
0.000

Similarly, almost 3 quarters of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR
are already married and a few of respondents in both Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand
and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are divorced. Correspondingly, more than 3
quarters of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand are already married and almost a
quarter of respondents are still single. Moreover, more than half of respondents in
Myawaddy district of Myanmar are presently married and less than half of respondents are
still single. Fisher Exact test is applied to the above table to understand the similarities and
differences of the marital status of cross-border shoppers across three cross-border regions.
Significant differences are observed in two cross-border regions (Muang Mukdahan district
of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, and Maesod district of
Thailand and Myawaddy district of Myanmar) as its p-value revealed significance of 99%
confidence level. On the contrary, there are no significant differences in the cross-border
region of Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov district of Cambodia as indicated
by its p-value.
3) Age of cross-border shoppers
Cross-border shoppers across the cross-border regions are of working age. Respondents
across Thai border districts are older than those counterpart cross-border shoppers in the
bordering districts. The average age of respondents across Thai border districts range from
125
40 to 47 years old. On the other hand, respondents across the bordering districts are much
younger with average age of 24 to 40 years old. For comparative analysis, shoppers in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov district of Cambodia are 30 to 40 years
Table 8.25 below shows the ages of cross-border shoppers across three cross-border
regions.
Table 8.25 Age of cross-border shoppers
Age
<30 years old

30-60 years old
>60 years old
Total
Average
Standard
deviation
2 p-value
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
10
33.3
4
13.2
20
66.6
12
40
0
0
14
46.2
30
100
30
100
40
30
12
10
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
29
27.4
3
2.8
60
56.6 100 94.3
17
16.0
3
2.8
106
100 106 100
47
40
34
20
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
0
0
7
23.1
22
73.3
22 73.3
8
26.7
1
3.3
30
100
30 100
40
24
11
10
0.000
0.000
0.000

old. Two third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand are 30 to 60 years old
and a third of respondents are younger than 30 years old. In contrast, most of respondents
in OChrov district of Cambodia are 30 to 60 years old and slightly more than a tenth of
respondents are younger than 30 years old.
Likewise, more than half of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and most
of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are 30 to 60 years old. Slightly
more than a quarter of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand are younger
than 30 years old. More than a tenth of respondents are older than 60 years old. Also, a few
of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are either younger than 30
years old or older than 60 years old. Details of ages of cross-border shopper respondents
are presented in Table 8.25. Correspondingly, almost 3 quarters of respondents in Maesod
district of Thailand and Myawaddy district of Myanmar are of working age (30 to 60 years
old). Slightly more than a quarter of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand are older
than 60 years old, while almost a quarter of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar
are younger than 30 years old. One respondent is older than 60 years old. Chi-Square test is
applied to the above table to understand the similarities and differences of the age of crossborder shoppers in three cross-border regions. It is evident that significant differences are
observed across the cross-border regions as its p-values indicated significance of 99%
confidence level.
4) Original resident of cross-border shoppers
The original residences of cross-border shoppers considerably vary across the cross-border
regions. Ranging from 31.10% to 63.30% of respondents across Thai border districts
originate from other neighboring provinces. Shopper respondents in the 2 bordering
countries including OChrov district (43.30%) in Cambodia and Myawaddy district
126
(82.30%) in Myanmar are local border residents. Also, slightly 4 fifth of respondents in
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR originate from bordering Savannakhet province.
For comparative analysis, most of cross-border Thai shoppers in OChrov district of
Cambodia are outsiders or regional tourists, while most of cross-border Cambodian
Table 8.62 below presents the original residence of cross-border shoppers in three crossborder regions.
Table 8.26 Original residence of cross-border shoppers
Origin
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1
3.3
13
43.3
1. Study border
district
2. Study border
3
10
11
36.6
province
3. Neighbouring
14
46.6
2
6.6
provinces
4. Capital city
12
40
2
6.6
5. Other regions
0
0
0
0
Total
30
100
30
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
0
0
25
82.5
59
55.6
86
81.1
23.1
6.6
33
31.1
19
17.9
19
63.3
2
12
106
1.8
11.3
100
1
0
106
0.9
0
100
2
2
30
6.6
6.6
100
3
0
30
10
0
100
shopper respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand are local border residents in

OChrov district and other neighboring provinces of Cambodia. Almost half of Thai
respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia are coming from neighboring Eastern
provinces of Thailand. Two fifth of Thai respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia
come from Bangkok metropolis and a tenth of Thai respondents in OChrov district of
Cambodia originate from within Sakaeo province. One Thai shopper in OChrov district of
Cambodia is a local border resident in Aranyaprathet district. On the contrary, slightly
higher than 2 fifth of Cambodian shopper respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand
come from local bordering district of OChrov in Cambodia. Slightly more than a third of
Cambodian shopper respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand are from bordering
Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia. A few of Cambodian respondents in
Aranyaprathet of Thailand originate from either neighboring provinces or directly
travelling from Phnom Penh, capital city of Cambodia.
Likewise, more than half of Thai cross-border shopper respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR reside in bordering Mukdahan province of Thailand.
Almost a third of Thai shopper respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR
live in neighboring Northeastern provinces. Slightly more than a tenth of Thai respondents
in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are from other regions in Thailand. There are
very few respondents who originate from Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity. In contrast,
most of Laotian shopper respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand reside in
bordering Savannakhet province. Less than a fifth of Laotian respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand come from neighboring provinces. A Laotian respondent
originates from Vientiane.
Also, almost 2 third of Thai respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar come from
neighboring upper Northern provinces of Thailand. Almost a quarter of Thai shopper
127
respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar reside in bordering Tak province. A few of

Thai respondents travel from either Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity or other regions.
Quite the opposite, slightly more than 4 fifth of Burmese cross-border shopper respondents
in Maesod district of Thailand come from local bordering Myawaddy district of Myanmar.
A tenth of Burmese respondents in Maesod district of Thailand directly come from
Yangon, former capital city of Myanmar. Less than a tenth of Burmese respondents in
Maesod district of Thailand originate from bordering Kayin state of Myanmar.
5) Border shopping places
Shopping places largely vary across the cross-border regions. The Thai cross-border
shopper respondents who come from Muang Mukdahan and Aranyaprathet districts buy at
border duty free shops in Kaysone Phomvihane district (54.20%) of Lao PDR and OChrov
district of Cambodia (79.20%). On the other hand, 40% to 93.30% of cross-border shopper
respondents across the bordering districts mainly purchase at leading modern border retail
stores across Thai border districts (e.g., Tesco Lotus and Big C, etc.). For comparative
analysis, 2 fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand buy from Poi Pet
border market of Cambodia, while half of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia
shop at Rong Klea border market in Thailand. Two fifth of Cambodian respondents shop at
leading modern border retail stores in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand. A tenth of
respondents go shopping at Aranyaprathet city market.Table 8.27 below shows the border
shopping places across three cross-border regions.
Table 8.27 Shopping places
Shopping place
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
6
20
15
50
24 79.2
0
0
1. Border market
2. Border duty
free shops
3. Border city
0
0
3
10
market
4. Leading
0
0
12
40
modern border
retail stores
Total
30
100
30 100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
58
54.7
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
18
60
2
6.6
0
0
0
0
48
45.2
6.6
12
40
99
93.3
28
93.3
106
100
106
100
30
100
30
100
Similarly, more than half of cross-border Thai shopper respondents in Muang Mukdahan
district of Thailand purchase at Daoroung duty free shops in bordering Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR. Less than half of Thai respondents shop at Singapore
city market in bordering Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR. In contrast, most of
respondents from Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR go shopping at leading
modern border retail stores in bordering Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand. A few of
Laotian respondents buy at Mukdahan city market of Thailand. Correspondingly, 3 fifth of
Thai shopper respondents in Maesod district do their shopping of a wide range of Burmese
products at Rim Moei border market located in Maesod district of Thailand.
Two fifth of Thai shoppers respondents go shopping at Myawaddy city market of
Myanmar. On the contrary, most of Burmese shopper respondents from Myawaddy district
of Myanmar go shopping at leading modern border retail stores in Maesod district of
128
Thailand. A few of Burmese respondents do shopping at Rim Moei border market in

Maesod district of Thailand.
6) Cross-border shopping commodities
The shopping commodities substantially vary across the cross-border regions resulting
from adjacency of structural differences (e.g., price differences, variety of available
products, quality standards, and tastes of consumers). Thai shopper respondents in Muang
Mukdahan (32.10%) and Aranyaprathet (56.60%) districts purchase expensive goods (e.g.,
liquor and wine made in western countries). In contrast, 50% to 59.40% of cross-border
shopper respondents across the bordering districts procure consumer goods. For
comparative analysis, more than a quarter of Thai respondents shop cigar in OChrov
district of Cambodia and a few of Thai respondents purchase either fashion purses or
mobile phones in OChrov district of Cambodia. A Thai respondent buys consumer goods.
On the contrary, more than half of Cambodian respondents shop consumer goods in
bordering Aranyaprathet district of Thailand. Slightly more than a tenth of Cambodian
respondents buy either electric appliances or computer and parts in bordering Arayaprathet
district of Thailand. Only a very small proportion of Cambodian respondents purchase
either fashion purses, mobile phones, ready to wear garments, household goods, or
medicines and medical apparatuses in bordering Aranyaprathet district of Thailand.Table
2.28 below presents shopping commodities across three cross-border regions.
Table 8.28 Shopping commodities
Commodity
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
34
32.1
0
0
9
8.5
0
0
14
13.2
0
0
8
7.5
8
7.5
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
1
3.3
0
0
1
3.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3.3
4
13.2
0
3.3
56.7
13.3
3.3
3.3
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
17
0
16
0
0
0
0
16
1
0
53
8
19
0
0
1
0
50
7.5
17.9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
3.3
0
0
0
3.3
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
1
0
0
0
59.4
0
0
3.3
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
3.8
1.9
0
0
0
8
0
0
7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
19.8
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
70
1
0
3.3
0
0
100
0
106
0
100
0
106
0
100
3
30
10
100
0
30
0
100
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
17
56.6
0
0
8
26.6
0
0
2
6.6
1
3.3
0
0
1
3.3
1. Liquor and wine

2. Cigar
3. Fashion purse
4. Ready to wear
garment
5. Shoes
0
0
0
6. Mobile phone
2
6.6
1
7. Consumer goods
1
3.3
17
0
0
4
9. Computer and parts
0
0
1
10. Household goods
0
0
1
11. Medicines and
0
0
0
medical apparatuses
12. Mushroom
0
0
0
13. Herbal medicines
0
0
0
14. Fruits and
0
0
0
vegetables
15. Food stuffs
0
0
0
16. Sea aquatic
0
0
0
products
17. Chemical
0
0
0
fertilizers
18. Forest products
0
0
0
Total
30
100
30
129
Likewise, almost a third of Thai shopper respondents buy liquor and wine in bordering
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR. Less than a fifth of Thai respondents purchase
either mobile phones or mushroom. More than a tenth of Thai shopper respondents buy
purses and less than a tenth of Thai respondents procure either cigar or ready to wear
clothes. A few of Thai shoppers purchase herbal medicines and one Thai respondent buys
food stuffs. On the contrary, half of Laotian shopper respondents buy consumer goods in
bordering Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand. Less than a fifth of Laotian respondents
purchase household goods. A few of Laotian respondents acquire either electric appliances,
food stuffs, or ready to wear garment in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand. There are
very few Laotian respondents who obtain either shoes or chemical fertilizers. Quite the
reverse, more than 2 third of Thai shopper respondents in Maesod district buy fresh and
dry sea aquatic products in bordering Myawaddy district of Myanmar. A tenth of Thai
respondents purchase forest products. Only a very small proportion of Thai respondents
acquire liquor and wine, cigar, computer and parts and necessity (e.g., clothes and shoes).
While 3 fifth of Burmese shopper respondents shop consumer goods in bordering Maesod
district of Thailand, a fifth of Burmese respondents buy fruits and vegetables. More than a
tenth of Burmese respondents purchase ready to wear garments and a few of Burmese
respondents buy either food stuffs or household goods.
7) Spending amount per cross-border shopping
Table 8.29 below presents spending per cross-border shopping across three cross-border
regions.
Table 8.29 Spending per cross-border shopping
Spending
Amount
(Baht)
<2,500
2,500-3,500
>3,500
Total
Mean
Standard
deviation
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
18
60.0
15
50.0
10
33.3
14
46.6
2
6.7
1
3.4
30
100
30
0
1,425
1,255
1,575
944
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
44
41.5
12
11.3
56
52.8
49
46.2
6
5.6
45
42.5
106
100
106
100
1,878
855
Fisher Exact
0.000
Test p-value
4,607
2,640
0.000
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
15
50
24
80.0
15
50
4
13.3
0
0
2
6.7
30
100
30
100
625
331
1,500
1,912
0.000

The spending amount per cross-border shopping significantly varies across the crossborder regions. Respondents across the bordering districts spend higher with average
amount ranging from 1,500 Baht to 4,607 Baht per shopping. On the other hand,
respondents across Thai border districts spend lower with average amount ranging from
625 Baht to 1,878 Baht per shopping. For comparative analysis, the average spending
amount per shopping of Thai respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia is 1,575 Baht,
whereas the average spending amount for each shopping of Cambodian respondents in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand is slightly lower at 1,425 Baht. Three fifth of Thai
respondents purchase less than 2,500 Baht per shopping in OChrov district of Cambodia.
A third of Thai respondents spend 2,500 Baht to 3.500 Baht and a few of them expend
higher than 3,500 Baht. Whereas half of Cambodian respondents spend less than 2,500
130
Baht per shopping in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand, almost half of them pay more than
3,500 Baht per shopping. One Cambodian respondent spends more than 3,500 Baht per
shopping.
On the contrary, the average spending amount per shopping of Laotian respondents in
bordering Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand is very high at 4,607 Baht. Whereas the
average spending amount per shopping of Thai respondents in bordering Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR is significantly lower at 1,878 Baht, slightly more than
half of Thai respondents spend 2,500 Baht to 3,500 Baht per shopping in bordering
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR. Slightly more than 2 fifth of Thai respondents
expend less than 2,500 Baht per shopping and a few of them use up more than 3.500 Baht
per shopping. In contrast, more than 2 fifth of Laotian respondents spend either less than
2,500 Baht or 2,500 Baht to 3,500 Baht per shopping in Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand. Slightly more than a tenth of Laotian respondents spend less than 2,500 Baht per
shopping.
Quite the opposite, the average spending amount of Thai respondents in bordering
Myawaddy district of Myanmar is rather low at 625 Baht per shopping. While the average
spending amount of Burmese respondents in bordering Maesod district of Thailand is
much higher at 1,500 Baht per shopping, half of Thai respondents purchase goods in
Myawaddy district of Myanmar either less than 2,500 Baht or 2,500 Baht to 3,500 Baht per
shopping. In contrast, 4 fifth of Burmese respondents buy goods in Maesod district of
Thailand at less than 2,500 Baht per shopping and more than a tenth of them purchase at
2,500 Baht to 3,500 Baht per shopping. A few of Burmese respondents spend more than
3,500 Baht per shopping. A broad range of standard deviations shown in the table is
iimplying that some respondents may have underreported their shopping expenses. Fisher
Exact test is applied to the above table to understand the similarities and differences of the
spending across the cross-border regions. It is evident that significant differences are
observed across three cross-border regions as its p-values indicated significance of 99%
confidence level.
8) Frequency of cross-border shopping
Table 8.30 below presents the frequency of cross-border shopping across three crossborder regions.
Table 8.30 Frequency of cross-border shopping
Frequency
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
Daily
0
0
4
13.3
Weekly
3
10
14
46.6
Monthly
20 66.6
8
26.6
Every 3 months
6 19.8
2
6.6
Every 6 months
1
3.3
2
6.6
Rarely
0
0
0
0
Total
30 100
30
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
16
15
3
2.83
11
10.3
81
76.4
20
18.8
20
18.8
58
54.7
1
0.9
0
0
0
0
1
0.9
1
0.9
106 100 106 100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
1
3.3
20
66.6
1
3.3
5
16.6
14
46.6
3
10
1
3.3
1
3.3
3
10
1
3.3
10
33
0
0
30
100
30
100
The frequency of cross-border shopping considerably varies across the cross-border

regions. Respondents across the bordering districts perform more frequent cross-border
131
shopping than those respondents across Thai border districts. Respondents in OChrov
district (46.60%) of Cambodia and Kaysone Phomvihane district (76.40%) of Lao PDR do
cross-border shopping on weekly basis. Interestingly, 2 third of respondents in Myawaddy
district of Myanmar do cross-border shopping on daily basis. On the other hand, 18.80% to
46.60% of respondents across Thai border districts go shopping on monthly basis.
For comparative analysis, 2 third of Thai respondents go for cross-border shopping in
OChrov district of Cambodia on a monthly basis. A fifth of Thai respondents do crossborder shopping every 3 months and a tenth of them go shopping on weekly basis. One
respondent goes for cross-border shopping every 6 months. Likewise, more than a quarter
of Cambodian respondents go shopping in bordering Arayaprathet district of Thailand on a
monthly basis and more than a tenth of them go shopping on daily basis. A few of
Cambodian respondents go shopping either every 3 months or every 6 months.
Also, more than half of Thai respondents in Muang Mukdahan district expressed doing
cross-border shopping in bordering Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR every
3 months. Almost a fifth of both Thai and Laotian respondents stated that they perform
cross-border shopping on monthly basis. Less than a fifth of Thai respondents informed of
doing cross-border shopping in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR on daily basis.
And a tenth of Thai respondents answered that they go for cross-border shopping 2 to 3
times per week. On the contrary, more than half of Laotian respondents do cross-border
shopping on weekly basis and almost a quarter of them go shopping 3 times per week. A
few of them leave for cross-border shopping on daily basis. Only a very small proportion
go shopping either every 3 months or rarely.
Correspondingly, Burmese shoppers do more frequent cross-border shopping than those
Thai shoppers. There are very few Thai and Burmese respondents doing cross-border
shopping every 3 months. Almost half of Thai shoppers do cross-border shopping in
Myawaddy district of Myanmar on a monthly basis. A third of Thai respondents do yearly
shopping and a tenth of them go shopping every 6 months. Only a very small proportion of
Thai respondents do shopping either daily or weekly basis. Quite the reverse, 2 third of
Burmese respondents do daily cross-border shopping in bordering Maesod district of
Thailand. Almost a fifth of Burmese respondents perform weekly cross-border shopping. A
tenth of them do cross-border shopping on monthly basis. There are very few respondents
who go shopping in bordering Maesod district of Thailand every 6 months.
9) Purpose of cross-border shopping
The purposes of cross-border shopping are almost similar across the cross-border regions
with 40% to 90% of respondents reported of buying goods for their own consumption. For
comparative analysis, almost half of Thai respondents and 2 fifth of Cambodian
respondents procure for their own consumption. Two fifth of Thai respondents and a third
of Cambodian respondents shop for re-sale. A quarter of Thai respondents and more than a
tenth of Cambodian respondents buy for their own consumption and for re-sale.
Also, almost 3 quarters of Thai respondents in Muang Mukdahan district buy for their own
consumption and a fifth of them purchase for re-sale. A few of them acquire, both for their
own consumption and re-sale. Likewise, less than half of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR buy for their own consumption and 2 fifth of them
purchase for re-sale. More than a tenth of Laotian respondents acquire, both for their own
consumption and re-sale. Correspondingly, most of Thai shoppers and more than 2 third of
Burmese cross-border shoppers buy for their own consumption. A tenth of Thai
132
Table 8.31 below shows the purpose of cross-border shopping across three cross-border
regions.
Table 8.31 Purpose of cross-border shopping
Purpose
Own consumption
Resale
Both own
consumption and
resale
Total
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
14
46.6
12
40
12
40
10
33
4
13.3
8
26.6
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
77
72.6
48
45.3
23
21.7
43
40.6
6
5.6
15
14.2
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
27
90
22
73.3
0
0
2
6.7
3
10
6
20
30
106
30
100
30
0.472
100
100 106
0.000
p-value
100
100 30
0.03
100

respondents in Maesod district and a fifth of Burmese respondents in Myawaddy district
answered that they buy, both for their own consumption and re-sale. A few of Burmese
respondents in Myawaddy district purchase goods only forre-sale.
of the purpose of cross-border shopping across the cross-border regions. It is evident that
significant differences are observed in two cross-border regions (Maesod district of
Thailand and Myawaddy district of Myanmar, and Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand
and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR,) as its p-value indicated significance of
95% and 99% confidence level, respectively. On the other hand, there is no significant
difference in the cross-border region of Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov
district of Cambodia as indicated by its p-value.
10) Mode of cross-border transport
Table 8.32 below presents the mode of cross-border transport across three cross-border
regions.
Table 8.32 Mode of cross-border transport
Mode of transport
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
20
66.6
6
20
0
0
0
0
1. Passenger car
2. International
scheduled bus/van
3. River boat
0
0
0
0
4. Tourist bus
10
33.3
0
0
5. Car rental
0
0
0
0
6. Local transport
0
0
0
0
7. Bicycle
0
0
0
0
8. On foot
0
0
24
80
Total
30
100
30
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
34
32.1
43
40.6
39
36.8
42
39.6
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
19
63
2
6.7
0
0
21
70
33
0
0
0
0
0
106
0
10
1
0
0
0
30
31.1
0
0
0
0
0
100
133
21
0
0
0
0
0
106
19.8
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
33
4
0
0
0
100
0
0
1
5
1
0
30
0
0
3.3
16.7
3.3
0
100
The modes of cross-border transport noticeably vary across the cross-border regions
depending on geographical and extent of improvement of infrastructure linkages. Ranging
from 32.10% to 66.60% of respondents across Thai border districts use passenger cars.
Respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district (39.60%) of Lao PDR and Myawaddy
district (70%) of Myanmar rely on international scheduled buses or vans. For comparative
analysis, 2 third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and a fifth of
respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia travel by passenger cars. A third of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand use tourist bus, whereas almost a quarter
of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia cross the border on foot due to close
geographical proximity.
In contrast, more than a third of respondents in both Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand
and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR travel by international scheduled
buses/vans. Almost a third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district journey by either
passenger cars or International Mekong river boats. Also, 2 fifth of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district utilize passenger cars and almost a fifth of them travel by International
Mekong river boats. Correspondingly, 2 third of respondents in Maesod district of
Thailand travel by passenger cars and a third of them travel by tourist buses. A respondent
makes a journey by rental car. Whereas, more than 2 third of respondents in Myawaddy
district of Myanmar rely on international scheduled vans, less than a fifth of them utilize
local transport services available in Maesod district side. Few of respondents use passenger
cars and very few of them take a cross-border trip either by car rentals or bicycles.
The above findings are summarized in the following sections.
8.4.1 Local Border Wholesaling
Most of the border wholesaler respondents across the cross-border regions are family based
businesses under the category of SMEs. The average duration of business operation is 14
years. Respondents across the cross-border regions sell a wide range of essential
commodities. There are 3 types of cross-border supply chains in the cross-border regions.
Respondents across the Thai border districts acquire goods mainly from manufacturers in
Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity, while respondents in the bordering districts obtain
goods mainly from cross-border wholesalers in Thailand. The number of labor employed
in a business across the cross-border regions varies from 4 to 14 workers. The number of
immigrant labor employed in a business across the Thai border districts ranges from 6 to 8
workers. The average daily wage rates across the Thai border districts are 2 to 3 times
higher than the counterpart bordering districts.
8.4.2 Local Border Retailing
The border retailer respondents across 5 border districts are mainly informal retailers,
except in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, where 91% registered as taxpayer.
Respondents in 2 Thai border districts of Aranyaprathet and Maesod have longer duration
of business operation of more than 12 years, while respondents in bordering districts of
OChrov district of Cambodia and Myawaddy district of Myanmar have establishments
operating within the last 6 to 7 years. Moreover, respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR have longer duration of operation (12 years). In contrast, respondents
in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand have lower duration of operation (8 years). The
respondents sell almost similar kinds of goods. Respondents across the cross-border
134
regions procure goods mainly from cross-border wholesalers, which signify the existence
of cross-border supply chain linkages. Goods that originate from Thailand possess 30.30%
to 69.20% market share across the cross-border regions. The number of immigrant labor
employed in an establishment across Thai border districts vary from 3 to 5 workers. The
daily wage rates for immigrant labor across the Thai border districts are 2 to 2.50 times
higher than the counterpart bordering districts.
8.4.3 Cross-Border Shopping
available products and high quality standards of Thai products). It is also associated with
cross-border tourism. Ranging from 53.30% to 62.20% of respondents across Thai border
districts are male shoppers, while 53.30% to 56.60% of respondents across the bordering
districts are female shoppers. The average age of respondents across Thai border districts
ranges from 40 to 47 years old, whereas the average age of respondents across the
bordering districts are much younger, ranging from 24 to 40 years old. Ranging from
31.10% to 63.30% of respondents across Thai border districts originate from other
neighboring provinces, while 43.30% and 82.30% of respondents in the 2 bordering
districts of OChrov in Cambodia and Myawaddy in Myanmar, respectively, are local
border residents. Also, slightly 4 fifth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of
Lao PDR originate from bordering Savannakhet province.
Shopping places also largely vary across the cross-border regions. Thai cross-border
shopper respondents who come from Muang Mukdahan and Aranyaprathet districts shop at
border duty free shops in bordering Kaysone Phomvihane district (54.20%) of Lao PDR
and OChrov district (79.20%) of Cambodia. On the other hand, 3 fifth of Thai shopper
respondents in Maesod district do shopping of a wide range of Burmese products at Rim
Moei border market located in Maesod district of Thailand. Moreover, 40% to 93.30% of
cross-border shopper respondents across the bordering districts mainly buy at leading
modern border retail stores across Thai border districts (e.g., Tesco Lotus and Big C, etc.).
There are different patterns of shopping commodities across the cross-border regions. Thai
shopper respondents in Muang Mukdahan (32.10%) and Aranyaprathet (56.60%) districts
purchase luxury goods (e.g., liquor and wine made in western countries) in counterpart
bordering districts. Quite the reverse, more than 2 third of Thai shopper respondents in
Maesod district buy fresh and dry sea aquatic products in bordering Myawaddy district of
Myanmar. In contrast, 50% to 59.40% of cross-border shopper respondents across the
bordering districts procure consumer goods. Respondents across the bordering districts
spend higher average amount per shopping. Respondents across the bordering districts do
more frequent cross-border shopping than those respondents across Thai border districts.
Ranging from 40% to 90% of respondents across the cross-border regions do cross-border
shopping for their own consumption. The modes of cross-border transport noticeably vary
across the cross-border regions depending on geographical and extent of improvement of
infrastructure linkages.
The chapter has discussed about local border wholesaling and retailing activities, and
strategic trading commodities. It also dealt with local and cross-border linkages of
wholesaling and retailing, as well as highlighted the pattern of logistics and supply chain
linkages. It described the profiles and behaviors of local and regional cross-border
shoppers and listed strategic shopping commodities. It analyzed the intensity of local and
regional cross-border shopping and spending. It is recognizable that a large number of
135
local residents rely on wholesaling and retailing activities for livelihoods. As a result, local
border wholesaling and retailing endeavors substantially contribute to the thriving growth
of local economy. The traders who are mainly from SMEs also gain a great deal of benefits
from greater cross-border connectivity. There are existing local border and cross-border
linkages between wholesaling and retailing that similarly foster supply chain links. Due to
adjacency of structural differences, cross-border shopping is becoming another growth
engine of local border economy, particularly in the studied Thai border cities. Finally, the
preceding key findings and reflections support the hypothesis stating that cross-border
trade regions are expected to gain infrastructural, economic and service benefits at the
regional scale due to production and trading linkages.
136
CHAPTER 9
LOCAL AND REGIONAL CROSS-BORDER PRODUCTION LINKAGES
This chapter provides a micro level analysis of local and regional cross-border industrial
linkages. It also covers the characteristics and pattern of border industrial
entrepreneurships. The details of comparative cross-border analysis are outlined in the
sections that follow.
9.1 Local Border Industrial Development
The specific characteristics of local border industrial development and cross-border
production linkages are as follows:
1) Registrations of industries
Registrations of industries greatly vary across the cross-border regions. Respondents across
Thai border districts have higher types of formal registrations than counterpart respondents
in the bordering districts. Respondents across Thai border districts of Muang Mukdahan
(35%), Aranyaprathet (45%) and Maesod (50.70%) register as company limited, whereas,
respondents across the bordering Kaysone Phomvihane district (36.10%) of Lao PDR;
Myawaddy district (70%) of Myanmar and OChrov district (100%) of Cambodia operate
as cottage industries. The cottage industries are not required to formally register with
relevant government agencies, particularly in Myawaddy and OChrov districts. For
comparative analysis, slightly more than half of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand register as cottage industries. A third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district
of Thailand register as partnership limited and a quarter register as merchant shop. A few
of respondents register either as ordinary partnership or cottage industry. In comparison,
almost 2 third of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR register as
company limited. Correspondingly, almost a third of respondents in Maesod district of
Thailand register as partnership limited and more than a tenth register as cottage industry.
A few of respondents register as ordinary partnership. Likewise, a third of respondents in
Myawaddy district of Myanmar register as company limited.
2) Investment incentives
The investment incentives significantly vary across the cross-border regions. Interestingly,
respondents across the bordering districts gain higher investment incentives from their
respective bordering governments than counterpart respondents across Thai border
districts. This might have resulted from the Royal Thai Governments policy directing that
border industries engaging a large number of immigrant labor are ineligible to gain any
government investment incentive. For comparative analysis, respondents across the
bordering OChrov district (0%) of Cambodia, Myawaddy district (20%) of Myanmar and
Kaysone Phomvihane district (23%) of Lao PDR receive higher special border economic
zone investment incentives. Interestingly, a Thai respondent in Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR instead acquires Thailands outward investment incentives. On the
other hand, respondents across Thai border districts of Muang Mukdahan (0%), Maesod
(5.80%) and Aranyaprathet (10%) in Zone 3 receive lower investment incentives from
Thailand.
3) Reasons for locating border industries
Respondents across the studied bordering districts of OChrov (16.70%) in Cambodia,
Kaysone Phomvihane (67.2%) in Lao PDR and Myawaddy (83.40%) in Myanmar have
larger endogenous industries. Respondents across Thai border districts of Maesod (48%),
137
Table 9.1 below presents the reasons for locating border industries across three crossborder regions.
Table 9.1 Reasons for locating border industries
Reason
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
12
60
5
16.7
1. Originally
endogenous industry
2. Close proximity to
3
15
25
83.3
market in bordering
city/country
3. Access to abundant
1
5
0
0
local labor
0
0
0
0
raw materials in
bordering city
0
0
0
0
labor in bordering city
3
15
0
0
local materials
7. Local market
1
5
0
0
expansion
Total
20 100 30
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
27
62.7
41
67.
2
5
11.6
0
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
33
48
25
83.4
1
1.4
16.6
35
51
5
4
9.3
1
1.6
2.3
14
0
10
0
43
0
100
10
61
16
100
69
100
30
0
100
Aranyaprathet (60%) and Muang Mukdahan (62.70%) have slightly smaller endogenous
industries.As a result, respondents across Thai border districts of Muang Mukdahan
(37.30%), Aranyaprathet (40%) and Maesod (52%) have larger exogenous industries. On
the contrary, respondents in the 2 bordering districts of Myawaddy (17%) in Myanmar and
Kaysone Phomvihane (32.8%) in Lao PDR have smaller exogenous industries. OChrov
district (83.30%) of Cambodia hosts the largest exogenous industries.
For comparative analysis of exogenous industries, the reasons for locating border
industries substantially vary across the cross-border regions. Less than a tenth of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand answered either close proximity to
bordering Cambodian market or access to abundant local materials. A few of
respondents replied either access to abundant local labor or local market expansion. On
the contrary, most of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia replied that their reason
is the close proximity to bordering Aranyaprathet market of Thailand. Also, less than a
fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand mentioned access to
abundant local raw materials. A tenth of respondents informed either close proximity to
Lao PDR and neighboring country markets or access to abundant raw materials from Lao
PDR. A few of respondents stated that their reason is the access to abundant labor from
Lao PDR. Likewise, almost a fifth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao
PDR replied that they would gain from local market expansion. Almost a tenth of
respondents replied access to abundant local materials or land. Few of respondents
expressed that they have access to abundant local labor. One respondent informed of
having access to abundant raw materials from adjacent Mukdahan province of Thailand.
Remarkably, half of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand mentioned accessibility to
abundant labor from bordering Myawaddy district of Myanmar. One respondent gains
138
advantage of close proximity to bordering Burmese market. Likewise, more than a tenth of
respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar are taking advantage of close proximity to
bordering Maesod market in Thailand.
Pertaining to relocation of exogenous industries into the cross-border regions, apparently,
almost half of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand originally moved from Bangkok
metropolis and its vicinity. A few of respondents shifted from Northern region of Thailand.
On the other hand, a Burmese respondent in Maesod district relocated from Yangon due to
internal political conflict in Myanmar. Likewise, a respondent in Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR is transferred either from Vientiane or from northern region of Lao
PDR. Lastly, all of respondents across the other 4 border districts are truly start-up border
industries. These findings are consistent with the concept of geographical division of labor
as Harvey (2005) argues that the coercive laws of competition push capitalists to relocate
production to more advantageous sites. And the special requirements of particular forms of
commodity production push capitalist into territorial specialization.
4) Purpose of establishment
Table 9.2 below presents the purpose of establishing industries across three cross-border
regions.
Table 9.2 Purpose of establishment
Purpose
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
42
98
53
87
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
56
81.1
27
90
11.4
12
17.3
1.4
83.3
3.3
1.6
100
43
100
61
100
69
100
30
100
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
19
95
5
16.6
1. Open new
factory or service
2. Open new
1
5
0
branch plant
3. Being
0
0
0
domestically
outsourced
4. Being cross0
0
25
border outsourced
5. Being cross0
0
0
border franchising
Total
20 100 30
The purpose of establishing industries varies across the cross-border regions. Most
(81.10% to 95%) of the respondents across Thai border districts open new factories or
services together with border headquarters. Ranging from 16.60% to 90% of.respondents
across the bordering districts open new factories or services together with border
headquarters. Moreover, there is strong presence of cross-border outsourcing of production
activities from adjacent Aranyaprathet district of Thailand to bordering OChrov district
and surrounding provinces of Cambodia. Also, there are few existing cross-border
franchising from Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand to bordering Phomvihane district
of Lao PDR. For comparative analysis, most of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand start new factories along with border headquarters and one respondent built a
plant for a new branch. In contrast, most of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia
139
are sub-contracted industries from bordering Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and less
than a fifth of respondents initiate new border cottage factories.
Likewise, most of respondents in both Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR start new factories or services alongside its border
headquarters. A tenth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and a
respondent in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand initiate new branch plants. On the
other hand, a respondent in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR is a cross-border
franchisee from Thailand. Also, more than 4 fifth of respondents in Maesod district of
Thailand launch new factories or services alongside border headquarters. Almost a fifth of
respondents usually initiate plants for new branches, with headquarters located in Bangkok
metropolis and its vicinity. One respondent is a domestically outsourced industry. Whereas
greater than 4 fifth of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar start new industries
or services with border headquarters, a few of respondents operate new branch plants. One
respondent is a cross-border outsourced industry from bordering Maesod district of
Thailand.
5) Duration of operation of border industrial establishments
Table 9.3 below presents the duration of operation of border industrial establishments
across three cross-border regions.
Table 9.3 Duration of operation of border industrial establishments
Duration of
operation
(Year)
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
2
10
23
76.6
11
55
5
16.6
6
30
0
0
1
5
2
6.6
20 100 30
100
9.2
2.5
4.1
5
5 years
5-10 years
10-15 years
>15 years
Total
Mean
Standard
deviation
Fisher Exact
0.000
Test, p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
3
6.9
8
13.1
5
12
23
37.7
32
74
14
23
3
6.9
16
26.3
43
100
61
100
11.8
10.7
3.8
5.7
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
26
37.7
7
23.3
18
25
18
60
22
32
5
16.6
3
4.3
0
0
69
100
30
100
7
6.9
5.9
4.2
0.002
0.02

The duration of operation of industrial establishments noticeably vary across the crossborder regions. Respondents in Thai border districts informed of longer average duration
of industrial establishments at 7 years, 9 years and 12 years in Maesod, Aranyaprathet and
Muang Mukdahan districts, respectively. On the other hand, respondents across the
bordering districts informed of shorter average duration of industrial establishments at 3
years, 7 years and 11 years in OChrov district of Cambodia, Myawaddy district of
Myanmar and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, respectively. For comparative
analysis, respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand have established border
industries much older than counterparts in OChrov district of Cambodia. Half of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand set up border industries which are 5 to 10
years old. Almost a third of respondents operate border industries for 10 to 15 years. A
tenth of respondents run border industries for less than 5 years and one respondent
140
manages border industry longer than 15 years. Whereas 3 quarters of respondents in

OChrov district of Cambodia have border industries less than 5 years old, less than a fifth
of respondents set up border industries which are 5 to 10 years old and a few of
respondents have been operating border industries longer than 15 years.
On the contrary, respondents in both Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand have almost equal average duration of border industrial
operations at 10.70 years and 11.80 years, respectively. Almost 2 third of respondents in
Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand establish border industries which are 10 to 15 years
old. Slightly more than a tenth of respondents have border industries which are either 5 to
10 years old or 10 to 15 years old. A few of respondents run border industries which are
either less than 5 years or more than 15 years. Likewise, slightly more than a third of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR run border industries for 5 to 10
years. Slightly more than a quarter of respondents manage border industries longer than 15
years and almost a quarter of respondents operate border industries for 10 years to 15
years. Slightly more than a tenth of respondents manage border industries for less than 5
years.
Likewise, respondents in both Maesod district of Thailand and Myawaddy district of
Myanmar operate border industries rather in equal average duration of 7 years. More than a
third of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand have border industries which are less
than 5 years. Almost a third of respondents have been running border industries for 10 to
15 years. A quarter of respondents operate border industries for 5 years to 10 years. A few
of respondents run border industries longer than 15 years. Similarly, less than 2 third of
respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar operate border industries for 5 to 10 years.
Almost a quarter of respondents administer border industries less than 5 years and less than
a fifth of respondents operate border industries for 10 to 15 years.
of the duration of business establishments between cross-border regions. It is evident that
significant differences are observed across the cross-border regions. There are significant
differences in the cross-border regions of Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov
district of Cambodia, and Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR as its p-values indicated significance of 99% confidence level. On the
other hand, there is a lower significant difference in the cross-border region of Maesod
district of Thailand and Myawaddy district of Myanmar as p-value indicated significance
of 95% confidence level.
6) Invested capital
Investment capital is a useful variable to help categorize the size of a border industry. Most
of respondents across the cross-border regions are Micro, Small, and Medium enterprises
(MSME) and mostly family based border industries. By using a combination of Thailand
and the World Bank criteria in classifying industrial sizes, investment capital significantly
vary across the cross-border regions. Respondents across Thai border districts are mostly
Small and Medium Sized enterprises (SMEs), in which the average capital investment are
higher at 41.00 million Baht, 41.30 million Baht and 42.40 million Baht in Muang
Mukdahan, Maesod and Aranyaprathet districts, respectively. Similarly, respondents in the
2 bordering districts are also SMEs but with much lower average capital investment at 7.50
million Baht and 42 million Baht in Myawaddy district of Myanmar and Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, respectively. On the contrary, remarkably 96.70% of
141
respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia are informal micro-enterprises with average

investment capital of just about 0.50 million Baht. Table 9.4 below presents invested
capital across three cross-border regions.
Table 9.4 Invested capital
Investment capital
scale
(Million Baht)
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
2
10
29
96.7
8
40
0
0
10
50
1
3.3
20 100 30
100
42
0.5
77
0.9
0.000
1.00 Million Baht

1-10 Million Baht
>10 Million Baht
Total
Mean
Standard deviation
Fisher Exact Test,
p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
5
11.6
25
40.9
26
60.4
11
18.0
12 27.9
24
39.3
43
100
61
100
41
42
126
115
Chi square 0.000
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
6
8.7
16
53.3
42
61
2
6.6
21 30.4
12
40.0
69
100
30
100
41
7.5
113
18
Chi square 0.000

All of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand are categorized as SMEs. Half of
respondents invest more than 10 million Baht. Two fifth of respondents hold investment
capital of 1 to 10 million Baht. A tenth of respondents invest less than 1.00 million Baht.
Extraordinarily, 96.70% of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia are informal
micro-enterprises with investment capital of less than 0.30 million Baht. An enterprise
respondent makes capital investment higher than 10 million Baht. Also, 3 fifth of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand invest 1 to 10 million Baht. Slightly
more than a quarter of respondents invest a capital higher than 10 million Baht. A tenth of
respondents invest less than 1 million Baht.
Likewise, 2 fifth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR invest either
less than 1 million Baht (classified as micro enterprise) or more than 10 million Baht.
Almost a fifth of respondents finance 1 to 10 million Baht. Details of invested capital are
shown in Table 9.4. Correspondingly, 3 fifth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand
invest a capital of 1 to 10 million Baht. Almost a third of respondents finance more than 10
million Baht. Less than a tenth of respondents invest less than 1 million Baht. In contrast,
slightly more than half of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar are classified as
micro-enterprise with capital investment just less than 1 million Baht. Within SMEs
category, 2 fifth of respondents invest more than 10 million Baht and a few of respondents
invest a capital of 1 to 10 million Baht.
of the invested capital between cross-border regions. It is evident that significant
and Myawaddy district of Myanmar) as its p-values indicated significance of 99%
confidence level. Due to limited number of frequencies, Fisher Exact test is applied in the
Cambodia, which is also found with significant difference as its p-value indicated
significance of 99% confidence level.
142
Although most of respondents across the study cross-border regions are family based
border industries, respondents across Thai border districts obviously have greater access to
formal financial services which are directly provided by commercial banks, than those
counterpart respondents in the bordering districts. Respondents across Thai border districts
of Muang Mukdahan (88.40%), Aranyaprathet (90%) and Maesod (91.30%) have access to
formal financial services. Apparently, a lower number of respondents across the bordering
districts of OChrov (3.30%) in Cambodia; Myawaddy (40.10%) in Myanmar and Kaysone
Phomvihane (57.30%) in Lao PDR have access to formal financial services. This implies
that respondents across Thai border districts gain greater financial support opportunities for
border investments than counterpart respondents in the bordering districts.
Sources of invested capital considerably vary across the cross-border regions.
Respondents across Thai border districts of Muang Mukdahan (65%), Maesod (66%) and
Aranyaprathet (75%) gain from a combination of family source and commercial bank loan,
whereas, respondents in the 2 bordering districts of Myawaddy (60%) in Myanmar and
OChrov (98%) in Cambodia utilize family source. On the contrary, more than half of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR use a combination of family
source and bank loan. For comparative analysis, 3 quarters of respondents in Aranyaprathet
district of Thailand utilize a combination of family source and commercial bank loan.
More than a tenth of respondents gain mostly from commercial bank loan and a tenth of
respondents acquire wholly from family source. Whereas, almost all of respondents in
OChrov district of Cambodia mostly get from family source, few of respondents acquire
from commercial bank loan. Similarly, almost 2 third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan
district of Thailand obtain from a combination of family source and commercial bank loan.
Almost a quarter of respondents acquire mainly from commercial bank loan and slightly
more than a tenth of respondents obtain wholly from family source. Likewise, more than
half of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR secure from a
combination of family source and commercial bank loan, and slightly more than 2 fifth of
respondents gain wholly from family source. Similarly, 2 third of respondents in Maesod
district of Thailand gain from a combination of family source and commercial bank loan.
A quarter of respondents obtain mostly from commercial bank loan and almost a tenth of
respondents secure wholly from family source. Whereas, almost 3 fifth of respondents in
Myawaddy district of Myanmar take mostly from family source, the other 2 fifth of
respondents gain from a combination of family source and commercial bank loan.
8) Manufactured goods and services provided
The manufactured products or services provided significantly vary across the cross-border
regions based on local resource endowments along with national and international division
of labor. Generally, Thai border districts are more industrialized than the 2 bordering
districts, except in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR. Remarkably, major
productions are concentrated on fashion industry in both Maesod district of Thailand
(specializing in high-end products) and OChrov district of Cambodia (specializing in
low-end products). For comparative analysis, almost a third of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand produce food and beverages. A quarter of respondents
manufacture basic agro-industry products. Two fifth of respondents make handicraft
products and a tenth of respondents produce wearable apparels and garments. There are
very few respondents who produce either construction materials or wood products, and
others who are cross-border logistics providers. Remarkably, as high as 93.30% of
respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia produce low-end wearable apparels and
garments. Only a very small proportion of respondents make either embroidery of second143
hand clothes or bedding products.Table 9.5 below presents the manufactured goods and
services provided across three cross-border regions.
Table 9.5 Manufactured goods and services provided
Product or service
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
2
10 28
93.3
1. Wearable
apparels/garments
2. Textile
0
0
0
0
3. Basic agro-industry
5
25
0
0
4. Food and beverage
6
30
0
0
5. Handicraft
4
20
0
0
6. Construction
1
5
0
0
materials
7. Wood
1
5
0
0
products/furniture
8. Embriodery of
0
0
1
3.3
second-hand clothes
9. Bedding products
0
0
1
3.3
10. Second-hand
0
0
0
0
engine and parts
0
0
0
0
12. Liquidified gas
0
0
0
0
13. Car and
0
0
0
0
motorcycles
0
0
0
0
15. Kitchenwares
0
0
0
0
16. Leather goods
0
0
0
0
17. Jewelry
0
0
0
0
18. Distribution center
0
0
0
0
19. Local/cross-border
1
5
0
0
logistics provider
Total
20
100 30
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
4
9
2
3.3
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
46
66.7
6
20
0
8
5
0
16
0
19
12
0
37
0
12
10
4
17
0
19.7
16.4
6.6
28
8
4
2
2
2
11.6
5.7
2.9
2.9
2.9
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
36.7
0
12
11.5
1.4
6.7
0
2
0
4.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
0
1.6
1.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
2
3
1.6
1.6
0
0
3.3
5
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1.4
0
0
1.4
0
0
0
2
5
4
0
0
0
6.7
16.7
13.3
43
100
61
100
69
100
30
100
On the contrary, Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR is more industrialized than the
bordering Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand. A third of respondents in both districts
manufacture construction materials. Almost a fifth of respondents in both districts involve
in basic agro-industry. A tenth of respondents in both districts produce either food and
beverage or wood products and wood furniture. A few of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR engage in either handicraft products or being cross-border
logistics service providers. Few of respondents make either wearable apparels and
garments or being distribution centers. There are very few respondents manufacturing
either car or motorcycle, electric appliances, housewares/kitchenwares or liquidified gas. A
tenth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand produce wearable apparels
and garments and one respondent manages either used engines or parts, recycled factory,
liquefied gas plant or being distribution center.
Likewise, most of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand are mainly involved in
industrial productions, whereas, the counterpart respondents in bordering Myawaddy
district of Myanmar are engaged in a mix of both industrial productions and trade-related
144
services. Outstandingly, 4 fifth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand are

manufacturers in fashion industry in the form of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM),
of which 2 third of respondents produce high-end wearable apparels and garments. A tenth
of respondents make textile products and one respondent manufacture leather goods. As a
result, Maesod district has become an important fashion cluster of Thailand. A few
respondents engage in basic agro-industry. A few of respondents involve either in food and
beverages, handicrafts, construction materials or housewares and kitchenwares. A
respondent engage in either cross-border logistics services or wood products and furniture.
Whereas, more than a third of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar produce
handicraft products, a fifth of respondents manufacture wearable apparels and garments.
Almost a fifth of respondents operate distribution centers. More than a tenth of respondents
are local logistics service providers and a few of respondents make either processed woods
or jewelry.
9) Sourcing of raw materials
Table 9.6 below presents the sourcing of raw materials across three cross-border regions.
Table 9.6 Sourcing of raw materials
Sourcing
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
9
20
25
41
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
7
10
7
23.3
17
39
14.7
2.9
30
0
13.3
0
9
0
20
0
1
0
1.6
2
50
2.9
72.5
0
1
0
3.3
0
0
5
0
12
0
6
11
9.8
18
2
2
2.9
2.9
7
0
23.3
0
86.7
9.8
20
0
100
0
43
0
100
3
61
4.9
100
4
69
5.8
100
0
30
0
100
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
11
55
0
0
1. Within the district

(local content)
2. Within the
3
15
0
province
3. Within the region
0
0
0
4. From capital city
2
10
4
and vicinity
5. From other regions
3
15
0
6. From bordering
1
5
0
country/capital city
in bordering country
7. From bordering
0
0
26
city
8. Other countries
0
0
0
Total
20
100
30
Sourcing of raw materials notably vary across the cross-border regions. Cross-border
production linkages are noticeably existent in OChrov district of Cambodia as 86.70 % of
respondents acquire raw materials from bordering Aranyaprathet district in Thailand.
Whereas, almost 3 quarters of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand mainly procure
from domestic sources, particularly from Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity; the other 4
border districts (10% to 55%) utilize local contents, which mainly originated within their
respective border cities ranging. For comparative analysis, slightly more than half of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand mainly acquire local contents. Less than
a fifth of respondents procure from either within Sakaeo province or from other regions. A
tenth of respondents purchase from Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity. A few of
respondents obtain from across Cambodia. Whereas, most of respondents in OChrov
district of Cambodia acquire from bordering Aranyaprathet district of Thailand, a few of
respondents procure from Phnom Penh, capital city of Cambodia.
145
Likewise, almost 2 fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand obtain

from within Mukdahan province of Lao PDR. A fifth of respondents acquire either from
within Muang Mukdahan district or from Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity. A tenth of
respondents take from either other regions or bordering Kaysone Phomvihane district in
Lao PDR. Also, 2 fifth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR source
local contents within the district. Almost a fifth of respondents obtain from Bangkok
metropolis and its vicinity in Thailand and more than a tenth of respondents gain from
within Savannakhet province of Lao PDR. Almost a tenth of respondents procure either
from other regions or bordering Muang Mukdahan district in Thailand. A few of
respondents acquire from other countries and one respondent sources from Vientiane,
capital city of Lao PDR.
Quite the opposite, respondents in Maesod district of Thailand mostly utilize regional
sources of raw materials, whereas, respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar use
substantial local contents. Almost 3 quarters of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand
acquire raw materials from sub-contractors in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity. A tenth
of respondents procure from local contents within the district and a few of respondents
obtain raw materials from other countries (e.g., China and South Korea, etc.). A few of
respondents purchase raw materials from either within Tak province of Thailand, Northern
region, other regions in Thailand or from Yangon, former capital city of Myanmar. In
contrast, almost a third of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar acquire raw
materials from within Kayin state of Myanmar and almost a quarter obtain either from
local contents within the district or from other regions. A fifth of respondents procure from
bordering Maesod district of Thailand and one respondent sources from Yangon, former
capital city of Myanmar.
10) Cross-border exported raw materials, components and industrial commodities
Cross-border export of raw materials, components and industrial commodities considerably
vary across the cross-border regions based on comparative advantages. Movements of raw
materials, intermediate and industrial goods could foster cross-border production linkages.
Most of respondents across the bordering districts of Kaysone Phomvihane (7%) in Lao
PDR, Myawaddy (46.70%) in Myanmar and OChrov (100%) in Cambodia are doing
cross-border export of either raw materials or finished commodities. This signifies that
greater extent of cross-border supply chain linkages is already established. On the other
hand, 5.80%, 25% and 33% of respondents across Thai border districts of Maesod,
Aranyaprathet and Muang Mukdahan, respectively, are doing cross-border export of either
finished or industrial commodities. For comparative analysis, a tenth of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand export cooking palm oil. Only very small proportion of
respondents export either agricultural commodities, ready to wear garments, or
construction materials. Remarkably, as high as 96.70% of respondents in OChrov district
of Cambodia export ready to wear garments to bordering Aranyaprathet district in Thailand
for exclusive distribution at Rong Klea integrated border market. There is very few
respondents exporting bedding products.
Likewise, a few of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand export
construction materials. Very few of respondents export either agricultural commodities,
rice grain, ready to wear garments, food, second-hand engines and parts, or fishes.
Whereas, few of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR export raw
materials (e.g., wood products/wood chips and processed woods), there are very few
respondents who distribute food products.
146
Table 9.7 below presents cross-border exported raw materials, components and industrial
commodities across three cross-border regions.
Table 9.7 Cross-border exported raw materials, components and industrial
commodities
Commodity
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
15
75
0
0
1
5
0
0
1. None
2. Agricultural
produces
3. Ready to wear
1
5
29
96.7
garment
4. Construction
1
5
0
0
materials
5. Cooking palm oil
2
10
0
0
6. Bedding
0
0
1
3.3
7. Rice grain
0
0
0
0
8. Food
0
0
0
0
9. Second-hand
0
0
0
0
engines and parts
10. Fishes
0
0
0
0
11. Processed woods
0
0
0
0
12. Jewelry and gem
0
0
0
0
13. Handicraft
0
0
0
0
products
Total
20
100
15
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
29
67
57
93
2
4.7
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
65
94.2
16
53.3
0
0
0
0
4.7
2.9
10
2.9
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
4.7
4.7
4.7
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2.3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
2
0
3.3
26.7
6.7
43
100
61
100
69
100
30
100
Quite the opposite, respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar perform greater crossborder export of either intermediate or finished commodities as a fifth of respondents
export jewelry and gem stones. A tenth of respondents distribute ready to wear garments, a
few export handicraft products, and a few sell wood products. In contrast, a few of
respondents in Maesod district of Thailand trade either ready to wear garments or
construction materials.
10) Cross-border imported raw materials, components and industrial commodities
Cross-border imported raw materials, components and industrial commodities vary much
across the cross-border regions. Most of respondents across the bordering districts of
Myawaddy (76.40%) in Myanmar, Kaysone Phomvihane (83.40%) in Lao PDR and
OChrov (86.70%) in Cambodia do cross-border import of components, intermediate and
industrial goods. On the other hand, respondents across Thai border districts of
Aranyaprathet (0%), Maesod (11.60%) and Muang Mukdahan (23%) import either raw
materials or industrial. For comparative analysis, most of respondents in OChrov district
of Cambodia import textile fabric and accessories from bordering Aranyaprathet city of
Thailand. Likewise, almost a fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand
import processed woods. Very few of respondents bring in either raw materials or
components (e.g., sand and stone or agricultural commodities). Whereas, almost half of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR perform import of capital goods
(e.g., machinery, mechanical equipments and mold and die), almost a quarter of
respondents trade in intermediate goods and parts, and few import either steel, young
147
plants or construction materials.Table 9.8 below presents cross-border imported raw

materials, components and industrial commodities across three cross-border regions.
Table 9.8 Cross-border imported raw materials, components and industrial
commodities
Commodity
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
20
100
4
13.3
0
0
26
86.7
1. None
2. Textile fabric and
accessories
3. Processed woods
0
0
0
0
4. Sand and stone
0
0
0
0
5. Agricultural
0
0
0
0
produces
6. Machinery/mold
0
0
0
0
and die/intermediate
goods and parts
7. Steel
0
0
0
0
8. Young plant
0
0
0
0
9. Construction
0
0
0
0
materials
10. Dust saw
0
0
0
0
Total
20
100
30
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
33
77
10
16.4
0
0
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
61
88.4
7
23.3
0
0
7
23.3
8
1
1
19
2.3
2.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
2.8
0
5.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
23
16.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
2
6.6
5
3.3
1
0
0
1.4
0
0
5
0
6
16.6
0
20
0
43
0
100
0
30
0
100
1
69
1.4
100
0
30
0
100
Correspondingly, higher number of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar import

components, intermediate and industrial goods as almost a quarter of respondents did
import of textile, fabric and accessories from bordering Maesod district of Thailand. One
fifth of industrial developer respondents import construction materials. More than a tenth
of respondents import either machinery, mold and die, intermediate goods and parts or
steel. Whereas, a few of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand import agricultural
commodities for further processing in their border city, only a very small proportion of
respondents import either wood products, steel or dust saw.
11) Sources of labor
Sources of labor noticeably vary across the cross-border regions depending on national and
international division of labor. Respondents across Thai border districts of Muang
Mukdahan (24%), Aranyaprathet (40%) and Maesod (91.30%) markedly employ semiskilled immigrant labor. On the contrary, respondents across the bordering districts of
Kaysone Phomvihane (6%) in Lao PDR, Myawaddy (40%) in Myanmar and OChrov
(84.80%) in Cambodia engage regional migrant labor. For comparative analysis, 3 fifth of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand employ local labor force because they are
readily available and convenient in terms of employment arrangements. Two fifth of
respondents hire registered immigrant labor from Cambodia. Moreover, more than 4 fifth
of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia engage regional migrant labor force
originating from across Cambodia. More than a tenth of respondents employ local labor
force. Table 9.9 below presents sources of labor across three cross-border regions.
148
Table 9.9 Sources of labor

Source
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
42
71
58
84
3
5
4
6
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
4
5.8
10
33.3
2
2.9
12
40
14
24
4.3
63
91.3
0
100
0
43
0
100
2
61
3
100
0
69
0
100
8
30
26.6
100
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
12
60
5
15.2
0
0
28
84.8
1. Local labor
2. Regional migrant
labor
3. Immigrant labor
8
40
0
from bordering city
4. Immigrant labor
0
0
0
from other countries
5. Self-employed
0
0
0
Total
20 100 33
Likewise, a few of respondents in both Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR engage regional migrant labor force. More than 4 fifth of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR hire local labor force. A few of
respondents employ technically skilled labor from both Thailand and South Korea. Few of
respondents are totally self-employed. Whereas, almost 3 quarter of respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand employ local labor force, almost a quarter of respondents
hire semi-skilled immigrant labor from bordering Savannakhet province of Lao PDR.
Apparently, there is an existing international division of labor in Maesod district of
Thailand, whereas, such practice is non-existent at all in the counterpart bordering
Myawaddy district of Myanmar. Remarkably, as high as 91% of respondents in Maesod
district of Thailand employ semi-skilled immigrant Burmese labor force, which are mainly
engaged in processes of producing finished goods (e.g., cutting, stitching, labeling, as well
as packing). A few of respondents hire either local or regional migrant skilled Thai labor
force, which are mainly responsible for both managerial and operational tasks (e.g., factory
managers, head of production sections, head of quality control sections, head of technical
sections and accountants, etc.). In contrast, 2 fifth of respondents in Myawaddy district of
Myanmar employ regional migrant labor, a third engage local labor, and a quarter of
respondents are totally self-employed.
12) Border industrial employment
Employments of workers notably vary across the cross-border regions. All of respondents
across Thai border districts employ higher number of labor, whereas, 73.40% to 96.70% of
respondents across the bordering districts engage lower number of employees. Therefore,
respondents across Thai border districts employ higher average number of workers at 34
workers, 61 workers and 142 workers in Muang Mukdahan, Aranyaprathet and Maesod
districts, respectively. On the other hand, respondents across the bordering districts engage
lower average number of workers at 27 workers, 37 workers and 42 workers in Myawaddy
district of Myanmar, Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and OChrov district of
Cambodia, respectively. For comparative analysis, the average number of worker in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand is 1.45 times higher than counterpart bordering OChrov
district of Cambodia. Table 9.10 below presents border industrial employment across three
149
Table 9.10 Border industrial employment

Number of workers
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
0
0
2
6.7
4
20
9
30
16
80
19
63.3
20 100 30
100
61
42
83
71
0.491
Self-employed
10-50 workers
>50 workers
Total
Mean
Standard deviation
Fisher Exact Test,
p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
0
0
2
3.3
28
65
20
32.8
15
35
39
63.9
43 100 61
100
34
37
112
63
0.002
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
0
0
8
26.6
3
4.3
10
33.3
66
95.7
12
40.0
69
100
30
100
142
27
193
56
0.000

Four fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand engage more than 50
workers. One fifth of respondents employ 10 to 50 workers. Likewise, almost 2 third of
respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia engage more than 50 workers. Almost a third
of respondents engage 10 to 50 workers. A few of respondents are self-employed.
Also, respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR employ an average of 37
workers, which is slightly higher than counterpart respondents in bordering Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand with average number of 34 workers. Almost 2 third of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR hire more than 50 workers.
Almost a third of respondents employ 10 to 50 workers. Few of respondents are selfemployed. Moreover, almost 2 third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand employ 10 to 50 workers. Quite the opposite, respondents in Maesod district of
Thailand engage in most labor-intensive productions. Therefore, respondents in Maesod
district employ significantly higher (5.25 times) average number of labor than counterpart
respondents in bordering Myawaddy district of Myanmar. As a strategic cluster for fashion
industry, most of respondents in Maesod district employ more than 50 workers. A few of
respondents engage 10 to 50 workers. In contrast, 2 fifth of respondents in Myawaddy
district of Myanmar engage more than 50 workers and one third of respondents employ 10
to 50 workers. Slightly a quarter of respondents are self-employed.
of the employment of labor between cross-border regions. It is evident that significant
and Myawaddy district of Myanmar) as its p-value indicated significance at 99%
confidence level. On the contrary, there is no significant difference in the cross-border
region of Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov district of Cambodia as
suggested by its p-value.
Table 9.11 below presents employment of immigrant labor across three cross-border
regions.
150

Number of worker
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
12
60 0
0
2
10 0
0
6
30 0
0
20 100 0
0
23
0
65
0
None
10-50 workers
>50workers
Total
Average
Standard deviation
Chi-Square p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
29
67
56
92
12
28
5
8
2
5
0
0
43 100 61 100
3
0.4
6.5
1.3
0.000
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
1
1.4
0
0
5
7.2
0
0
63
27.5 0
0
69
100
0
0
140
0
194
0

Respondents across Thai border districts of Muang Mukdahan (33%), Aranyaprathet
(40%) and Maesod (98.60%) hire significantly higher number of immigrant labor. They
employ an average of 3 semi-skilled immigrant workers, 23 workers and as high as 140
workers in Muang Mukdahan, Aranyaprathet and Maesod districts, respectively. On the
other hand, among the bordering districts, only respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR hire an average of 1 technically skilled immigrant worker. No
immigrant child labor is employed across the cross-border regions. For comparative
analysis, almost a third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand hire more than
50 semi-skilled immigrant workers. A tenth of respondents employ less than 10 semiskilled migrant workers.
Likewise, slightly more than a quarter of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand PDR hire 10 to 50 semi-skilled Laotian immigrant workers. A few of respondents
employ more than 50 semi-skilled Laotian immigrant workers. Moreover, a few of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR hire 10 to 50 technically skilled
immigrant workers both from Thailand and South Korea. Correspondingly, slightly more
than a quarter of respondents in Maesod district employ more than 50 semi-skilled
immigrant labor. A few of respondents engage 10 to 50 semi-skilled immigrant workers.
of the employment of immigrant labor between cross-border regions. It is evident that
significant differences are observed across the cross-border regions as its p-values
suggested significance at 99% confidence level.
The reasons of employing immigrant labor force are considerably comparable across Thai
border districts, whereas, there are significantly diverse reasons among respondents in
bordering Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR. For comparative analysis, less than a
fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand hire immigrant labor because
local Thai labor force are choosy with jobs or there is a shortage of Thai labor force in their
locality. A tenth of respondents said that immigrant labor is cheap, so they can reduce cost
of production. Also, almost a fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand
reply that there is a shortage of Thai labor force in their city.
Table 9.12 below presents the reasons for employing immigrant labor across three crossborder regions.
151

Reason
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
12
60
0
0
1. None employment of
immigrant labor
2. Local Thai labor force
3
15
0
is choosy for jobs.
3. Shortage of Thai labor
3
15
0
force in their city.
2
10
0
their city is cheap, so they
can reduce cost of
production
5. Required skilled labor
0
0
0
Total
20 100
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
29
67
56
92
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
1
1.4
0
0
20
29
20
20
29
28
40.5
0
0
0
43
0
100
5
61
8
100
0
69
0
100
0
0
0
0
Almost a tenth of respondents answered that immigrant labor in Muang Mukdahan district
of Thailand is cheap, so they can reduce production cost. Few of respondents told that local
Thai labor force refrain to work. In contrast, less than a tenth of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR replied that they need technically skilled labor from both
Thailand and South Korea. Correspondingly, 2 fifth of respondents in Maesod district of
Thailand reasoned that immigrant labor in their district is cheap, so they can reduce
production cost. Almost 2 third of respondents said that local Thai labor force refrain to
work with 4Djobs (dirty, dangerous, difficult and degrading jobs) and because of shortage
of local Thai labor force in Maesod district. Therefore, migratory inflows of unskilled
Burmese workers vastly replace local Thai labor in Maesod district of Thailand.
Regarding cross-border movement patterns of immigrant labor, significant variation is seen
across the cross-border regions, mainly depending on economic forces and extent of
relaxation of rules and regulations on cross-border movement. For comparative analysis,
less than a fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand informed either
seasonal or circular cross-border movements. A tenth of respondent indicated daily crossborder movement. Similarly, less than a fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district
of Thailand informed of long-term immigration with all family members. A tenth of
respondents told of seasonal immigration and a few of respondents expressed circular
immigration. Moreover, almost a tenth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of
Lao PDR replied that it is dependent on contractual basis. Correspondingly, 2 fifth of
respondents in Maesod district of Thailand stated either circular movement or long-term
immigration with all family members. A tenth of respondents indicated daily cross-border
movement.
There is an existing international division of immigrant labor by gender across Thai border
districts. For instance, female immigrant labor are mainly employed in fashion industry,
whereas, male immigrant labor are engaged in somewhat wider range of industries or
services. For comparative analysis, less than a fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district
of Thailand employ immigrant men and women with the ratio of 25 %:75 %.
152
Table 9.13 below presents the gender ratios of immigrant labor across three cross-border
regions.
Ratio of men and
Cross-Border Region
women
Cross-Border Region
1
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
None employment
12
60
0
0
50:50
2
10
0
0
25:75
1
5
0
0
75:25
3
15
0
0
100 % male labor
2
10
0
0
100 % female labor
0
0
0
0
Total
20
100
0
0
Tha
F
29
1
4
5
4
0
43
Lao
%
67
2.3
9.3
12
9.3
0
100
F
56
0
0
2
3
0
61
Tha
%
92
0
0
3.3
5
0
100
F
1
9
25
12
5
17
69
%
1.4
13
36.3
17.4
7.2
24.6
100
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mya
%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A tenth of respondents hire men and women with the ratio of either 50%:50% or
100% men. Also, more than a tenth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand employ 100% men. Almost a tenth of respondents engage male and female
immigrant labor at a ratio of 25%:75%. Only a very small proportion of respondents hire
either 100% women or equal ratio of men and women at 50%:50%. On the other hand, few
of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR hire either 100% men or men
and women at a ratio of 75%:25%. Interestingly, almost a quarter of respondents in
Maesod district of Thailand hire totally 100% immigrant women particularly in fashion
industry. Slightly more than a third of respondents hire immigrant men and women at a
ratio of 25%:75%. Almost a fifth of respondents engage immigrant men and women at a
ratio of 75%:25%. More than a tenth of respondents employ equal gender distribution of
men and women migrants with the ratio of 50%:50%. A few of respondents employ 100%
immigrant male labor.
16) Daily wage rate for local and immigrant labor
In 2011, the official minimum daily wage rates for Thai citizen in the study Thai border
provinces of Tak, Mukdahan and Sakaeo are set at 162 Baht, 165 Baht and 173 Baht,
respectively. On the other hand, the immigrant labor received slightly lower than the
official minimum daily wage rates at an average of 108 Baht, 132 Baht and 148 Baht in
Aranyaprathet, Maesod and Muang Mukdahan districts, respectively. Moreover,
respondents across the bordering districts disburse even much lower average local daily
wages at 58 Baht, 68 Baht and 76 Baht in Myawaddy district of Myanmar, OChrov
district of Cambodia and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, respectively.
Therefore, respondents across Thai border districts pay higher (1.60 times to 3 times)
wages to immigrant labor than counterpart respondents in the bordering districts. For
comparative analysis, respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand pay higher (1.60
times) average daily wage rate to immigrant labor than respondents in bordering OChrov
district of Cambodia for. A quarter of respondents compensate with 80 to 110 Baht per
day. Less than a fifth of respondents remunerated with 110 to 150 Baht per day. Whereas,
2 third of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia remunerate less than 50 Baht per
day, slightly more than a quarter of respondents pay 50 to 80 Baht per day.
153
Table 9.14 below presents daily wage rates for local and immigrant labor across three
Table 9.14 Daily wage rate for local and immigrant labor
Daily wage rate
Cross-Border Region
Tha
F
%
12
60
0
0
0
0
5
25
3
15
0
0
0
0
20
100
109
17
Cam
F
%
2
6.7
20
66.6
8
26.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
68
234
Tha
F
%
29
67
0
0
0
0
2
5
4
9
8
19
0
0
43 100
148
28
Lao
F
2
0
35
19
0
0
5
61
76
14
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
1
1.4
8
26.6
1
1.4
4
13.3
7
10.1
18
60
12
17.4
0
0
21
30.4
0
0
27
39.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
100
30
100
132
58
38
16
%
None
3.2
50 Baht
0
50-80 Baht
57.3
80-110 Baht
31.1
110-150 Baht
0
>150 Baht
0
Based on skills
8.1
Total
100
Mean
Standard
deviation
Likewise, respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand pay average daily wage
rate to immigrant labor almost 2 times higher than local wage rate in bordering Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR. A fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand offer more than 150 Baht per day. Almost a tenth of respondents pay 110 Baht to
150 Baht per day. There are very few respondents who compensate with 80 Baht to 110
Baht per day. Whereas, a third of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR
pay local daily wage rates of 110 Baht to 150 Baht, a quarter of respondents compensate
with 80 Baht to 110 Baht per day. Less than a tenth of respondents compensate to both
Thai and South Korean technically skilled immigrant workers based on expertise.
Correspondingly, respondents in Maesod district of Thailand provide average daily wage
rates to immigrant labor 3 times higher than local wages in bordering Myawaddy district of
Myanmar. More than a third of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand pay daily wage
higher than 150 Baht. Almost a third of respondents compensate with 110 Baht to 150 Baht
per day. Almost a fifth of respondents disbursed daily wages of 50 Baht to 80 Baht.
Alternatively, many respondents pay wages to immigrant workers based on piece basis.
Whereas, 3 fifth of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar pay local daily wage
rates of 50 Baht to 80 Baht, more than a tenth of respondents compensate local wage of
less than 50 Baht per day.
In relation to essential supports to those employed immigrant labor, most of respondents
across Thai border districts and in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR provide
necessity for their working and living. For comparative analysis, 2 fifth of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand provide either dormitories or health care to immigrant
labor and almost a fifth of respondents offer food. Similarly, 2 fifth of respondents in
Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand support the immigrants with health care,a third of
respondents provide dormitories, and a fifth of respondents render food. Moreover, most of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR provide dormitories and health
154
care. Likewise, a third of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand offer either

dormitories or health care, and a fifth of respondents provide food.
17) Positive impacts of employing immigrant labor
Table 9.15 below presents the positive impacts of employing immigrant labor across three
Table 9.15 Positive impacts of employing immigrant labor
Cross-Border Region
Cross-Border Region
Cross-Border Region
Positive impact
2
The
F
0
%
0
F
0
Cam
%
0
F
0
%
0
F
0
%
0
F
0
%
0
F
0
Mya
%
0
14
33
19
27.5
0
0
17
1
40
2.3
0
0
0
0
38
4
55
5.7
0
0
0
0
11.5
0
0
0
0
11
43
0
26
100
2
56
61
3
92
100
0
0
69
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
1. Competent
communication of
neighboring countrys
language
2. Substitute shortage of
2
10
0
local Thai labor
3. Access to cheap labor
12
60
0
4. Reduce production
5
25
0
cost
5. Increase
1
5
0
competitiveness
6. Access to skilled
0
0
0
labor
7. Skill transfer
0
0
0
8. No-response
0
0
0
Total
20
100
0
Tha
Lao
Tha
The positive impacts of employing immigrant labor are relatively comparable across Thai
border districts, whereas, there is diversity of positive impacts in bordering Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR. Respondents across Thai border districts of Muang
Mukdahan (40%), Maesod (55%) and Aranyaprathet (60%) expressed that they have
access to cheap migrant labor. Whereas, a few of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR stated access to skilled migrant labor, only a very small proportion of
respondents answered that they are fostering transfer of skill. For comparative analysis
across Thai border districts, a quarter of respondents in Aranyaprathet district informed of
reduction in production costs. A tenth of respondents mentioned that immigrant labor are
substituting the shortages of local Thai labor force. One respondent answered that it is
increasing competitiveness of border industries. Also, a third of respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district mentioned substituting shortages of local Thai labor force and one
respondent replied reducing production costs. Likewise, more than a quarter of
respondents in Maesod district replied substituting shortages of local Thai labor force and
a tenth of respondents said it is increasing competitiveness of border industries. A few of
respondents pointed out reduction of production costs.
18) Negative impacts of employing immigrant labor
Table 9.16 below presents the negative impacts of employing immigrant labor across three
155
Table 9.16 Negative impacts of employing immigrant labor

Negative impact
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
3
15
0
0
1. Carry
communicable
diseases
2. Likely to commit
3
15
0
crime
3. Likely flee to
7
35
0
interior regions
4. Displace local jobs
0
0
0
4. No-response
6
30
0
Total
20
100
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
3
7
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
20
30
0
0
2.3
10
0
0
0
1
38
43
2.3
88
100
0
61
61
0
100
100
5
33
69
7.2
47.8
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
The negative impacts of employing immigrant labor meaningfully vary across Thai border
districts. Respondents across Thai border districts of Muang Mukdahan (12%), Maesod
(52.20%) and Aranyaprathet (70%) expressed that immigrant labor have negative impacts.
On the other hand, the rest of respondents across Thai border districts and all of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR have no response at all. For
comparative analysis across Thai border districts, slightly more than a third of respondents
in Aranyaprathet district indicated that immigrant labor are likely to flee into interior areas
of Thailand. More than a tenth of respondents replied that immigrant labor are either
carrying communicable diseases or likely to commit crime. Likewise, a few of respondents
in Muang Mukdahan district replied likely carrying communicable diseases. There are
very few respondents who stated that immigrant labor are either displacing local jobs or
likely to commit crime. Correspondingly, less than a third of respondents in Maesod
district indicated likely carrying communicable diseases, and a tenth of respondents
replied likely to commit crime. A few of respondents answered displacing local jobs or
occupations.
19) Voluntary turnovers of immigrant or local labor
Voluntary turnovers of either immigrant labor or local labor is becoming a notorious
problem across Thai border districts and some of the bordering districts. This problem
profoundly disrupts border industrial production activities. Respondents across Thai border
districts of Aranyaprathet (2.50%), Muang Mukdahan (2.50%) and Maesod (3.70%)
encountered higher average of turnover rates/month of immigrant labor. Likewise,
respondents in the 2 bordering districts of OChrov (2.50%) in Cambodia and Myawaddy
(2.75%) district in Myanmar stumbled upon slightly lower turnovers of local labor. On the
other hand, there is no turnover of either local or immigrant labor in Kaysone Phomvihane
district at all. For comparative analysis, 2 fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand and a fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand replied that
turnover rates of immigrant labor are less than 5% per month. Likewise, more than half of
respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia faced turnover of local labor less than 5% per
month.
Table 9.17 below presents voluntary turnovers of immigrant or local labor across three
156
Table 9.17 Voluntary turnovers of immigrant or local labor

Turnover
rate
/month
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
12
60
14
46.7
8
40
16
53.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
100 30
100
2.5
2.5
0
0
None
5 %
5-10 %
10-15 %
>15 %
Total
Mean
Standard
deviation
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
29
67
61
100
14
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
100 61
100
2.5
0
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
4
5.8
8
26.6
54
78.3
21
70
8
11.6
1
3.3
2
2.9
0
0
1
1.4
0
0
69
100
30
100
3.7
2.7
3
1
Remarkably, frequent voluntary turnover of immigrant labor has become the most
tarnishing crisis for border industrial developers in Maesod district of Thailand. Similarly,
turnover of local labor in Myawaddy district of Myanmar is also a trouble. Almost 4 fifth
of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand expressed that turnover rate of immigrant
labor is less than 5 % per month. A tenth of respondents informed of turnover rates at 5%
to 10% per month. Only a very small proportion of respondents who are confronted with
turnover rates at either 10% to 15% or higher than 15% per month. Moreover, more than 2
third of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar came across turnover rate of local
labor of less than 5% per month. One respondent encountered turnover rate of local labor
at 5% to 10% per month.
20) Local backward linkage strategies
Local backward linkage strategies are significantly comparable across the cross-border
regions. Most of respondents across Thai border districts of Maesod (52%), Muang
Mukdahan (53%) and Aranyaprathet (75%) have local backward linkages. On the other
hand, 50%, 60% and 72% of respondents across the bordering districts of Myawaddy in
Myanmar, OChrov in Cambodia and Kaysone Phomvihane in Lao PDR are slightly
comparable in terms of local backward linkages. For comparative analysis, more
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand have local backward linkages than
counterpart respondents in bordering OChrov district of Cambodia. Two fifth of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand are supplied with raw materials by local
farmers or local community-based enterprises. Less than a fifth of respondents are supplied
with raw materials by local firms. A tenth of respondents promote by either interacting
with local suppliers or sub-contracting or outsourcing of production activities and
processes to local border households. Similarly, 3 fifth of respondents in OChrov district
of Cambodia sub-contract or outsource production activities or processes to local border
households.
On the contrary, respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR have more local
backward linkages than counterpart respondents in bordering Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand. Half of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are supplied
with raw materials by local border farmers. Less than a fifth of respondents are supplied
with intermediate products or components by local border firms. Few of respondents
interacted with local border suppliers.
157
Table 9.18 below presents local backward linkage strategies across three cross-border
regions.
Table 9.18 Local backward linkage strategies
Strategy
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
20
47
17
28
16
37
30
49
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
33
48
15
50
11
16
1
3.3
9.3
3.3
2.9
60
4.6
1.6
12
17.4
2.3
4.3
3.3
15
10.1
10
33
1.6
1.6
9.9
1.4
100
43
100
61
100
69
100
30
100
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
5
25
12
40
8
40
0
0
1. None
2. Supplied with raw
materials by local
farmers or local
community-based
enterprises
3. Interacting with local
2
10
0
suppliers/ communitybased enterprises
4. Sub-contracting or
2
10
18
outsourcing of
production
activities/processes to
local firms/ communitybased
enterprises/households
3
15
0
materials by local
suppliers
6. Supplied with
0
0
0
intermediate products or
components by local
suppliers
7. Establish intra0
0
0
industry linkages
8. Supplying contracts
0
0
0
to local firms
9. Donating by-products
0
0
0
to local communitybased enterprises
Total
20
100
30
Only a very small proportion of respondents either supply contracts to local firms; subcontract or outsource production activities and processes to local border households; or
establish intra-industry linkages. On the other hand, more than a third of respondents in
Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand are supplied with raw materials by local border
farmers or local border community-based enterprises, and almost a tenth of respondents
interact with local border suppliers. Few of respondents sub-contract or outsource
production activities or processes to local border firms, and one respondent is supplied
with raw materials by local border firms.
158

of Myanmar have comparable local backward linkages. A few of respondents in both
Maesod district of Thailand and Myawaddy district of Myanmar are supplied with raw
materials by local border firms. Almost a fifth of respondents in Maesod district of
Thailand either sub-contract or outsource production activities and processes to local
border firms or being supplied with raw materials by local border farmers. A tenth of
respondents procure intermediate products or components from local border suppliers, and
one respondent donates by-products to local border community-based enterprises. Also, a
third of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar are supplied with intermediate
products or components by local border suppliers. A tenth of respondents supply contracts
to local border firms and one respondent is supplied with raw materials by local border
farmers.
21) Cross-border production linkage strategies
Table 9.19 shows cross-border production linkages strategies across three cross-border
regions.
Table 9.19 Cross-border production linkage strategies
Strategy
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
33
77
10
16.4
1
2.2 45
73.7
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
65
94
18
60
0
0
11
36.6
2.3
3.3
14
3.3
1.4
2.3
4.9
2.3
0
0
100
0
0
43
0
0
100
1
0
61
1.6
0
100
0
1
69
0
1.4
100
0
0
30
0
0
100
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
19
95
17
56.6
0
0
13
43.3
1. None
2. Supplied with
intermediate products
and components by
border wholesalers or
firms
3. Sub-contracting or
1
5
0
outsourcing of
production
activities/processes to
border households
0
0
0
materials by border
firms
5. Interacting with
0
0
0
border suppliers or
community-based
enterprises
6. Supplying contracts
0
0
0
with border firms or
community based
enterprises
7. Skill training
0
0
0
8. Contract farming
0
0
0
Total
20 100
30
Cross-border production linkage strategies noticeably vary across the cross-border regions.
Considerably, more respondents across the bordering districts of Myawaddy (40%) in
Myanmar, OChrov (43.40%) in Cambodia and Kaysone Phomvihane (83.40%) in Lao
159
PDR have cross-border production linkage strategies. On the other hand, less number of
respondents across Thai border districts of Aranyaprathet (5%), Maesod (6%) and Muang
Mukdahan (23%) have cross-border production linkage strategies. This may have resulted
from lack of policy support to foster cross-border production linkages between Thailand
and these neighboring countries. For comparative analysis, less than half of respondents in
OChrov district of Cambodia are supplied with intermediate products and components by
wholesalers or firms from bordering Aranyaprathet district of Thailand. A respondent in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand sub-contracts or outsources production activities or
processes to local households in bordering OChrov district of Cambodia.
On the contrary, almost 3 quarters of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao
PDR are supplied with intermediate products and components by border firms or
wholesalers from counterpart bordering Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand. Few of
respondents have either interacted with border suppliers or being supplied with raw
materials by border firms in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand. A respondent is
accessing to cross-border skill training in Thailand. Whereas, more than a tenth of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand are supplied with raw materials by
border firms in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, a respondent is either supplied
with intermediate products and components by border firms or wholesalers; interacts with
border suppliers; supplies contracts with border firms or sub-contracts/outsources
production activities or processes to counterpart firms in bordering Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR.
Likewise, slightly more than a third of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar are
being supplied with intermediate products and components by counterpart border
wholesalers or firms from bordering Maesod district of Thailand. A respondent subcontracts or outsources production activities and processes from Maesod district to
bordering households in Myawaddy district of Myanmar. Similarly, a few of respondents
in Maesod district of Thailand sub-contract or outsource production activities or processes
to border households in bordering Myawaddy district of Myanmar. A respondent is either
supplied with raw materials by firms in bordering Myawaddy district of Myanmar or
undertakes cross-border contract farming with counterparts in bordering Myawaddy
district of Myanmar.
22) Production arrangements
Production arrangements considerably vary across the cross-border regions. Strikingly,
almost 3 quarters of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand are engaged in
domestically outsourced productions in the form of Original Equipment Manufacturer
(OEM) from Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity. On the other hand, respondents in the
other 2 Thai border districts of Aranyaprathet (93%) and Muang Mukdahan (95%) replied
of having diverse production arrangements such as producing their own brand or services.
Likewise, 17% to 97% of respondents across the bordering districts expressed that they
only produce their own brands or services. For comparative analysis, obviously more than
4 fifth of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia are cross-border outsourced
productions from bordering Aranyaprathet district of Thailand. More than a tenth of
respondents replied that they only produce their own brand or services. One respondent in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand is a locally outsourced production. On the contrary,
there are apparently common production arrangements in both Muang Mukdahan district
of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, in which most of respondents
in both districts informed of producing their own brands or services. Moreover, a few of
160
respondents in both districts are doing domestically out-sourced productions. Table 9.20
below presents production arrangements across three cross-border regions.
Table 9.20 Production arrangements
Production
arrangement
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1
5
0
0
1. Either locally or
domestically
outsourced production
2. Cross-border
0
0
25
3. Produced only their
19
95
5
own brand/services
4. Both produced their
0
0
0
own brand and
Total
20 100 30
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
3
7
3
5
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
49
71
0
0
83
17
40
93
58
95
16
23
29
97
100
43
100
61
100
69
100
30
100
In contrast, there is a considerable difference in production arrangements between

bordering Maesod district of Thailand and Myawaddy district of Myanmar. Obviously,
there is an existing spatial division of labor reflected by almost 3 quarters of respondents in
Maesod district of Thailand doing domestically outsourced productions in the form of
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) from the main Bangkok metropolis and its
vicinity. Almost a quarter of respondents stated that they are producing for their own
brands or services and a few of respondents replied that they do not only produce their own
brands but also doing locally outsourced productions. Moreover, most of respondents in
Myawaddy district of Myanmar replied that they are only producing their own brands or
services. One respondent is doing cross-border outsourced productions from bordering
Maesod district of Thailand.
23) Local border, regional and cross-border sub-contracting linkages
Sub-contracting linkages considerably vary across the cross-border regions. Border
sub-contracting linkages are almost limited across the cross-border regions partly due to
the fact that raw materials are mainly derived from the capital cities. Instead, regional and
cross-border sub-contracting linkages are significantly prevalent across the cross-border
regions. Respondents across Thai border districts have concentrated on regional subcontracting linkages at an average number of 0.50 sub-contractor, 0.55 sub-contractor and
as high as 4 sub-contractors in Aranyaprathet, Muang Mukdahan and Maesod districts,
respectively. On the other hand, respondents in the bordering districts have established
cross-border sub-contracting linkages at an average of 0.10 cross-border sub-contractor,
0.21 cross-border sub-contractor and 2.20 cross-border sub-contractors in Myawaddy
district of Myanmar, Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and OChrov district of
Cambodia, respectively.
For comparative analysis, few of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand engage
either less than 5 regional sub-contractors or between 5 to 10 regional sub-contractors. On
the contrary, 4 fifth of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia engage less than 5
cross-border sub-contractors from bordering Aranyaprathet district of Thailand. A
161
respondent connects with 5 to 10 cross-border sub-contractors. Also, few of respondents in

Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand engage 5 to 10 regional sub-contractors.
Table 9.21 below presents local border, regional and cross-border sub-contracting linkages
Table 9.21 Local border, regional and cross-border sub-contracting linkages
Number of
subcontractor
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Cam
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
None
18
90
5
16.6
40
93
58
95
5
1
5
24
80
0
0
2
3.2
5-10
1
5
1
3.3
3
7
1
1.6
10-15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15-20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
20
100 30
100
43
100
61
100
Mean
0.50
2.2
0.55
0.21
Standard
1.79
1.4
2.03
1.09
deviation
1
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
16
23.2
29
97
42
60.8
1
3
8
11.6
0
0
1
1.4
0
0
1
1.4
0
0
1
1.4
0
0
69
100
30
100
4
0.1
7.3
0.5
Similarly, only a very small proportion of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of

Lao PDR connect with less than 5 regional sub-contractors. Noticeably, almost 3 quarters
of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand mainly engage with regional sub-contractors
due to the strongly established supply chain linkages with Bangkok metropolis and its
vicinity. Out of this, 3 fifth of respondents connect with less than 5 sub-contractors.
Slightly more than a tenth of respondents venture with 5 to 10 sub-contractors. A
respondent involves with either 10 to 15 sub-contractors, 15 to 20 sub-contractors or more
than 20 sub-contractors. Moreover, a respondent in Myawaddy district of Myanmar
engages with less than 5 cross-border sub-contractors from bordering Maesod district of
Thailand.
24) Cross-border joint ventures
Table 9.22 below presents cross-border joint ventures across three cross-border regions.
Table 9.22 Cross-border joint ventures
Type of joint
venture
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
19
95
30 100
1
5
0
0
1. None
2. Joint venture
investment
3. Franchising
0
0
0
0
4. Contract farming
0
0
0
0
Total
20
100 30 100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
41
95
56
92
2
5
4
6
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
68
98.6
30 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
1
69
0
0
100
1
0
30
2
0
100
0
1.4
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cross-border joint ventures are slightly existent across the cross-border regions. More
respondents across Thai border districts engage in cross-border investments, to some
extent, compared to those respondents across the bordering districts. There is no existing
162
cross-border joint venture investment both in bordering OChrov district of Cambodia and
Myawaddy district of Myanmar. However, the trend of cross-border joint venture is
promising as Thailand and neighboring countries are moving towards ASEAN
Community. For comparative analysis, a respondent in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand
had established cross-border investment venture particularly in casino business in
bordering OChrov district of Cambodia. Likewise, few of respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand contract cross-border joint venture investment with Laotian
counterparts in bordering Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, particularly in casino
business as well. Also, a few of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district managed
cross-border joint venture investment with the counterparts in bordering Muang Mukdahan
district of Thailand particularly in oil business. A respondent carries out franchising for
cement products from bordering Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand. Comparably, a
respondent in Maesod district of Thailand performs cross-border contract farming of sweet
corn for livestock in bordering Myawaddy district of Myanmar.
25) Market distributions of manufactured products or services provided
Table 9.23 below presents market distributions of manufactured products or services
provided across three cross-border regions.
Table 9.23 Market distributions of manufactured products or services provided
Market
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1. Local market
18
62.1
0
0
2. Domestic market
0
0
6
17.1
3. Bordering market
0
0
29
82.9
4. Cambodia
5
17.2
0
0
5. Myanmar
0
0
0
0
6. Vietnam
0
0
0
0
7. ASEAN
0
0
0
0
8. China
0
0
0
0
9. East Asia
0
0
0
0
10. USA
3
10.3
0
0
11. Europe
3
10.3
0
0
Total
29
100
35
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
42
72
46
55
0
0
29
35
15
26
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58 100 83 100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
52
49.5
18
46.2
0
0
21
53.8
0
0
0
0
1
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
8.6
0
0
16
15.2
0
0
24
22.9
0
0
105 100
39
100
Market distributions of manufactured products or services provided notably vary across the
cross-border regions. A certain degree of cross-border market interdependence is existing
across the cross-border regions. Respondents across Thai border districts clearly have
greater market diversifications ranging from local, bordering, domestic, regional and
international markets. On the other hand, respondents across the bordering districts have
lower market diversifications, which mainly concentrate on local, bordering and domestic
markets. Respondents in the 2 Thai border districts of Aranyaprathet (62.10%) and Muang
Mukdahan (72%) only cater to local markets. On the contrary, half of respondents in
Maesod district supply the whole Thailands domestic market. Another half of respondents
in Maesod district export to international markets, whereas, 55% of respondents in
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR distribute to local market. Likewise, slightly
more than half of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar export products to
markets in bordering Maesod district of Thailand.
163
For comparative analysis, almost a fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of

Thailand supply to bordering provinces in Cambodia. A tenth of respondents distribute
to either USA or European markets. Whereas, more than 4 fifth of respondents in OChrov
district of Cambodia supply to bordering Aranyaprathet market in Thailand, almost a fifth
of respondents serve the whole Cambodias domestic market. Also, a quarter of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand distribute to markets in bordering
Savannakhet province in Lao PDR. One respondent caters to ASEAN market. Moreover,
more than a third of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR supply to the
whole Lao PDRs domestic market. A few of respondents trade in either bordering Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand or Vietnamese markets. A respondent delivers mainly to
Chinese market.
On the contrary, half of respondents in Maesod district supply the whole Thailands
domestic market. Another half of respondents export to international markets making
Maesod district to become an important production base for apparel products in the global
commodity chains. The respondents are further divided according to their international
market distributions, namely: Europe (22.90%); USA (15.20%); East Asia (8.60%);
ASEAN (2.90%) and Myanmar (1.50%). Whereas, slightly more than half of respondents
in Myawaddy district of Myanmar export products to bordering Maesod district in
Thailand, almost half of respondents cater to the whole Myanmars domestic market.
26) Cross-border logistics arrangements
Table 9.24 below presents cross-border logistics arrangements across three cross-border
regions.
Table 9.24 Cross-border logistics arrangements
Mode of logistics
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
14
70
0
0
4
20
0
0
1. None
2. Their own company
vehicle
3. Local cross-border
1
5
0
0
logistics services
4. Local cross-border
1
5
30 100
cart carriers
5. Local boat crossing
0
0
0
0
the river
6. Arranged by cross0
0
0
0
border buyers
7. By scheduled bus
0
0
0
0
crossing Thai-Lao
friendship bridge
Total
20 100 30 100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
31
72
28
46
0
0
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
65
94.2
7
23.3
3
4.3
0
0
16
26
42
1.4
10
33.3
9.3
3.3
13
43.3
2.3
3.3
43
100
61
100
69
100
30
100
Cross-border logistics arrangements considerably vary across the cross-border regions

depending on availability of such services, extent of cross-border industrial linkages, and
type of geographical linkages (e.g., road or river bridge, etc.). More respondents across the
bordering districts of Kaysone Phomvihane (54%) in Lao PDR, Myawaddy (76.70%) in
Myanmar and OChrov (100%) in Cambodia utilize cross-border logistics. On the other
164
hand, significantly fewer respondents across Thai border districts of Maesod (1.40%),
Aranyaprathet (5%) and Muang Mukdahan (16%) rely on cross-border logistics. Ranging
from 23.30% to 94.20% of respondents across the cross-border regions do not engage any
cross-border logistics arrangements. This implies that this group of respondents may not
have any cross-border industrial linkages with counterparts in bordering cities.
For comparative analysis, all of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia normally
employed cross-border cart services, while a fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district
of Thailand use their own company vehicles. One respondent utilizes either local crossborder logistics services or local cross-border cart carriers, which are mainly managed by
individual Cambodian cart services. Also, only a very small proportion of respondents in
make arrangements through cross-border buyers or sellers. Less than half of respondents in
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR utilize local cross-border logistics services. Few
of respondents use either scheduled bus crossing the Thai-Lao Friendship bridge or by boat
crossing the Mekong international river. Similarly, almost a fifth of respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand utilize local cross-border logistics services and a tenth of
respondents use scheduled boat crossing Mekong international river. In comparison,
slightly more than 2 fifth of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar utilize boat
crossing the Moei international river and a third of respondents utilize cross-border
logistics services. On the contrary, a few of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand use
their own company vehicles and one respondent relies on local cross-border logistics
services.
27) Forms of cross-border payments
Table of 9.25 below presents the forms of cross-border payments across three cross-border
regions.
Table 9.25 Forms of cross-border payment
Form of payment
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
14
70
0
0
4
20
24
80
2
10
6
20
1. None
2. Cash
3. Money transfer to
suppliers in both cities
through local banks in
Thai border cities
4. Letter of Credit
0
0
0
0
5. Credit
0
0
0
0
Total
20 100 30
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
19
44
15
25
16
37
34
55.7
0
0
4
11.5
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
65
94
9
30
4
6
21
70
0
0
0
0
7
1
30
0
0
69
16
2.3
100
7
1
61
11.5
1.6
100
0
0
100
0
0
30
0
0
100
The forms of cross-border payments in industrial trading significantly vary across the
cross-border regions depending on the extent of mutual trust with counterpart bordering
suppliers. Payment by cash is widely practiced across the bordering districts of Kaysone
Phomvihane (55.70%) in Lao PDR, Myawaddy (70%) in Myanmar and OChrov (80%) in
Cambodia. On the other hand, less number of respondents across Thai border districts of
Maesod (6%), Aranyaprathet (20%) and Muang Mukdahan (37%) use cash payment. For
comparative analysis, a fifth of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia and a tenth of
165
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand use money transfer to suppliers in both

districts through local banks in Thai border district of Aranyaprathet. Also, slightly more
than a tenth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR transfer money to
suppliers through local bank in bordering Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand due to
mutual trust and convenient arrangements. Less than a fifth of respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand and slightly more than a tenth of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR open a Letter of Credit (L.C.). A respondent in both
Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR pays
by credit due to mutual trust established over time.
28) Perceptions on condition of cross-border road links or international river bridges
Table 9.26 below presents the perceptions on condition of cross-border road or
international river bridge across three cross-border regions.
Table 9.26 Perceptions on condition of cross-border road or international river
bridge
Opinion
Tha
Cam
(Road)
(Road)
F
7
12
1
0
20
%
F
35
0
60
30
5
0
0
0
100 30
0.000
%
0
100
0
0
100
Excellent
Good
Moderate
Poor
Total
Fisher
Exact
Test,
p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
(River
(River
bridge)
bridge)
F
%
F
%
14
33
0
0
26
61
33
54
3
7
28
46
0
0
0
0
43 100 61 100
0.000
Tha
Mya
(River
(River
bridge)
bridge)
F
%
F
%
12 17.4
2
6.6
47 68.1 20
66
9
13
6
20
1
1.4
2
6.6
69 100 30 100
0.29

The perceptions on condition of cross-border road links or international river bridges vary
much across the cross-border regions depending on progress of infrastructural linkages.
For comparative analysis on perceptions on cross-border road links, 3 fifth of respondents
in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand replied that they are in good condition. A third of
respondents expressed excellent condition and one respondent informed moderate
condition. Likewise, all of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia perceived good
condition. For comparative analysis on Mekong International River Bridge, 3 fifth of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and slightly more than half of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR informed good condition. A third
of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand expressed excellent condition and
a few of respondents stated moderate condition. Moreover, less than half of respondents in
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR replied good condition. For comparative
analysis on perceptions on Moei international river bridge, 2 third of respondents in both
Maesod district of Thailand and Myawaddy district of Myanmar replied good condition. A
fifth of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar and more than a tenth of
respondents in Maesod district of Thailand expressed moderate condition. Almost a fifth of
respondents in Maesod district of Thailand and a few of respondents in Myawaddy district
166
of Myanmar replied excellent condition. Finally, a few of respondents in Myawaddy

district of Myanmar and a respondent in Maesod district of Thailand disclosed poor
condition.
of perceptions on condition of cross-border road or international river bridge across the
cross-border regions. It is evident that significant differences are observed between Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR as its p-value
indicated significance at 99% confidence level. On the other hand, there is no significant
difference in two other cross-border regions (Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and
OChrov district of Cambodia, and Maesod district of Thailand and Myawaddy district of
Myanmar) as indicated by its p-value.
29) Perceptions on border banking services
Table 9.27 below presents perceptions on border banking services across three crossborder regions.
Table 9.27 Perceptions on border banking services
Opinion
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
1
5
0
0
14
70
9
30
5
25
19
63.3
0
0
2
6.7
20 100 30
100
0.000
Excellent
Good
Moderate
Poor
Total
Chi-Square
p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
33
77
61 100
10
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
43 100 30 100
0.000
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
2
2.9
0
0
58
84.1
0
0
9
13
24
80
0
0
6
20
69
100
30 100
0.000

Perceptions on border banking services drastically vary across the cross-border regions.
Overall, border banking services across Thai border districts are well developed than those
counterparts in the study bordering districts. A respondent in both Aranyaprathet and
Maesod districts of Thailand expresses excellent services. Pertaining to comparative
analysis, greater than 2 third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand state
good satisfactions. A quarter of respondents say moderate satisfactions. Whereas, greater
than 3 fifth of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia express moderate satisfactions.
Almost a third of respondents perceive good satisfactions. A little of respondents reply
poor satisfactions. In contrast, both slightly greater than 3 quarters of respondents in
Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and all of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR reveal good satisfactions. Almost a quarter of respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand state moderate satisfactions. Likewise, greater than 4 fifth
of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand perceive good satisfactions. Greater than a
tenth of respondents point out moderate satisfactions. Whereas, 4 fifth of respondents in
Myawaddy district of Myanmar express moderate satisfactions. A fifth of respondents state
poor satisfactions.
167
Chi-Square test is applied to the above table to understand similarities and differences
about the perceptions on border banking services across the regions.It is evident that
significant differences are observed in two cross-border regions (Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand and OChrov district of Cambodia, and Maesod district of Thailand and
Myawaddy district of Myanmar) as its p-values suggested there are significant at 99 % of
confidence level. Due to limited number of frequencies, Fisher Exact is alternatively
applied in the cross-border region of Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, which is found that its p-value similarly indicated there
is significant at 99 % of confidence level.
29) Perceptions on Border Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) services
Table 9.28 below presents the perceptions on border customs, immigration and quarantine
services across three cross-border regions.
Table 9.28 Perceptions on Border Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ)
services
Opinion
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
12
60
11
36.7
8
40
19
63.3
0
0
0
0
20 100 30
100
0.15
Excellent
Good
Moderate
Poor
Total
Chi-Square
p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
30
70
61
100
9
21
0
0
4
9
0
0
43 100 61
100
0.000
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
2
2.9
0
0
50
72.5
3
10
17
24.6
22
73
0
0
5
17
69
100
30 100
0.000

The perceptions on border customs, immigration and quarantine services noticeably vary
across the cross-border regions. Overall, border CIQ services across Thai border districts
are far more advanced than the counterpart bordering districts. Ranging from 60% to
72.50% of respondents across Thai border districts expressed good satisfaction. On the
other hand, 63.30% and 73% of respondents across the 2 bordering districts of OChrov in
Cambodia and Myawaddy in Myanmar, respectively, replied moderate satisfaction.
Moreover, all of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR expressed good
satisfaction. For comparative analysis on perceptions on border CIQ services, 3 fifth of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand expressed good satisfaction and 2 fifth of
respondents revealed moderate satisfaction. Whereas, 2 third of respondents in OChrov
district of Cambodia perceived moderate satisfaction, a third of respondents expressed
good satisfaction. Likewise, 2 third of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand answered good satisfaction and a fifth disclosed moderate satisfaction. A tenth of
respondents stated poor satisfaction. Correspondingly, a few of respondents in Maesod
district of Thailand expressed excellent satisfaction and almost 3 quarters revealed good
satisfaction. A quarter of respondents expressed moderate satisfaction. Whereas, almost 3
quarters of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar stated moderate satisfaction,
almost a fifth perceived poor satisfaction, and a tenth informed good satisfaction.
168
of the perceptions on border customs, immigration and quarantine services across the
cross-border regions. It is evident that significant differences are observed in two crossborder regions. There is a significant difference in the cross-border region of Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR as its
p-value indicated significance at 99% confidence level. There is no significant difference
in the cross-border region of Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and OChrov district of
Cambodia as shown by its p-value. Due to limited number of frequencies, Fisher Exact is
alternatively applied in the cross-border region of Maesod district of Thailand and
Myawaddy district of Myanmar. The p-value similarly suggested there is significance at
99% confidence level.
The following paragraphs summarize the preceding findings discussed in this chapter.
The industrial developer respondents across the Thai border districts have formal business
registrations as compared with the counterpart respondents in the bordering districts.
Interestingly, respondents across the bordering districts gain better investment incentives
from respective bordering governments than counterpart respondents across Thai border
districts. Respondents in Thai border districts make up the larger number of exogenous
industries. In contrast, respondents in 2 bordering districts make up the larger number of
endogenous industries. OChrov district of Cambodia hosts the largest number of
exogenous industries represented by 83.30% of respondents. Respondents across Thai
border districts mostly open new factories or services as they relocate in the border region.
Thai border districts have establishments operating in the average of more than 7 years.
Bordering districts of other countries have establishments recently operating (within last 4
years). Investment capital significantly varies across the cross-border regions.
Establishment of respondents in Thai border districts are mostly under the category of
small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) with average capital investment of about 40
million Baht. This amount is much higher as compared to other districts of bordering
regions (e.g., Myawaddy district of Myanmar and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao
PDR). On the contrary, remarkably 96.70% of respondents in OChrov district of
Cambodia own informal micro-enterprises with investment capital just about 0.50 million
Baht.
The manufactured products or services provided significantly vary across the cross-border
regions. Generally, the Thai border districts are more industrialized than the 2 bordering
districts, except Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, which is more industrialized
than the counterpart bordering Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand. Remarkably, major
productions are related to fashion industries in both Maesod district of Thailand
(specializing in high-end products) and OChrov district of Cambodia (specializing in lowend products). Outstandingly, four fifth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand are
manufacturers of fashion goods, and two third of them produce high-end wearable apparels
and garments. About 10 percent of respondents make textile products. As a result, Maesod
district has become an important fashion cluster of Thailand and connected with the global
community chains. Sources of labor noticeably vary across the cross-border regions
depending on national and international division of labor. Respondents across Thai border
districts normally employ semi-skilled immigrant labor. On the contrary, respondents
across bordering districts mainly engage internal migrant labor. Cross-border movement
patterns of immigrant labor significantly vary across the cross-border regions.
169
There is an existing international division of immigrant labor by gender across Thai border
districts. Respondents across Thai border districts pay higher (1.6 to 3 times) wages to
immigrant labor than counterpart respondents in the bordering districts. A slightly higher
number of respondents across Thai border districts employ local backward linkages. This
implies that Thai border districts have more backward linkages than the counterparts in the
bordering districts. On the other hand, respondents across the bordering districts have more
cross-border production linkage strategies than the counterpart respondents in Thai border
districts. Strikingly, there is an existing spatial division of labor as reflected by almost 3
quarters of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand who arrange domestically
outsourced production in the form of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) from
Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity. Regional and cross-border sub-contracting linkages
are significantly prevalent across the cross-border regions. There is an existing crossborder market interdependence in the studied cross-border regions.
It is evident that the local border industries are variably expanding and the types of
industries are rather diverse due to different resource endowments, costs of production, and
market orientation. Thai border industries gain easy access to relatively cheap immigrant
labor. As a result, it attracts a large number of industrial entrepreneurs to establish
productions along the border regions, particularly in Maesod district, where labor-intensive
industries for fashion goods are thriving. International and spatial division of labor are
noticeable in the Thai border districts. The border regions are optimistic that the local
cross-border industries will gradually expand fostering new regional production networks
in the ASEAN. Finally, the preceding key findings and reflections support the hypothesis
stating that cross-border trade regions are expected to gain infrastructural, economic, and
service benefits at the regional scale due to production and trading linkages.
170
CHAPTER 10
LOCAL CROSS-BORDER INTERACTIONS, EMPLOYMENT
AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME
This chapter features local cross-border interactions particularly on socio-economic
conditions at border household level. This chapter also describes how these local crossborder linkages contribute to sharing of employment and income along the cross-border
regions.
10.1 Compositions of Local Border Population
Women represents 43% to 79% of respondents across the cross-border regions. This is
primarily because at the time of interview most men already left their households and went
out for work. Then, the women respondents took the role in providing answers for the
research. Regarding marital status, 70.20% to 89.30 % of the respondents across the crossborder regions are already married. The respondents across the cross-border regions are of
working age with the average of 49 to 60 years old. The educational background of the
respondents significantly varies across the cross-border regions. The respondents across
Thai border districts have higher educational attainment than those counterpart respondents
across the bordering districts. Respondents (57.40% to 62.10%) across Thai border districts
completed higher primary school, whereas, 32.10% to 53.30% of respondents across the
bordering districts finished lower primary school. Respondents (17.14% to 22.80%) across
Thai border districts attained higher education levels, whereas, 1% to 6.70 % of
respondents across the bordering districts have lower education attainment. Therefore, the
number of illiterate respondents across Thai border districts is very low, ranging from
2.60% to 6.90%. On the contrary, there is quite high illiteracy among respondents across
the bordering districts, ranging from 20% to 32%.
10.2 Local Border Livelihoods
The features of local border livelihoods are described as follows:
1) Monthly income of border households
The monthly household income notably varies across the cross-border regions. The
monthly household income scales considerably vary with different distances from border
city centers across the cross-border regions. It is apparent that the nearer to the city center
the respondents settle, the higher household income is generated. However, it is notable
that a section of respondents across the cross-border regions are still facing poverty
incidence. The average monthly household income in the 2 Thai border districts of
Aranyaprathet and Maesod are generally almost 3 times higher than those counterpart
respondents in the bordering districts of OChrov district of Cambodia and Myawaddy
district of Myanmar. Also, the average monthly household income in Muang Mukdahan
district of Thailand is still 1.10 times higher than respondents in bordering Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR. For comparative analysis, the average monthly
household income in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand is 13,629 Baht, whereas, the
average monthly household income in OChrov district of Cambodia is much lower at
5,204 Baht. The average monthly household income in Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand is 11,049 Baht, whereas, the average monthly household income in bordering
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR is slightly lower at 9,290 Baht. The average
monthly household income in Maesod district of Thailand is found the highest across Thai
171
border districts at 15,449 Baht, while the average monthly household income in Myawaddy
district of Myanmar is very much lower at 4,617 Baht.
In 2009, the official poverty line of Thailand was at 1,586 Baht/person/month. Likewise,
the international poverty line in 2008 was at 1.25 US$ at 2005 purchasing-power parity
(PPP). Therefore, poor households mainly living in rural areas with monthly income less
than 3,000 Baht/month are most prevalent across the bordering districts represented by
25.10%, 33.30% and 42.70% of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR,
Myawaddy district of Myanmar, and OChrov district of Cambodia, respectively. On the
other hand, respondents across Thai border districts of Maesod (2.5%), Aranyaprathet
(10.30%) and Muang Mukdahan (21.80%) are found having lower household poverty
incidence. It should be noted that the broad range of standard deviations shown in the table
implies that some respondents may have underreported their monthly income. Details of
monthly border household income across three cross-border regions appear in Table 10.1.
of the monthly border household income across the cross-border regions. It is evident that
significant differences are observed in two cross-border regions (Aranyaprathet district of
Thailand and OChrov district of Cambodia, and Maesod district of Thailand and Myawaddy
district of Myanmar) as its p-value indicated significance at 99% confidence level. On the
other hand, there is no significant difference in the cross-border region of Muang Mukdahan
district of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao as indicated by its p-value.
2) Monthly expenses of border households
Respondents across the cross-border regions similarly have high burden of monthly
household expenses depending on varying zonal distances. It is also apparent that the
farther the respondents reside from the city centers, the lesser the monthly household
expenses they will incur. For comparative analysis, the average household expense in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand is 6,276 Baht, whereas, the average household expense
in OChrov district of Cambodia is much lower at 3,034 Baht. The average monthly
household expense in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand is 7,104 Baht, whereas, the
average monthly household expense in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR is
slightly higher at 7,783 Baht due to high local living costs. The average monthly household
expense in Maesod district of Thailand is found the highest across the cross-border regions
at 12,545 Baht, while the average monthly household expense in Myawaddy district of
Myanmar is very much lower at 3,500 Baht. Details of monthly expenses of border
households across three cross-border regions appear in Table 10.2. It should be noted that
the broad range of standard deviations shown in the table implies that some respondents
may have underreported their monthly expenses.
3) Border family sizes
The border family sizes significantly vary across the cross-border regions. Respondents
across the bordering districts have more extended families than those counterpart
respondents across Thai border districts. The average number of family members across
the bordering districts is higher with 5 to 6 members, whereas, the average number of
members in a family across Thai border districts is lower with 4 members. For comparative
analysis, respondents across the 4 border districts are classified as extended families, in
which there are more than 6 members in a family. On the other hand, most of respondents
in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and 4 fifth of respondents in OChrov district of
Cambodia are single families, in which there are less than 6 members in a family.
172
Table 10.1 Monthly border household income

Income scale
(Baht)
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
6
10.3
44
42.7
25
43.1
53
51.5
28
48.3
6
5.8
58
100
103
100
13,629
5,204
8,341
5,875
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
22
21.8
40
25.1
43
42.6
63
39.6
36
35.6
56
35.2
101
100
159
100
11,049
9,290
10,142
8,266
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
2
2.5
10
33.3
32
41.0
18
60.0
44
56.4
2
6.6
78
100
30
100
15,449
4,617
7,761
3,049
3,000 Baht
3,000 -15,000 Baht
>15,000 Baht
Total
Average (Baht)
Standard deviation
Chi Square p-value
0.000
0.79
0.000
Remarks: Tha-Cam: Aranyaprathet District/ OChrov District; Tha-Lao: Muang Mukdahan District/ Kaysone Phomvihane district;
Tha-Mya: Maesod District/ Myawaddy District
F means frequency.
173
173
Table 10.2 Monthly border household expenses

Expense scale
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
3,000 Baht
13
22.4
60
58.3
3,000-6,000 Baht
6
10.3
35
34
6,000-9,000 Baht
28
48.3
4
3.9
9,000-12,000 Baht
5
8.6
1
1
12,000-15,000 Baht
3
5.2
1
1
15,000-18,000 Baht
1
1.7
1
1
>18,000 Baht
2
3.4
1
1
Total
58
100
103
100
Average (Baht)
6,276
3,034
Standard deviation
3,953
2,723
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
26
26
40
25.1
26
26
42
26.4
24
24
21
13.2
1
1
10
6.2
4
4
11
6.9
6
5.9
7
4.4
14
14
28
17.6
101
100
159
100
7,104
7,783
5,972
6,359
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
0
0
9
30
2
2.5
18
60
25
32
3
10
7
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
35
0
0
17
21.5
0
0
78
100
30
100
12,545
3,500
5,150
1,500
174
Table 10.3 Border family sizes

Number of family
member
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
2 members
7
12
7
6.8
2-4 members
31
53.4
38
36.9
4-6 members
19
32.8
37
35.9
6-8 members
1
1.7
14
13.6
8-10 members
0
0
5
4.9
>10 members
0
0
2
2
Total
58
100 103 100
Average
4
5
Standard deviation
1.4
2
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
8
7.9
7
4.4
57
56
52
32.7
28
28
55
34.6
8
8
29
18.2
0
0
9
5.6
0
0
7
4.4
101 100 159 100
4
6
1.5
2.3
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
10
12.8
6
20
45
58
8
26.6
21
27
8
26.6
2
2.6
8
26.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78
100
30
100
4
5
1.4
2.3
174
Also, more than 4 fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and less
than 3 quarters of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are single
families.Moreover, more than a quarter of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district are
extended families. Similarly, most of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand and 3
quarters of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar are single families. A few of
respondents in Maesod district are extended families and more than a quarter of
respondents in Myawaddy district are extended families. Details of border family sizes
across three cross-border regions are indicated in Table 10.3. Likewise, respondents across
the bordering districts have higher number of children and elderly in a family than those
counterpart respondents across Thai border districts. The average number of child and
elderly in a family across the bordering districts is represented with 2 members. On the
other hand, the average number of child and elderly in a family across Thai bordering
districts is shown with 1 member. This also means that respondents across the bordering
districts have higher number of dependents than counterpart respondents across Thai
border districts.
4) Home ownerships
Table 10.4 below presents home ownerships across three cross-border regions.
Table 10.4 Home ownerships
Home ownership
1. Their family own

the house
2. Their family rent the
house
3. Their family lives
on government land
4. Squatter settlement
5. Company shelter
6. Live with
parents/relatives
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
52
89.7
64
62.1
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
86
85 139 87.4
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
72
92
18
60
8.6
11
10.7
14
14
20
12.6
20
1.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
14
4
9.8
13.6
3.9
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
20
0
0
Total
58
100
103
100
101
100
159
100
78
100
30
100
Home ownerships vary very much across the cross-border regions. A higher (89.70% to
92%) number of respondents across Thai border districts are home owners, whereas, a
lesser number of respondents across the bordering districts of Myawaddy (60%) in
Myanmar and OChrov (62.10%) in Cambodia are home owners. There are also more
(87.40%) home owners among respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR.
For comparative analysis, most of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand have
their own houses, while less than a tenth of respondents rent houses. Only a very small
proportion of respondents live on government land. On the contrary, slightly more than 3
fifth of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia have their own houses. Less than a
fifth of respondents reside on company shelters. A tenth of respondents either rent houses
or live in squatter settlements. Few of respondents stay with their parents or relatives.
Likewise, most of respondents in both Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR own their houses. Slightly more than a tenth of
respondents in both cities rent houses. In comparison, most of respondents in Maesod
175
district of Thailand own their houses and a few of respondents rent houses. Whereas, more
than half of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar own their houses, a fifth of
respondents either rent houses or live in squatter settlements.
5) Nativity and length of stay of border residents
Table 10.5 below presents nativity and length of stay of border residents across three crossborder regions.
Table 10.5 Nativity and length of stay of border residents
Length of
stay of
resident
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
42
77.4
39
37.8
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
64
63
120
75.4
Native local
resident
10 years
2
3.4
39
37.7
10
10-20 years
6
10.3
15
14.4
19
20-30 years
0
0
10
9.6
8
>30 years
8
13.7
0
0
0
Total
58
100
103
100
101
Average
22
11
14
Standard
11
7.5
6
deviation
9.9
19
8
0
100
8
7
24
0
159
18
7
4.9
4.3
15
0
100
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
43
55
13
43.3
8
24
3
0
78
14
6
10.2
30.8
3.8
0
100
16
1
0
0
30
8
1
53.3
3.3
0
0
100
Nativity and lengths of stay of residents considerably vary across the cross-border regions.
There are more native local residents among the respondents across Thai border districts of
Maesod (55%), Muang Mukdahan (63%) and Aranyaprathet (77.40%). On the other hand,
there are fewer native local residents among respondents across the 2 bordering districts of
OChrov (37.80%) in Cambodia and Myawaddy (43.30%) in Myanmar. Moreover, there is
also a higher (75.40%) number of native local residents among respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR. For comparative analysis of non-native residents,
respondents across the Thai border districts generally have longer average length of stay
(14 years) in both Muang Mukdahan and Maesod districts while respondents in
Aranyaprathet district stay the longest (22 years). On the other hand, respondents in the 2
bordering districts have shorter average length of stay at 8 years and 11 years in
Myawaddy district of Myanmar and OChrov district of Cambodia, respectively.
Moreover, respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are the longest (18
years) staying residents among the bordering districts.
6) Origin of non-native local residents
Origin patterns of non-native local residents are also diverse across the cross-border
regions. Ranging from 3.40% to 29.40% of respondents across Thai border districts have
migrated from other provinces within the region. On the other hand, respondents in the 3
bordering districts of Kaysone Phomvihane (5%) in Lao PDR, OChrov (22.30%) in
Cambodia and Myawaddy (46.60%) in Myanmar migrated from other regions. Slightly
few cross-border settlements are found across the cross-border regions. For comparative
analysis, respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia have broader origins than those
counterpart respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand. Almost a third of
respondents in OChrov district come from other provinces in Northwestern region of
176
Cambodia. Almost a quarter of respondents migrate from other regions across Cambodia.
A few of respondents move from other districts in Banteay Meanchey province and only a
Table 10.6 below presents diverse origins of non-native local residents across three crossborder regions.
Table 10.6 Diverse origins of non-native local residents
Origin
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
42
77.4
39
37.8
1
1.7
6
5.8
2
3.4
33
32
1.Native local resident

2.From other districts
3.Fromother provinces
within the region
4.From other regions
13
22.4
23
5.From bordering city
0
0
2
Total
58
100
15
22.3
1.94
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
64
63 120 75.4
9
9
21
13.2
23
23
6
3.7
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
43
55
13
43.3
11
14
1
3.3
23
29.4
2
6.6
3
2
101
0
1
78
3
2
100
8
4
159
5
2.5
100
0
1.2
100
14
0
30
very small proportion of respondents migrate from bordering provinces in Thailand.

Whereas, almost a quarter of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand migrate
from other regions across Thailand, few of respondents immigrate from either other
districts in Sakaeo province or from other provinces in Eastern region of Thailand.
On the contrary, respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand have greater
diversity of origins than those counterpart respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of
Lao PDR as almost a quarter of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district migrate from
other provinces within Northeastern region of Thailand. A few of respondents originate
from other districts in Mukdahan province. There are very few respondents who migrate
from either other regions in Thailand or from bordering city of Lao PDR. Whereas, greater
than a tenth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district migrate from other districts in
Savannakhet province, a few of respondents migrate from other regions in Lao PDR. Few
of respondents come from other provinces within central region of Lao PDR. There are
very few respondents emigrate from bordering cities in Thailand. Similarly, more than a
quarter of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand migrate from other provinces within
Northern region. More than a tenth of respondents migrate from other districts in Tak
province and one respondent migrates from bordering Myawwady district in Myanmar.
Quite the reverse, almost half of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar migrate
from other regions across Myanmar. A few of respondents migrate from other provinces
within Southern region of Myanmar and one respondent originates from other districts in
Kayin state.
7) Land ownership of border households
Land ownership of border households significantly vary across the border regions. Most of
respondents across Thai border districts of Muang Mukdahan (87%), Aranyaprathet
(91.40%) and Maesod (96.2%) are land owners. Respondents across Thai border districts
also have greater average land sizes of 9 Rais (3.55 Acres), 13 Rais (5.13 Acres) and 14
Rais (5.53 Acres) in Muang Mukdahan, Maesod and Aranyaprathet districts, respectively.
Table 10.7 presents land ownership of border households across three cross-border regions.
177
46.6
0
100
Table 10.7 Land ownership of border households

Land size
(Rai)
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
5
8.6
46
44.7
6
10.3
35
34
16
27.6
9
8.7
3
5.2
3
2.9
13
22.4
3
2.9
1
1.7
2
2.9
14
24.1
5
4.9
58
100 103 100
14
4.2
9.6
7.2
None
5 Rais
5-10 Rais
10-15 Rais
15-20 Rais
20-25 Rais
>25 Rais
Total
Mean
Standard
deviation
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
13
13
13
8.2
26
26 122 76.7
35
34
14
8.8
2
2
1
0.60
12
12
7
4.4
7
7
1
0.60
6
6
1
0.60
101 100 159 100
9
3.8
8.1
4.4
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
3
3.8
14
46.6
4
5.1
7
23.3
34
43.6
9
36.6
2
2.6
0
0
28
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
9
0
0
78
100
30
100
13
3
7.2
3.4
Note: 2.529 Rais are equivalent to 1 Acre.

On the other hand, fewer number of respondents across the bordering districts of
Myawaddy (53.40%) in Myanmar and OChrov (55.30%) in Cambodia are land owners.
Most (91.80%) of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are also land
owners. Respondents across the bordering districts have lower average land sizes of 3 Rais
(1.18 Acres), 3.80 Rais (1.50 Acres) and 4.20 Rais (1.66 Acres) in Myawaddy district of
Myanmar, Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and OChrov district of Cambodia,
respectively. Therefore, landless households are more prevalent in bordering OChrov
district (44.70%) of Cambodia and Myawaddy district (46.60%) of Myanmar. However,
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district have lower number of landless households at
8.20%, which is also lower than the counterpart bordering Muang Mukdahan district of
Thailand. Moreover, respondents across Thai border districts have lower number of
landless households at 3.80%, 8.60% and 13% in Maesod, Aranyaprathet and Muang
Mukdahan districts, respectively.
8) Main sources of border household income
The main sources of border household income considerably vary across the cross-border
regions. There are existing complementary linkages of sources of household income
between Thai border districts and the bordering districts, particularly on labor and crossborder outsourcing activities. Respondents across Thai border districts and in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR who live in the cities, mostly engage in local trade and
services. On the other hand, 45% to 52.60% of respondents across Thai border districts
who reside in rural areas, mostly involve in farming activities. In contrast, a third of
respondents who live in cities in the 2 bordering districts of OChrov (33%) in Cambodia
and Myawaddy (36.70%) in Myanmar, mainly provide labor services for cross-border
trade-related activities. On the contrary, 15.70% to 30% of respondents across the
bordering districts who live in rural areas, involve in lower farming activities.
For comparative analysis, slightly fewer than half of respondents in Aranyaprathet district
of Thailand engage in farming activities (e.g., rice, cassava, corn, eucalyptus, sugarcane
and ground nut).
178
Table 10.8 below presents the main sources of border household income across three crossborder regions.
Table 10.8 Main sources of border household income
Source of income
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
27
46.5
30
29.1
1. Farming
activities
2. Grocery
15
25.9
7
6.7
3. Petty business
7
12.1
11
10.6
4. Individual sub0
0
8
7.7
contracted
industries/cottage
industries
5. Individual
1
1.7
7
6.7
service providers
6. Employee in
4
6.9
0
0
local industry
7. Government
2
3.4
1
1
service
8. Wage labor for
2
3.4
33
32
cross-border trade
9. Employee in
0
0
5
4.8
border casinos
10. Employee in
0
0
0
0
local services
11. Elderly relying
0
0
1
1
on remittances
Total
58
100
103
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
45
45
25
15.7
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
41
52.6
9
30
15
30
2
15
29
2
0
81
3
0
51
1.9
7
19
1
9
24.4
1.3
3
2
1
10
6.7
3.3
2.5
6.7
6.7
31
19.5
1.3
11
36.7
2.5
11.5
0
101
0
100
3
159
1.9
100
0
78
0
100
0
30
0
100
A quarter of respondents run groceries and slightly more than a tenth of respondents are
petty business owners (e.g., laundry, coffee shop, photocopy center, etc.). A few of
respondents are employees in local industries and very few respondents are either
government employees, wage labor or individual service providers (e.g., local transport
services, etc.). Whereas, a third of respondents in bordering OChrov district of Cambodia
engage in general wage labor associated with cross-border trade, almost a third of
respondents involve in agricultural activities by mainly cultivating rice and cassava. A
tenth of respondents are business owners and less than a tenth of respondents involve in
either individual sub-contracted industries, individual service providers or running
groceries. A few of respondents are employed in border casinos.
Likewise, 2 fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand engage in
agricultural sector. More than a quarter of respondents are petty business owners and less
than a fifth of respondents run groceries. A few of respondents are general wage labor and
only a very small proportion of respondents are either in government service, cottage
industry or employed in local border industries. Whereas, half of respondents in adjacent
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR engage in petty business, a fifth of respondents
serve as government employees. More than a tenth of respondents engage in agricultural
sector and a few of respondents involve in general wage labor. Few of respondents are
179
local service providers (e.g., transport, laundry and barber). There are very few
respondents who sustain their livelihoods either in cottage industries or handicraft and few
are elderlies relying on remittances. Concerning those respondents involved in agricultural
sector, almost 3 quarters of them in both districts grow rice. Less than a fifth of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district plant cassava and few of respondents cultivate
either soybean or garlic. Only a very small proportion of respondents produce either corn
or mungbean. Moreover, a few of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district involve in
aquaculture.
Also, half of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand engage in farming activities for
their livelihoods and a quarter are petty business owners. A tenth of respondents engage in
local services (e.g., local transport, restaurants, barber and garage, etc.) and a few run
groceries. There are very few of respondents who are employed in either cottage industry,
handicraft or government service. Whereas, slightly more than a third of respondents in
bordering Myawaddy district of Myanmar are wage labor for cross-border trade, almost a
third of them involve in farming activities and a tenth operate groceries. A few of
respondents are either petty business owners, local transport service providers, or
employees in local industries. A respondent engages in cottage industry and handicrafts.
The respondents in both districts who engaged in farming activities grow similar kinds of
cash crops. More than a third of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand grow rice and
almost a fifth of respondents cultivate corn and sugarcane. A few of respondents produce
either garlic or mungbean. In comparison, almost a quarter of respondents in Myawaddy
district of Myanmar cultivate cassava. Almost a fifth of respondents grow either rice or
mungbean and a few produce either soybean, corn, or garlic.
9) Supplementary sources of border household income
Table 10.9 below presents the supplementary sources of border household income across
Table 10.9 Supplementary sources of border household income
Source of income
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
8
23.5
8
25
4
11.8
0
0
1
2.9
0
0
3
8.8
0
0
9
26.5
4
12.5
2
5.9
6
18.7
3
8.8
0
0
0
0
8
25
0
0
6
18.7
1. Farming activities
2. Livestock
3. Aquaculture
4. Horticulture
5. Grocery
6. Petty business
7. Service providers
8. Wage labor
9. Sub-contracted
industrial production/
cottage industry
10. Local industrial
0
0
0
0
employee
11. Local service
0
0
0
0
employee
Total
58
100
32
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
16
34
12
19.1
6
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
13
0
0
2
4.2 25
39.7
0
0
6
9.5
16
34
15
23.8
0
0
2
3.2
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
4
41.2
1
16.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
41.2
1
16.6
4
23.5
1
16.6
0
0
1
16.6
0
0
2
33.3
0
0
0
0
2.1
3.2
12
1.6
47
100
63
100
17
100
100
180
Supplementary sources of border household incomes considerably vary across the crossborder regions. Ranging from 25% to 50% of respondents across Thai border districts have
supplementary sources of border household income. On the other hand, 20% to 34% of
respondents across the bordering districts have supplementary sources of border household
income. For comparative analysis, half of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand
have supplementary sources of income. Out of this, a quarter of respondents engage either
in farming activities or groceries and a tenth involve in livestock. Almost a tenth of
respondents are either service providers or involve in horticulture, and a few are involve in
either aquaculture or petty business. Moreover, less than a fifth of respondents in OChrov
district of Cambodia have supplementary sources of income. Out of this, a quarter of
respondents are either general wage labor or engage farming activities. Almost a fifth of
respondents involve in either petty businesses or outsourced industrial productions.
Slightly more than a tenth of respondents operate groceries.
Similarly, almost half of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand have
supplementary sources of income. Out of this, a third of respondents are either general
wage labor or engage farming activities and almost a quarter involve in farming activities.
A tenth of respondents engage in either livestock or groceries and few are either local
industrial employees or in petty business. Moreover, more than a third of respondents in
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR have supplementary sources of border
household income. Out of this, more than a third of respondents are petty business owners
and almost a quarter are general wage labor. Almost a fifth of respondents involve in
farming activities and almost a tenth are local transport providers. Few of respondents are
either border industrial employees or running cottage industries and one respondent is a
local service employee.
In comparison, a quarter of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand have supplementary
sources of household income. Out of this, slightly more than 2 fifth of respondents operate
groceries and a quarter involve in either farming activities or petty business. Slightly more
than a tenth of respondents serve as employees of local border industries. Moreover, 2 fifth
of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar have supplementary sources of
household income. Out of this, a third of respondents are general wage labor and less than
a fifth are either local transport providers or engage in horticulture, groceries, or petty
businesses.
10) Labor sources
Labor sources for carrying out labor-intensive agricultural activities (e.g., planting and
harvesting agricultural produce) or household works (e.g., maid and services of
waiters/waitress) significantly vary across the cross-border regions. Ranging from 81.50%
to 100% of respondents across the bordering districts work by themselves, whereas, 1% to
29.50% of respondents across Thai border districts hire immigrant labor force from
bordering countries. For comparative analysis, generally 2 third of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand engage immigrant Cambodian labor force from adjacent
Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia. More than a third of respondents secure wholly
unpaid family member labor force. A fifth of respondents wholly employ immigrant labor
force from bordering Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia. One respondent employs
half local labor force and half immigrant labor force from bordering Banteay Meanchey
province. In contrast, 4 fifth of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia wholly rely
on unpaid family member force. A fifth of respondents utilize half unpaid family member
labor force and employ half local labor force.
181
Table 10.10 below presents labor sources across three cross-border regions.
Table 10.10 Labor sources
Source of labor
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
21
36.2
84
81.5
0
0
0
0
1. None employment
2. Totally hired local
labor
3. Half unpaid family 24
41.2
0
0
members and
employed half
bordering city
4. Wholly employed
12
20.7
0
0
bordering city
5. Employed half
1
1.7
0
0
local labor force and
half immigrant labor
from bordering city
0
0
19
18.4
6. Half unpaid family
members and
employed half
locally hired labor
force
Total
58
100
103
100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
83
82 132 96.8
11
11
5
3.1
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
27
34.6
30
100
0
0
0
0
28
36
23
29.5
101
100
159
100
78
100
30
100
Also, more than 3 quarters of respondents in both Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand
and most of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR engage wholly
unpaid family member labor force. A tenth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district in
Thailand and a few of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district in Lao PDR totally hire
local labor force. In Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand alone, a few of respondents
engage half unpaid family member labor force and employ half immigrant labor from
bordering Savannakhet province of Lao PDR. A few of respondents involve half unpaid
family member labor force and employ half local labor force. There are very few
respondents either wholly employ immigrant labor from Savannakhet province of Lao
PDR or engage half local labor force.
Correspondingly, a third of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand and all of
respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar fully engage unpaid family member labor
force. In Maesod district of Thailand alone, slightly more than a third of respondents
employ both half immigrant labor force from bordering Myawaddy district of Myanmar
and half unpaid family member labor force. More than a quarter of respondents fully hire
immigrant labor from bordering Myawaddy district of Myanmar.
11) Employment of immigrant labor by border households
Table 10.11 below presents employment of immigrant labor by border households across
Thai border regions.
182
Table 10.11 Employment of immigrant labor by border households

Number
Tha
Cam
F
%
F %
21
36.2 0 0
6
10.3 0 0
28
48.1 0 0
3
5.1
0 0
58
100
0 0
9
0
5
0
None
5 workers
5-15 workers
15-25 workers
Total
Mean
Standard
deviation
Chi Square
p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
101 100 0
0
27
34.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
19.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
45
0
0
101 100 0
0
78
100
0
0
2
0
19
0
0
0
6.5
0
0.000
Only respondents across Thai border districts notably engage varying numbers of
immigrant labor. Respondents in Maesod district employ the highest average number of
immigrant labor with 19 workers followed by respondents in Aranyaprathet district who
mostly engage unregistered immigrant labor averaging 9 workers. Whereas, a few of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district employ the lowest number of registered
immigrant labor averaging 2 workers, almost half of respondents in Aranyaprathet district
employ 5 to 15 immigrant labor. A tenth of respondents hire fewer than 5 workers and a
few of respondents engage 15 to 25 immigrant workers. Likewise, a few of respondents in
Muang Mukdahan district employ less than 5 immigrant workers. Similarly, more than half
of respondents in Maesod district hire unregistered immigrant labor, while a tenth of
respondents employ registered labor. Out of this, almost half of respondents in Maesod
district hire 15 to 25 immigrant workers and a fifth of respondents engage 5 to 15
immigrant workers. A respondent employs less than 5 workers. Chi-Square test is applied
to the above table to understand the similarities and differences about the employment of
immigrant labor by Thai border households. It is evident that significant differences are
observed across Thai border regions as its p-value indicated significance at 99%
confidence level.
Reasons for employing immigrant labor really vary across Thai border districts.
Respondents across Thai border districts of Muang Mukdahan (1%), Aranyaprathet
(29.40%) and Maesod (32.70%) expressed that labor in their districts are cheap, so they
can reduce production costs. A fifth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district expressed that
there is shortage of Thai labor force in their locality. Slightly more than a tenth of
respondents mentioned that local Thai labor force is choosy with jobs. Also, few of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district replied that local Thai labor force is selective
with jobs. Similarly, a third of respondents in Maesod district indicated that local Thai
labor force is choosy with jobs and a few of respondents replied that there are shortages of
Thai labor force in Maesod district.
Table 10.12 below presents the reasons for employing immigrant labor across Thai border
regions.
183

Reason
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
21
36.2 0
0
1. None employment of
immigrant labor at all
2. Local Thai labor force
7
12
0
is choosy with jobs.
3. Shortage of Thai
11
18.9 0
labor force in their city.
4.Immigrant labor in
19
32.7 0
they can reduce cost of
production
Total
58
100
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
97
96
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
27
34.6 0
0
23
29.4
5.12
23
29.4
101
100
78
100
Cross-border movement patterns of labor vary very much across Thai border districts
depending on whether a conducive policy on facilitation of cross-border movement of
labor is existing or not. For instance, more than a third of respondents in Aranyaprathet
district especially mentioned daily cross-border movement, because it is a pilot area for
allowing daily movement of labor between Thailand and Cambodia. Almost a fifth of
respondents informed seasonal immigration and and very few of respondents replied longterm immigration with all family members. Also, only a very small proportion of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district stated either seasonal immigration, circular
immigration or long-term immigration with all family members. Likewise, almost half of
respondents in Maesod district indicated seasonal immigration. A tenth of respondents
expressed long-term immigration with all family members, and a few of respondents
informed either daily basis or circular movement.
Table 10.13 below presents gender ratios of immigrant labor across Thai border regions.
Ratio of men and
women immigrant
labor
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
None employment
21
36.2
0
0
50:50
33
56.9
0
0
25:75
2
3.4
0
0
75%:25%
0
0
0
0
100% male labor
2
3.4
0
0
100% female labor
0
0
0
0
Total
58
100
0
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
97
96
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
101 100
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F %
27
34.6 0 0
12
15.4 0 0
14
18
0 0
18
23
0 0
2
2.6
0 0
5
6.4
0 0
54
100
0 0
Gender of immigrant labor largely varies across Thai border districts depending on
international division of labor by gender differences. Male labor always carry outdoor jobs,
whereas, female labor perform either indoor or outdoor jobs. More than half of respondents
in Aranyaprathet district hire equal number of men and women with the proportion of
184
50%:50%. A few of respondents employ either 100% male immigrant labor or a

combination of male and female immigrant labor with the ratio of 25%:75%. Also, a few
of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district expressed gender distribution of male and
female immigrant labor with the ratio of 50%:50%. Likewise, a quarter of respondents in
Maesod district engage immigrant men and women with the ratio of 75%:25%. Almost a
fifth of respondents hire men and women with the ratio of either 50%:50% or 25%:75%.
Less than a tenth of respondents employ 100% of immigrant women and there are very few
respondents who engaged 100% male immigrant labor. Also, a few of respondents in both
Aranyaprathet and Maesod districts engage less than 3 immigrant child labor, whereas, no
immigrant child labor is employed in Muang Mukdahan district.
14) Daily wage rates of employed immigrant labor
Table 10.14 below presents daily wage rates of employed immigrant labor across Thai
border regions.
Table 10.14 Daily wage rates of immigrant labor
Daily wage rate
Tha
Cam
F
%
F %
21
36.2 0 0
2
3.4
0 0
9
15.5 0 0
26
44.8 0 0
58
100
0 0
118
0
19.5
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
97
96
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
101 100
0
0
113
0
17.5
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
27
34.6
0
0
26
33.3
0
0
25
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
78
100
0
0
80
0
14.
0
9
Non-employment
50-80 Baht
80-110 Baht
110-150 Baht
Total
Mean
Standard
deviation
The average daily wage rates of immigrant labor across Thai border districts slightly vary
at 80 Baht, 113 Baht and 118 Baht in Maesod, Muang Mukdahan and Aranyaprathet
districts, respectively. For comparative analysis, fewer than half of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district remunerate with 110 Baht to 150 Baht per day. Less than a fifth of
respondents compensate with 80 Baht to 110 Baht per day and a few of respondents pay 50
Baht to 80 Baht per day. Likewise, few of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district pay
daily wage rates of either 80 Baht to 110 Baht or 110 Baht to 150 Baht. Moreover, half of
respondents in Maesod district pay lower daily wage rates of either 50 Baht to 80 Baht or
80 Baht to 110 Baht.
15) Family members crossing border for jobs in Thailand
Only respondents across the bordering districts cross the border to seek jobs in Thailand.
Respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar who replied that some family members
cross the border for jobs in Thailand, represent the highest number of respondents
(83.40%) followed by OChrov district (65.10%) of Cambodia and Kaysone Phomvihane
district (23.90%).Table 10.15 below presents the number of family members crossing
border for jobs in Thailand.
185
Table 10.15 Number of family members crossing border for jobs in Thailand
Number
Tha
Cam
F %
F
%
0 0
36
34.9
0 0
46
44.6
0 0
14
13.5
0 0
7
6.7
0 0 103
100
0
1.3
0
1.3
None
1 member
2-3 members
4-5 members
Total
Mean
Standard
deviation
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F %
F
%
0
0
121
76.1
0
0
35
22
0
0
3
1.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
159
100
0
0.65
0
0.53
Tha
Mya
F %
F
%
0 0
5
16.6
0 0
20
66.6
0 0
5
16.6
0 0
0
0
0 0
30
0
0
0.9
0
0.8
The average number of family members crossing the border for jobs across the bordering
districts is 1 person/family. For comparative analysis, less than half of respondents in
OChrov district of Cambodia have 1 member seeking for jobs in bordering Aranyaprathet
district of Thailand. Less than a tenth of respondents have 2 to 3 members, less than a tenth
have 4 to 5 members, and slightly more than a third of respondents have none at all. Also,
almost a quarter of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR have 1 family
member seeking for jobs in Thailand. Only a very small proportion of respondents have 2
family members and 3 quarters of respondents have none at all. In comparison, 2 third of
respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar have 1 member crossing the border for jobs
in Thailand. Almost a fifth of respondents have 2 to 3 members and almost a tenth of
respondents have none at all.
In connection with immigrant destinations, respondents in both OChrov district of
Cambodia and Myawaddy district of Myanmar have rather similar pattern of migration.
Three fifth of respondents in OChrov district and 2 third of respondents in Myawaddy
district replied that they migrate to adjacent Thai border districts due to close geographical
proximity. Also, almost a fifth of respondents in Myawaddy district and a few of
respondents in OChrov district seek for jobs in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity. There
are very few respondents in OChrov district who answered that they migrate to
neighboring provinces in Thailand. Likewise, more than a tenth of respondents in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR stated going to Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity in
Thailand. Almost a tenth of respondents expressed migrating to bordering Muang
Mukdahan district and only a very small proportion of respondents expressed immigrating
to the industrial Eastern region in Thailand.
16) Involvements with border community-based enterprises
Involvements with border community-based enterprises largely vary across the crossborder regions. Respondents across Thai border districts are well established with various
types of community-based enterprises, whereas, such activities are non-existent across the
bordering districts. Respondents across the Thai border districts of Muang Mukdahan
(29%), Aranyaprathet (29.30%) and Maesod (47.40%) have engaged with border
community-based enterprises. Out of this number, more than a quarter of respondents in
Maesod district engage with cooperatives.
Table 10.16 below presents involvements with border community-based enterprises across
186
Table 10.16 Involvements with border community-based enterprises

Type of community
enterprise
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
41
70.7
0
0
7
12.1
0
0
7
12.1
0
0
3
5.2
0
0
1. None
2. Cooperatives
3. Farmer organization
4. One Tambon (Subdistrict) One Product
(OTOP)
5. Women occupation
0
0
0
groups
6. Community saving
0
0
0
groups
Total
58
100
0
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
72
71
0
0
14
14
0
0
8
8
0
0
3
3
0
0
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
41
52.6 0
0
22
28.2 0
0
7
9
0
0
8
10.3 0
0
101
100
78
100
A tenth of respondents involve with One Tambon (Sub-District) One Product (OTOP)
program and a few of respondents connect with local farmer organizations. Similarly,
slightly more than a tenth of respondents in Aranyaprathet district are members of either
cooperatives or famer organizations. A few of respondents participate in One Tambon One
Product (OTOP) program. Also, less than a fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan
district are members of cooperatives and a few of respondents are members of local farmer
organizations. A few of respondents engage in either One Tambon One Product (OTOP)
program or local women occupation groups. A respondent joins the community saving
group.
Out of those respondents across Thai border districts who are involved with border
community-based enterprises, 4.50%, 15% and 25.70% of them in Aranyaprathet, Muang
Mukdahan and Maesod districts have established local community enterprise linkage
strategies. Among other strategies, respondents in Aranyaprathet (1.70%), Muang
Mukdahan (8%) and Maesod (15.40%) districts are supplying raw materials to local border
industries. A respondent in Aranyaprathet district buys intermediate goods from local
traders. Likewise, a few of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district and less than a tenth
of respondents in Maesod district supply wage labor to local border industries. A few of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district and very few respondents in Maesod district
supply intermediate products and components to local border industries.
17) Perceptions on condition of secondary or district road during the past 10 years
Perceptions on condition of secondary road during the past 10 years greatly vary across the
cross-border region. Respondents across Thai border districts of Maesod (7.70%), Muang
Mukdahan (11%) and Aranyaprathet (20.60%) perceived that the secondary or district
roads are in good condition during the past 10 years. On the other hand, roads across the
bordering districts are in very much poorer condition. For comparative analysis, slightly
more than half of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand replied poor condition
and a quarter of respondents said moderate condition. On the other hand, all respondents in
OChrov district of Cambodia replied poor condition.
Table 10.17 below presents perceptions on conditions of secondary or district road during
the last 10 years across three cross-border regions.
187
Table 10.17 Perceptions on conditions of secondary or district road during the last 10
years
Opinion
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
32
55.2 103 100
14
24.1
0
0
12
20.6
0
0
58
100 103 100
0.000
Poor
Moderate
Good
Total
Chi Square
p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
56
55 154 97
34
34
2
1
11
11
3
2
101 100 159 100
0.000
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
49
62.8
30
100
23
29.5
0
0
6
7.7
0
0
78
100
30
100
0.000

Likewise, slightly more than half of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand
answered poor condition and a third of respondents conveyed moderate condition.
Whereas, most of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR replied poor
condition, only a very small proportion of respondents answer either moderate or good
condition. Correspondingly, 3 fifth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand and all of
respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar replied poor condition. Almost a third of
respondents in Maesod district stated moderate condition. Chi-Square test is applied to the
above table to understand the similarities and differences of the perceptions on condition of
secondary or district road during the last 10 years across the cross-border regions. It is
evident that significant differences are observed across the cross-border regions as its pvalue indicated significance at 99% confidence level.
18) Perceptions on current condition of secondary or district road
Table 10.18 below presents perceptions on current condition of secondary or district roads
Table 10.18 Perceptions on current condition of secondary or district roads
Opinion
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
3
5.2
89
86.4
40
69
9
8.7
13
22.4
5
4.9
2
3.4
0
0
58
100 103 100
0.000
Poor
Moderate
Good
Excellent
Total
Chi-Square
p-value
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
14
14
1
0.6
70
69 155 97.5
15
15
3
2
2
2
0
0
101 100 159 100
0.000
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
17
21.8
26
86.6
37
47.4
4
13.3
21
27
0
0
3
4
0
0
78
100
30
100
0.000

Perceptions on current condition of secondary or district road substantially vary across the
cross-border regions. Current conditions of secondary roads across Thai border districts are
still well developed than those the bordering districts. For comparative analysis, only
respondents in Muang Mukdahan (2%), Aranyaprathet (3.40%) and Maesod (4%) districts
188
of Thailand expressed excellent conditions. Secondary roads in Aranyaprathet district of

Thailand are more developed than the bordering OChrov district of Cambodia as 2 third of
respondents in Aranyaprathet district informed of moderate condition. Almost a quarter of
respondents replied good condition and a few of respondents informed poor condition. On
the contrary, more than 4 fifth of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia expressed
poor condition and almost a tenth of respondents stated moderate conditions. Few of
respondents informed of good condition.
Similarly, secondary roads in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand are also more
developed than the bordering Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR. More than half of
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand replied moderate condition. Slightly
more than a tenth of respondents stated either good or poor condition. Also, most of
respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district expressed moderate condition. There are very
few respondents who stated good condition. Correspondingly, current secondary roads in
Maesod district of Thailand are much more improved than the bordering Myawaddy
district of Myanmar as slightly more than a quarter of respondents in Maesod district
replied good condition. Less than half of respondents informed of moderate condition and
almost a quarter of respondents identified poor condition. Whereas, 2 third of respondents
in Myawaddy district of Myanmar express moderate condition, a fifth of respondents
stated poor condition, and almost a fifth of respondents replied good condition.
of the perceptions on current conditions of secondary or district roads across the crossborder regions. It is evident that a significant difference is observed between Aranyaprathet
district of Thailand and OChrov district of Cambodia as its p-value indicated significance
at 99% confidence level. Due to low number of frequencies, Fisher Exact test is
alternatively carried out in other two cross-border regions (Muang Mukdahan district of
and Myawaddy district of Myanmar) and found that its p-value similarly indicated
19) Types of current community road
Types of current community road noticeably vary across the cross-border regions.
Ranging from 94.80% to 100% of respondents across Thai border districts revealed that the
community roads are paved and the entire community can access the road coverage at all
seasons. This also implies greater progress of communitys basic transport infrastructure
development. On the other hand, types of current community roads greatly vary across the
bordering districts. The roads in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR are much more
developed compared with the other 2 bordering districts. According to 97.50% of
respondents, community roads are paved and the entire community can access the road
coverage at all seasons. For comparative analysis, more than 2 third of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand identified asphalt road and a quarter of respondents
replied concrete road. Whereas, almost 2 third of respondents in OChrov district of
Cambodia replied dirt roads which cant be used at all seasons, a third of respondents
identified asphalt road. A few of respondents answered concrete road. Also, more than half
of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand stated concrete road and 2 fifth of
respondents revealed asphalt road. There are very few respondents who identified gravel
road.
189
Table 10.19 below presents the types of current community road in three cross-border
regions.
Table 10.19 Types of current community road
Type of road
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
0
0
0
0
Gravel
Dirt road
0
0
65 63.1
Concrete road
16
27.5
4
3.8
Asphalt road
42
72.4
34
33
Total
58
100 103 100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
2
2
4
2.5
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
4
5.12
15
50
10
33.2
58
41
30
57
41
100
11
144
159
7
90.5
100
54
20
78
69.2
25
100
0
5
30
0
16.6
100
Whereas, most of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR told of asphalt
road, a few of respondents informed of concrete road. Only a very small proportion of
respondents replied gravel road. In comparison, a third of respondents in Maesod district of
Thailand replied concrete road,a quarter informed of asphalt road, and a few of
respondents identified gravel road. Whereas, more than 4 fifth of respondents in
Myawaddy district of Myanmar answered gravel road which cant be used at all seasons,
almost a tenth of respondents replied asphalt road.
Therefore, current conditions of community roads across Thai border districts are very
much improved compared with bordering districts. For comparative analysis, more than 2
third of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand expressed good condition and a
tenth of respondents answered either moderate or excellent condition. There are very few
respondents who stated poor condition. On the contrary, less than half of respondents in
OChrov district of Cambodia expressed poor condition and a third of respondents
answered moderate condition. Slightly more than a tenth of respondents stated excellent
condition and a tenth of respondents replied good condition. Likewise, more than half of
respondents in both Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR stated good condition. Less than a fifth of respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district expressed moderate condition and slightly more than a tenth of
respondents told of excellent condition. A few of respondents revealed poor condition.
Moreover, few of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district stated either moderate or
poor condition. Correspondingly, almost a third of respondents in Maesod district of
Thailand perceived either excellent or moderate condition and slightly a quarter of
respondents replied good condition. More than a tenth of respondents informed of poor
condition. Whereas, 2 third of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar expressed
poor condition, a fifth of respondents replied moderate conditions, and more than a tenth of
respondents answered good condition.
20) Marketing channels of border agricultural commodities
Marketing channels of border agricultural commodities largely vary across the crossborder regions. Most of respondents across Thai border districts who are engaged in
agricultural activities are market-oriented farmers. On the other hand, most of respondents
across the bordering districts who are engaged in farming activities are subsistent farmers.
For comparative analysis of marketing channels of local agricultural produce, almost half
of respondents in Aranyaprathet district of Thailand sell to the local intermediary border
traders.
190
Table 10.20 below presents the marketing channels of border agricultural commodities
Table 10.20 Marketing channels of border agricultural commodities
Marketing channel
Tha
Cam
F
%
F
%
26
45
73
71
1. Not engaged in
farming activity.
2. Totally keep for
0
0
7
7
own consumption.
3. Partly keeps for own
0
0
2
2
consumption and
partly sells to
middleman at the
farms.
4. Sells to local
1
1
0
0
industries.
5. Sells to the
27
47
16
15
intermediary border
traders at the farms.
6. Sells at local
4
7
5
5
periodic markets
7. Sells to cross-border
0
0
0
0
buyers in bordering
city.
Total
58
100 103 100
Cross-Border Region
Tha
Lao
F
%
F
%
56
55 126 79.2
Tha
Mya
F
%
F
%
31
40
21
70
3.8
10
19
19
26
16.3
13.3
10
10
3.9
0.6
29
37.2
6.66
13
16.7
2.6
101
100
30
100
78
100
30
100
A few of respondents either sell at local periodic markets or supply to local border
industries. On the contrary, less than a fifth of respondents in OChrov district of
Cambodia sell to intermediary border traders. Less than a tenth of respondents totally keep
for their own consumption and a few of respondents sell at local periodic markets. Only a
very small proportion of respondents partly keep for own consumption and partly sell to
the intermediary border traders at the farms.
Also, a fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand manage by partly
keeping for their own consumption and partly selling to the middlemen at the farms.
Almost a quarter of respondents sell to local border industries. A tenth of respondents
totally keep for their own consumption, which is mostly at subsistent level. Less than a
tenth of respondents sell to the intermediary border traders at the farms. Moreover, less
than a fifth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district administer by both partly
keeping for their own consumption and partly selling to the intermediary border traders at
the farms. A few of respondents totally keep for their own consumption and one
respondent sells to the intermediary border trader.
In comparison, almost 2 fifth of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand sell agricultural
commodities to the intermediary border traders. Almost a fifth of respondents sell at the
periodic markets either in village or in sub-district. A few of respondents either trade to
buyers in bordering Myawaddy district of Myanmar or sell to local border rice mills.
Moreover, more than a tenth of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar manage by
191
partly keeping for their own consumption and partly selling to the intermediary border
traders at the farms. A tenth of respondents only keep for their own consumption and a few
of respondents sell to the intermediary border traders at the farms.
21) Benefits gained by local border households after opening of the border during the
last 5 years.
Table 10.21 below presents the benefits gained by local border households across three
cross-border regions after opening of the border during the last 5 years.
Table 10.21 Benefits gained by local border households after opening of the border
during the last 5 years
Level of
Cross-Border Region
gaining
benefit
Tha
Cam
%
F
%
8.62
9
8.73
63.7
28
27.1
20.6
22
8
6.8
31
30
0
13
12.6
100 103 100
0.000
F
Not at all
5
Low
37
Moderate
12
High
4
Very high
0
Total
58
ChSquare
p-value
Tha
F
29
41
22
7
2
101
%
29
40
22
7
2
100
Lao
F
1
18
98
38
4
159
0.000
%
0.6
11.3
61.6
24
2.5
100
Tha
F
16
26
34
2
0
78
Mya
%
F
%
20.5
2
6.6
33.3
5
16.6
43.6
15
50
2.6
8
26.6
0
0
0
100
30
100
0.000

The benefits gained by local border households across the cross-border regions after
opening of the border during the last 5 years, considerably vary depending on the extent of
local cross-border economic and social interactions. Ranging from 91.27% to 99.40% of
respondents across the bordering districts gained greater economic and social benefits. On
the other hand, 79.50% to 91.38% of respondents across Thai border districts obtained
somewhat lower level of economic and social benefits. This means a section of
respondents across the cross-border regions could be regarded as the excluded group
because of the lesser economic and social benefits they gained from the opening of the
border during the last 5 years. This is substantiated by 8.62% to 20.50% of respondents
across Thai border districts, who gained neither economic nor social benefit. Moreover,
0.60% to 6.60% of respondents across the bordering districts earned neither economic nor
social benefit.
For comparative analysis, respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia gained more
benefits than counterpart respondents in bordering Aranyaprathet district of Thailand. This
is represented by almost a third of respondents in OChrov district who gained high social
and economic benefits. A quarter of respondents gained low economic and social benefits.
A fifth of respondents acquired moderate economic and social benefits. Slightly more than
a tenth of respondents secured high economic benefits. Moreover, a few of respondents in
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand replied reaping high economic benefits (e.g., border
trade and services and access to cheap immigrant labor from bordering Poipet city of
Cambodia). A fifth of respondents answered that they received moderate social benefits
(e.g., convenient cross-border people movements and tourism). Almost 2 third of
192
respondents expressed that they gained low social and economic benefits. In contrast, a
tenth of respondents in both cities gained neither economic nor social benefits. On the
contrary, respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR gained greater
economic and social benefits than counterpart respondents in bordering Muang Mukdahan
district of Thailand. More than half of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district reaped
moderate economic and social benefits. Almost a quarter of respondents obtained high
economic benefits and a tenth of respondents received low economic and social benefits.
There are very few respondents who acquired very high economic benefits, particularly on
cross-border trade. A respondent gained neither economic nor social benefit. Whereas, 2
fifth of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand obtained low economic and
social benefits, almost a quarter of respondents secured moderate economic and social
benefits, and a few of respondents gained high economic benefits. Only a very small
proportion of respondents reaped very high economic benefits. In contrast, more than a
quarter of respondents in Muang Mukdahan district gained neither economic nor social
benefit.
Correspondingly, respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar gained greater economic
and social benefits than counterpart respondents in the bordering Maesod district of
Thailand. Almost half of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand reaped moderate
social and economic benefits (e.g., easy crossing the border and access to cheap migrant
labor). A few of respondents in Maesod district obtained high level of economic benefits.
A third of respondents secured low level of economic and social benefits and a fifth of
respondents in Maesod district gained neither economic nor social benefit. Likewise, half
of respondents in Myawaddy district of Myanmar obtained moderate social and economic
benefits (e.g., access to cross-border health care and jobs). Slightly more than a quarter of
respondents in Myawaddy district reaped high economic benefits, either as a border trader,
cross-border trade-related laborer or cross-border shopper. Almost a fifth of respondents
earned low economic and social benefits and a few of respondents gained neither economic
nor social benefit. Chi-Square test is applied to the above table to understand the
similarities and differences of the benefits gained by local border households across the
cross-border regions after opening of the border during the last 5 years. It is obvious that
significant differences are observed across the cross-border regions as its p-value indicated
This section intends to consistently highlight the preceding findings from the local border
household surveys. It also summarizes the local cross-border interactions particularly on
border socio-economic conditions through the paragraphs that follow.
Women respondents are largely (43% to 79%) represented across the cross-border regions.
Ranging from 70.20% to 89.30% of the respondents across the cross-border regions are
already married. The respondents across the cross-border regions are of working age with
the average of 49 to 60 years old. Respondents across Thai border districts have higher
educational attainment than the counterpart respondents in the bordering districts.
Therefore, the number of illiterate respondents across Thai border districts is very low,
ranging from 2.60% to 6.90%. On the contrary, there is quite high illiteracy across the
bordering districts, ranging from 20% to 32% of the respondents. The monthly household
income notably varies across the cross-border regions depending on the distance of
residence from the city. The nearer the residence is to the city, the higher household
193
income is generated. The monthly household income of respondents across Thai border
districts is generally higher (1.1 to 3 times) than counterpart respondents in the bordering
districts. It is notable that a section of respondents across the cross-border regions are still
facing poverty incidence.
In 2008, the international poverty line was at $1.25, at 2005 purchasing-power parity
(PPP). Therefore, poor households mainly living in rural areas with monthly income less
than 3,000 Baht/month are most prevalent across the bordering districts represented by
25.10%, 33.30% and 42.70% of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR,
Myawaddy district of Myanmar and OChrov district of Cambodia, respectively. On the
other hand, 10.30% and 21.80% of respondents in the 2 Thai border districts of
Aranyaprathet and Muang Mukdahan, respectively, are found having lower household
poverty incidence. Similarly, rather poor households with monthly income of 3,000 Baht to
7,000 Baht also have higher incidence in bordering districts of Kaysone Phomvihane
(26.40%) in Lao PDR, OChrov (39.80%) in Cambodia and Myawaddy (43.30%) in
Myanmar. In contrast, respondents in Thai border districts of Maesod (2.60%),
Aranyaprathet (8.6%), and Muang Mukdahan (18%) revealed lower incidence of rather
poor border households. Respondents across the cross-border regions similarly have high
burden of monthly household expenses, depending on varying zonal distances. This means,
respondents residing in farther distances from the city incur lesser monthly household
expenses.
Respondents across the bordering districts have larger extended families than counterpart
respondents in Thai border districts. Respondents across Thai border districts have higher
number of native residents than counterpart respondents in the bordering districts.
Furthermore, respondents across Thai border districts have lower number of landless
households than the counterpart respondents across the bordering districts. The main
sources of border household income considerably vary across the cross-border regions.
There are complementary linkages of household income sources between Thai border
districts and the bordering districts, particularly on labor and cross-border outsourcing
activities. Respondents who live in the cities across Thai border districts and in Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR mostly engage in local trade and services, whereas, 45%
to 52.60% of respondents across Thai border districts who reside in rural areas are mainly
involved in farming activities. In contrast, respondents who live in cities in the 2 bordering
districts of OChrov (33%) in Cambodia and Myawaddy (36.70%) in Myanmar mainly
provide labor services for cross-border trade-related activities. Moreover, fewer (15.70% to
30%) number of respondents who live in rural areas across the bordering districts are
involved in farming activities. Respondents across Thai border districts reflect good
practices of community development. Currently, the secondary roads across Thai border
districts are well developed and in excellent condition compared to those in counterpart
bordering districts. Respondents who are involved in agricultural activities across Thai
border districts are more market-oriented farmers. During the last 5 years, after the opening
of the border, respondents across the bordering districts gained greater economic and social
benefits than the counterpart respondents across Thai border districts.
Local cross-border interactions are apparently getting stronger due to closer socioeconomic ties, greater physical connectivity, and border openness. These strengthen local
cross-border complementarities, as well as enhance sustainable border livelihoods. Better
local cross-border people mobility contributes to the increasing growth of both local and
cross-border economies. Local border communities play a fundamental role in intensifying
194
cross-border interactions. However, a section of population on both sides of the border

seems to have been excluded from this progress. This needs to be addressed by working
towards inclusive and integrated borderlands development. Hence, the preceding findings
and reflections support the hypothesis stating that locational advantage of border
towns/cities with regional transport networks is essential for fostering socio-economic and
local area development.
195
CHAPTER 11
REGIONAL AND LOCAL BENEFITS IN DIFFERENT
CROSS-BORDER REGONS
This chapter provides an assessment on significant benefits gained from cross-border

interactions, including cross-border investment (in the form of contract farming) and crossborder people and vehicle mobility, both at local and regional scales. The analysis is done
for different cross-border regions with details in the sections that follow.
11.1 Overview of Cross-Border Investment in the Form of Contract Farming
Trade facilitation and investment is one of the 5 major areas of cooperation under the
Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy (ACMECS). Crossborder contract farming is also one of the key projects within the trade and investment area
of cooperation. The cross-border contract farming project was initiated in 2004 and
remains implemented up to present. The primary objective of cross-border contract
farming is to promote collaboration between Thailand and neighboring countries for
creation of jobs and distribution of income along border areas. It also aimed to reduce
influx of both immigrant labor and illegal trade of agricultural commodities from
neighboring countries into Thailand. In doing so, the Royal Thai Government encourages
Thai entrepreneurs or traders to engage with counterpart farmers or entrepreneurs in
neighboring countries including Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar in growing
agricultural commodities, which are both on high demand in Thailand and on shortages of
domestic supplies.
As a result, Thailand would gain three-fold benefits, namely: (1) increasing
competitiveness of industries utilizing imported raw materials, as well as minimizing
production and transportation costs for import from other farther countries; (2) responding
to national agricultural structural adjustment; and (3) managing border economy and
minimizing border security problems. Likewise, the neighboring countries could secure
three-fold advantages, including: (1) upgrading production capacity as Thailand extends
both technical and technology transfer on planting in order to obtain quality agricultural
commodities; (2) creating jobs and alleviating poverty along the border areas; and
(3) developing basic infrastructure to sustain rural development and uplift quality of life of
people residing along the border areas. The targeted agricultural products consist of
2 types of commodities (Ministry of Commerce, 2006). The first one involves 10 farm
plants consisting of soybean, ground nut, sweet corn, potato, cashew nut, corn, job's-tears,
green bean, sesame and eucalyptus. These crops are eligible for unilateral free trade with
zero import tariffs under ASEAN Integration System of Preferences (AISP). The second
type is energy crops comprising palm oil, cassava and sugarcane. The investors can be
classified into 2 groups, namely: 1) local Thai border SMEs entrepreneurs directly engage
with small farmers in bordering countries; and 2) large scale Thai entrepreneurs having
contract with small farmers in bordering countries.
Chronologically, the authorized border import checkpoints are designated as follows:
During 2004-2005, the initial implementation was only between Tak province of
Thailand and Kayin state of Myanmar.
196
During 2005-2007, it was extended to cover the area between Loei province of
Thailand and Xaignabouli province of Lao PDR and between Chantaburi province
of Thailand and Battambong province of Cambodia.
From 2008 until the present, it has further extended to cover other bordering
provinces across Thailand.
Though cross-border contract farming has long been implemented, the actual import data
are in fact inaccessible. Theres even little available data of certain years that vary from
one border province to another border province in Thailand. It should be noted that the
little available actual import data is already included in the statistics of macro bilateral
cross-border trade between Thailand and neighboring countries. Upon import, the
contracted agricultural commodities are mainly resold to either regional agro-processing
companies or feed mills. Similarly, small portions of contracted produce are further
exported. Therefore, inward distributions to either local border agro-processing industry or
traders are limited. Among the study areas in Thailand, the local border SMEs
entrepreneurs in both Sakaeo and Tak provinces obtained greater advantages due primarily
to the fact that most of investors are native border residents, whereas, local border SMEs
entrepreneurs in Mukdahan province are limited. Instead, most of SMEs entrepreneurs
originate from across the Northeastern region of Thailand. According to local border
customs officials, the actual import amount for a particular study area in Thailand is
estimated at approximately 60 to 70% of the total planned import quantity. Similarly,
among bordering provinces, small farmers in both Banteay Meanchey and Battambong
provinces of Cambodia and Kayin state of Myanmar acquire greater benefits than the
counterpart small farmers in Savannakhet province of Lao PDR. Nevertheless, the trend of
intensity of cross-border contract farming across the cross-border regions is likely to
expand. Cross-border contract farming in a particular cross-border region is described as
follows:
11.1.1 Cross-Border Region 1 (Between Sakaeo province of Thailand and Banteay
Meanchey province of Cambodia)
During the cultivation year of 2007 to 2008, there were 25 SMEs entrepreneurs with 3 fifth
of them residing in Sakaeo province. The rest of entrepreneurs came from neighboring
provinces, Bangkok metropolis, and Kanchanaburi province located in western region.
These entrepreneurs put in cross-border contract farming investment in 2 border provinces
of Cambodia, namely, Banteay Meanchey and Battambong provinces. They concentrated
their investments in 2 districts of Malai and Thama Pouk in Banteay Meanchey province
and also 2 districts of Pumpruek and Sampoulun in Battambong province. The Thai crossborder investors targeted on 7 agricultural commodities covering aggregate land area of
393,000 Rais or 155,397.39 Acres with planned imported quantity of 259,070 Tons. The
details of cross-border contract farming between Sakaeo province of Thailand and Banteay
Meanchey province of Cambodia are presented in Table 11.1.
During the cultivation year of 2008 to 2009, there were 21Thai SMEs entrepreneurs
engaged in cross-border contract farming with 12 farm factories. The planned cultivation
areas in 2 bordering provinces of Cambodia increased to 1,287,829 Rais or 51,491.6 Acres,
or a rise of 3.20 times compared with the previous cultivation year. Likewise, the planned
quantity even increased to 2,359,508 Tons, or 9.10 times higher than the previous
cultivation year. In Banteay Meanchey province alone, the cultivation encompassed a total
197
Table 11.1 Cross-Border Region 1: Cross-Border Contract Farming Between Sakaeo

Province of Thailand and Banteay Meanchey Province of Cambodia
Cultiva
tion
Year
Thailand
20072008
Sakaeo
province
20082009
Sakaeo
province;
Chantaburi
province;
Bangkok;
Kanchana
buri
province
Total
Number of
Registered
Entreprene
ur
25
13
4
3
1
Cambodia
Number
of
Farmer
1.Malai and
Thama Pouk
districts
of
Banteay
Meanchey
province
2.Pumpruek
and
Sampoulun
districts
of
Battambong
province
Malai
and
Thama Pouk
districts
of
Banteay
Meanchey
province
Commodity
Planned
Area
(Rai)
1.Corn
2.Soybean
3.Green bean
4.Ground nut
5.Eucalyptus
6.Sweet corn
7.Sasame
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
393,000
393,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
259,070
*Approxi
mately
60-70 %
of total
planned
quantity
NA
1.Corn
2.Soybean
3.Green bean
4.Peanut nut
5.Castor bean
6.Eucalyptus
7.Sweet corn
8. Job's-tears
9.Sasame
Total
43,958
47,440
8,930
2,010
240
7,770
0
0
1,720
112,068
23,958
16,720
4,600
1,005
120
104,552
0
0
516
151,471
*Approxi
mately
60-70 %
of total
planned
quantity
537,660
4,600
1,633,425
2,760
280
542,540
654,608
19.6
1,636,205
1,787,676
262,351
214,925
56,100
23,000
18,095
25,000
3,000
7,000
13,375
622,846
256,585
85,056
17,125
4,000
530
150,000
4,000
500
3,390
521,186
10,020
355
50,610
35.5
0
10,375
633,221
0
50,646
571,832
Additional
commodities
10.Casava
11.Unhusked
rice
12.Cotton
Total
Grand Total
NA
1.Corn
2.Soybean
3.Green bean
4.Ground nut
5.Castor bean
6.Eucalyptus
7.Sweet corn
8. Job's-tears
9.Sasame
Total
additional
commodities
10.Casava
11.Unhusked
rice
12.Cotton
Total
Grand Total
Source: Sakaeo Provincial Commerce Office, Thailand.

*Based on an interview with a Customs Official at Aranyaprathet border checkpoint.
Remark: NA stands for not available data.
198
Actual
import
(Tons)
NA
21
2.Pumpruek
and
Sampoulun
districts
of
Battambong
province
Quantity
(Tons)
*Approxi
mately
60-70 %
of total
planned
quantity
Table 11.2 Cross-Border Region 2: Cross-Border Contract Farming between

Mukdahan Province of Thailand and Savannakhet province of Lao PDR
Cultivation
Year
2013
2014
2015
Thailand
Northeastern
provinces
Northeastern
provinces
Number of
Registered
Entreprene
ur
11
Lao PDR
Commodity
Planned
Area
(Rai)
Quantity
(Tons)
Actual
import
(Tons)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cassava chip
NA
NA
50
Northeastern
7
Savannakhet
7
provinces
province
Source: Mukdahan Provincial Commerce Office, Thailand.
Cassava chip
NA
NA
100
18
Savannakhet
province
Savannakhet
province
Number of
Company/
Farmer
group
10
Table 11.3 Cross-Border Region 3: Cross-Border Contract Farming between between

Tak province of Thailand and Kayin state of Myanmar
Cultivation
year
Thailand
Number of
Registered
Entrepreneur
24
Myanmar
Kayin state
Number
of
Farmer
NA
2005/
2006
Tak
province
2006/
2007
Tak
province
28
Kayin state
NA
2015
Tak
province
16
Kayin state
NA
Planned
Area
(Rai)
1.Corn
40,000
2.Greenbean
15,000
3.Peanut
4,500
4. Castor oil
500
Total
60,000
1.Corn
41,460
2.Mung bean
23,200
3.Peanut
2,186
4.Castor oil
700
Total
67,546
1.Corn
NA
2.Green
NA
bean
Total
Commodity
Quantity
(Tons)
24,000
2,250
2,000
140
28,390
24,876
2,320
219
105
27,520
66,000
6,530
72,530
Actual import
(Tons)
*Approximately
60-70 % of total
planned quantity
*Approximately
60-70 % of
total planned
quantity
*Approximately
60-70 % of total
planned quantity
Source: Tak Provincial Commerce Office, Thailand.

*Based on an interview with Customs Official at Maesod border checkpoint.
land area of 654,608 Rais or 261,843.2 Acres with the share of 50.83%. The planned
imported quantify was set at 1,787,676 Tons with the share of 75.76%. In Battambong
province, the cultivation included 633,221 Rais or 253,288.40 Acres with the share of
49.16%. The planned imported quantify was set at 571,831.50 Tons with the share of
24.23%. Unfortunately, the actual import quantity is unavailable. However, according to an
interview with a Customs official at Aranyaprathet border checkpoint, the actual import in
each mentioned cultivation year is approximated 60 to 70% of total planned quantity. It
can be articulated that a large number of rural small famers in contracted bordering
provinces of Cambodia are gaining benefits from this undertaking. This could partly help
increase household income leading towards better quality of life.
11.1.2 Cross-Border Region 2 (between Mukdahan province of Thailand and
Savannakhet province of Lao PDR)
Exceptionally, there is no border entrepreneur from Mukdahan province who engaged in
cross-border contract farming with any counterpart in Savannakhet province of Lao PDR.
Instead, a collective group of Thai entrepreneurs across the whole Northeastern provinces
199
performed cross-border contract farming with counterpart small farmers or private

companies in bordering Savannakhet province. In 2013, there were 11 SMEs entrepreneurs
from Northeastern provinces of Thailand who partnered with 10 private companies in
Savannakhet province. However, the data on planned commodity, area, quantity and actual
import quantity are unavailable. Also, in 2014, there were 18 entrepreneurs across the
Northeastern provinces of Thailand who signed cross-border contract farming with 4
counterpart private companies in bordering Savannakhet province of Lao PDR. They
focused their collaboration on cassava chip but data on planned area and quantity are
unavailable. However, the actual import of such agricultural commodity was declared as
just 50 Tons. Similarly, in 2015, there were 7 SMEs entrepreneurs across the Northeastern
provinces of Thailand undertaking cross-border contract farming with 7 counterpart private
companies in bordering Savannakhet province of Lao PDR. They still concentrated their
collaboration on cassava chip but data on total planned area and quantity are unavailable.
However, the actual import of such agricultural goods was shown as 100 Tons. This
implies that a number of rural small famers in contracted Savannakhet province of Lao
PDR reaped benefits from this undertaking, which could partly help generate border
household income leading towards better quality of life. The details of cross-border
contract farming between Mukdahan Province of Thailand and Savannakhet province of
Lao PDR are indicated in Table 11.2.
11.1.3 Cross-Border Region 3 (between Tak province of Thailand and Kayin state of
Myanmar)
During cultivation year of 2005 to 2006, there were 24 border SMEs entrepreneurs from
Tak province of Thailand engaging in cross-border contract farming with small farmers
mostly in Myawaddy district of Kayin state in Myanmar. However, the data on actual
number of contracted farmers in Kayin state is unavailable. The Thai border investors
targeted on 4 major agricultural commodities covering aggregate land area of 60,000 Rais
or 24,000 Acres with total planned imported quantity of 28,390 Tons. During cultivation
year of 2006 to 2007, there were 28 border SMEs entrepreneurs from Tak province of
Thailand doing cross-border contract farming with small farmers mostly in Myawaddy
district of Kayin state in Myanmar. However, the data on actual number of contracted
farmers in Kayin state is still unavailable. Thai border investors continued to target on 4
major agricultural commodities with aggregate land area of 67,546 Rais or 27,018.40
Acres and total planned imported quantity of 27,520 Tons.
Likewise, during cultivation year of 2015, there were 16 border SMEs entrepreneurs from
Tak province of Thailand seeking cross-border contract farming with small farmers mostly
in Myawaddy district of Kayin state in Myanmar. However, the data on actual number of
contracted farmers in Kayin state is unavailable. The Thai border investors focused on 2
major agricultural commodities with total planned imported quantity of 72,530 Tons, but
data on aggregate land area is an unavailable. Unfortunately, the actual import quantity is
also unavailable. Nevertheless, according to an interview with a Customs official at
Maesod border checkpoint, the actual imported quantity for each mentioned cultivation
year is approximately 60 to 70% of total planned quantity. It can be articulated that a large
number of rural small famers in contracted bordering district of Myawaddy in Kayin state
of Myanmar secured benefits from this relations, which could partly help generate border
household income, as well as uplift the farmers towards better quality of life. The details of
cross-border contract farming activities between Tak province of Thailand and Kayin state
of Myanmar are exhibited in Table 11.3.
200
11.2 Cross-Border People Mobility

Border checkpoints physically play crucial role as gateways for facilitating peoples
mobility, which has driven cross-border tourism activities, as well as strengthened people
to people contacts. During 2002-2014, there was a rapid increase of local and regional
cross-border people mobility across the study area of cross-border regions. The cumulative
local and regional cross-border movements across the 3 cross-border regions were as high
as 158.18 million people with varying intensities of movements at 129.18 million people,
16.25 million people, and 12.74 million people through the cross-border regions of
Aranyaprathet district in Thailand linking with OChrov district in Cambodia; Muang
Mukdahan district in Thailand connecting with Kaysone Phomvihane in Lao PDR and
Maesod district in Thailand linking with Myawaddy district in Myanmar, respectively. The
common underlying factors contributing to this growth comprised of better improvement
of land transportation linkages; bilateral labor cooperation; regional tourism cooperation
schemes; and presence of large border casinos in bordering countries. The factors also
included specific cross-border movement agreements between Thailand and neighboring
countries and an Initial Implementation of Cross-Border Transportation Agreement
(IICBTA) in the Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS), which connects border checkpoints
between Aranyaprathet district in Sakaeo province of Thailand with Poipet city in OChrov
district in Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia (effective in 2012); between
Mukdahan province of Thailand and Savannakhet province of Lao PDR (effective in 2009)
and between Maesod district in Tak province of Thailand and Myawaddy district in Kayin
state of Myanmar, which was signed in 2009 but not yet implemented due to bilateral
political reason. In addition, the other specific factors that play a part in the growth of
people mobility between Thailand and neighboring countries consist of regional tourism
road transport agreements between Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam; as well as the effect
of an agreement between Thailand and Cambodia under pilot ACMECS Single Visa
effective since December 16, 2010 (Ministry of Transport of Thailand, 2011). As a result,
the trend of intensity of cross-border people movement in the study area of cross-border
regions is likely to proliferate.
There are 3 types of cross-border official documents in Thailand, namely,passport, border
pass, and temporary border pass. The border pass is issued to border residents with validity
that varies depending upon specific agreements with bordering countries. There is a border
pass which is valid for 2 years for entering Cambodia and the length of stay will be 7 days
for each pass, but not exceeding 15 days. Other border passes are valid for 1 year for
entering Lao PDR with length of stay not exceeding 3 days and 2 nights; and valid for 2
years for entering Myanmar with length of stay not exceeding 2 weeks). The temporary
border pass is issued to those non-border residents for one time use with length of stay that
varies depending on specific agreements with bordering countries (e.g. valid for 3 days and
2 nights for entering Lao PDR and valid for 1 week for entering Myanmar) (Department of
Local Administration of Thailand, 2015). On the other hand, there is no agreement on such
temporary border pass with Cambodia. The outlook on intensity of cross-border people
mobility in a particular cross-border region is described in the following sections.
11.2.1 Cross-Border Region 1 (between Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and
OChrov district of Cambodia)
During the last 13 years, the cumulative local and regional cross-border people mobility
between Aranyaprathet district in Sakaeo province of Thailand and OChrov district in
Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia was as extremely high as 129.18 million people,
201
which is considered the largest intensity of cross-border people movements between

Thailand and 4 neighboring countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, and Myanmar). The
aggregate cross-border people movements through Aranyaprathet checkpoint sharply
increased from 4.89 million people in 2002 to 13.07 million people in 2014. The annual
average growth of cross-border people mobility is 8.33%. The average cross-border
movements of all nationalities substantially increased from 13,296 people per day in 2002
to 35,829 people per day in 2014. In terms of distribution of cross-border people
movement by country, movements of Cambodian nationals reached the highest share of
83.60 million people, accounted for 64.72% of accumulative cross-border people
movements.
Thailand implemented a pilot project by issuing temporary border passes specifically for
Cambodian nationals in order to facilitate cross-border people movements at Aranyaprathet
border checkpoint. As a result, the cumulative Cambodian national movements using
temporary border passes were exceptionally high at 72.44 million people, which accounted
for 56.07% of the bilateral accumulative people movements of all nationalities with annual
average growth of 8%. The target temporary border pass holders are mostly laborers,
traders and shoppers, who may cross the border on daily basis. The cumulative number of
Cambodian nationals utilizing border passes was at 8.09 million people with annual
average growth of 7.30%. On the other hand, the cumulative number of Cambodian
nationals making use of passport was 3.07 million people with annual average growth of
18.96%. This data represented regional Cambodian tourists, and seekers of medical and
educational services in Thailand.
The aggregate Thai national movements ranked second at 37.25 million people,
representing 28.84% of bilateral accumulative cross-border people movements. This is
mainly characterized by local business people and regional Thai tourists, in which a large
number of them were attracted to visit a number of border casinos in Cambodia. The
accumulative number of Thai nationals using passports was as high as 27.65 million
people, representing 21.40% of bilateral accumulative cross-border people mobility with
annual average growth of 17.17 %. Also, the accumulative number of Thai nationals
making use of border passes was 9.60 million people with annual average growth of
0.66%. Moreover, the other foreign nationals passing the border constituted 8.31 million
people, accounted for 10.44% of accumulative cross-border people movements. The figure
implied the number of foreign tourists who are actually in Thailand and those foreign
tourists temporarily leaving the country and then purposively re-enter Thailand. This is
widely practiced among foreign tourists who wish to extend their stay in Thailand without
going back to their home countries. The details of cross-border people mobility between
Aranyaprathet district in Sakaeo province of Thailand and OChrov district in Banteay
Meanchey province of Cambodia appear in Table 11.4.
11.2.2 Cross-Border Region 2 (between Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR)
During the last 13 years, the cumulative local and regional cross-border people mobility
was rather high at 16.25 million people. The annual cross-border people movements
through Mukdahan checkpoint sharply increased from 0.26 million people in 2002 to 1.77
million people in 2014 with annual average growth of 17.42%. The average cross-border
movements of all nationalities substantially increased from 737 people per day in 2002 to
4,863 people per day in 2014. Pertaining to distribution of cross-border people movement
by country, movements of Thai nationals, on the contrary, reached the highest share of
202
10.79 million people accounted for 66.40% of accumulative cross-border people

movements. Thai nationals using border passes were as high as 7.42 million people with
annual average growth of 13.69%.
Likewise, there were 3.36 million Thai nationals utilizing passports with high annual
average growth of 45.58%. This represented business persons, cross-border shoppers and
both local and regional tourists, in which a large number of them were attracted to visit a
large border casino in Savannakhet province,. On the other hand, movements of Laotian
nationals ranked second at 4.35 million people, accounted for 26.78% of accumulative
cross-border people movements. The accumulative number of Laotian nationals utilizing
passports was 2.64 million people with annual average growth of 27.05%. Similarly, the
accumulative number of Laotian nationals using border passes was 1.70 million people
with annual average growth of 29.62%. This number included cross-border shoppers,
tourists, laborers, and seekers of medical and educational services. On the other hand,
movements of other foreign nationals made up 1.10 million people, accounted for 6.81% of
accumulative cross-border people movements. This included foreign tourists actually in the
country and those purposively leaving the country and then re-enter Thailand. The details
of cross-border people mobility between Muang Mukdahan district in Mukdahan province
of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane district in Savannakhet province of Lao PDR is
shown in Table 11.5.
11.2.3 Cross-Border Region 3 (between Maesod district of Thailand and Myawaddy
district of Myanmar)
During the last 13 years, the bilateral cumulative local and regional cross-border people
mobility was relatively high at 12.74 million people. The aggregate cross-border people
movements through Maesod checkpoint steadily increased from 0.56 million people in
2002 to 2.41 million people in 2014. It should be noted that Myanmar unilaterally closed
Myawaddy border checkpoint throughout the year 2011, which could have affected the
sudden drop of people mobility on both sides. The annual average growth of cross-border
people mobility is 38.71%. The average cross-border movements of all nationalities
substantially increased from 1,538 people per day in 2002 to 6,620 people per day in 2014.
Regarding the distribution of cross-border people movements by country, the Burmese
nationals dominated with passage intensity of 12.03 million people, accounted for 92.16%
of accumulative cross-border people movements. The accumulative number of Burmese
nationals using border passes was as high as 9.82 million people with annual average
growth of 8.63 %. Similarly, the accumulative number of Burmese nationals utilizing
passports was 2.20 million people with annual average growth as high as 96.96%. These
passages were represented by laborers, shoppers, tourists, and seekers of medical and
educational services. As Myanmar consistently restricts the use of Thai passports, the
cumulative movements of Thai nationals were subsequently low at 0.79 million people
accounted for 7.84% of accumulative cross-border people movements. The cumulative
number of Thai nationals using border passes was 0.78 million people with annual average
growth of 21.79%. Similarly, the cumulative number of Thai nationals utilizing passports
was even much lower at 0.01 million people. These passages signified local and regional
tourists and business persons. The details of cross-border people mobility between Maesod
district of Tak province in Thailand and Myawaddy district in Kayin state of Myanmar are
presented in Table 11.6.
203
Table 11.4 Cross-Border Region 1: Cross-Border People Mobility between Aranyaprathet Border Checkpoint in Thailand and Poipet
Border Checkpoint in Cambodia during 2002 to 2014
Year
Thailand
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Passport
Cambodia
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
278,836
263,199
46,123
46,020
468,360
479,117
48,246
47,233
843,594
838,864
49,356
48,200
790,854
842,898
50,215
49,423
995,637
998,776
52.348
50,434
1,229,342
1,233,492
53,605
51,405
1,314,200
1,317,941
55,008
52.706
1,369,013
1,377,733
60,678
53,720
1,436,232
1,433,188
108,630
72,899
1,301,960
1,299,125
201,868
154,736
1,306,382
1,340,573
314,404
244,897
1,148,509
1,206,310
332,085
273,401
1,223,590
1,315,974
362,274
298,255
13,706,509
13,947,190
1,682,544
1,390,676
Source: Aranyaprathet Immigration Office, Thailand.
Type of Cross-Border Official Travel Document

Border Pass
Other foreign
Thailand
Cambodia
countries
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
174,653
153,190
354,267
365,287
185,234
184,120
181,509
180,757
362,378
369,075
189,325
189,002
263,009
258,356
363,665
370,000
200,145
200,005
317,139
306,998
369,722
389,206
202,321
201,318
325,319
317,599
379,985
390,235
231,248
232,143
252,877
241,029
380,256
391.048
250,025
249,321
280,993
275,548
395,248
383,200
280,225
273,142
283,118
286,638
397,455
386,484
281,943
274,893
302,271
307,316
395,326
387,537
436,738
392,241
379,030
370,244
416,893
428,683
444,880
405,044
469,293
461,637
435,987
449,191
475,984
414,559
464,351
458,228
340,619
344,721
476,210
431,781
506,564
499,885
371,584
376,059
519,501
471,033
4,200,126
4,117,425
4,963,385
4,640,069
4,173,779
3,918,602
204
204
Temporary Border Pass

Only for Cambodian
Nationals
Entry
Exit
1,425,132
1,423,210
1,631,243
1,630,211
1,823,245
1,820,314
2,018,211
2,001,322
2,486,324
2,432,210
2,501,486
2,500,314
2,702,256
2,700,031
2,989,244
2,907,842
4,079,637
4,059,074
3,945,387
3,846,531
3,959,146
3,888,650
3,274,775
3,263,833
3,572,481
3,560,545
36,408,567
36,034,087
Total
CrossBorder
Movement
(Person)
4,899,271
5,776,456
7,078,753
7,539,627
8,839,962
8,943,543
9,977,845
10,668,761
13,411,089
13,194,381
13,760,703
12,014,823
13,077,745
129,182,959
Average All
Nationalities
Movements
/Day
13,296
15,694
19,259
20,657
24,219
24,503
27,337
29,229
36,743
36,149
37,701
32,917
35,829
27,195
Table 11.5 Cross-Border Region 2: Cross-Border People Mobility between Mukdahan Border Checkpoint in Thailand and
Savannakhet Border Checkpoint in Lao PDR during 2002-2014
Year
Thailand
Entry
Exit
Type of Official Travel Document

Passport
Border Pass
Lao PDR
Other Countries
Thailand
Lao PDR
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
205
2002
5,202
5,550
14,614
2003
5,822
5,668
17,750
2004
10,423
12,394
18,726
2005
31,392
27,338
30,034
2006
58,836
55,071
49,325
2007
117,037
122,329
72,521
2008
141,226
138,007
113,125
2009
212,190
216,522
117,476
2010
199,468
200,884
155,184
2011
255,787
251,805
179,083
2012
252,159
254,811
204,450
2013
183,733
185,625
232,819
2014
209,016
208,556
245,357
Total
1,682,291
1,684,560
1,450,464
Source: Mukdahan Immigration Office, Thailand.
10,353
14,750
15,569
32,237
41,608
63,971
96,312
114,791
120,136
144,216
160,600
190,138
194,263
1,198,944
30,478
37,657
38,234
40,662
41,278
42,626
43,248
45,364
40,942
45,112
46,929
51,785
53,906
558,221
31,679
38,624
39,678
39,497
40,961
41,375
42,356
42,261
41,251
41,023
46,669
51,872
51,703
548,949
205
72,185
106,102
152,004
184,206
225,478
262,378
312,891
346,181
390,281
588,819
567,930
252,135
231,442
3,692,032
72,645
106,647
152,246
186,321
226,246
261,246
301,246
342,957
388,777
570,901
611,435
270,611
244,343
3,735,621
12,674
15,697
21,132
30,132
42,102
56,007
73,479
96,921
104,171
114,509
42,142
52,621
156,398
817,985
13,748
16,742
21,762
30,768
42,748
56,762
74,763
93,763
112,846
109,720
56,014
78,995
178,116
886,747
Total
CrossBorder
Movement
(Person)
269,128
365,459
482,168
632,587
823,653
1,096,252
1,336,653
1,628,426
1,753,940
2,300,975
2,243,139
1,550,334
1,773,100
16,255,814
Average All
Nationalities
Movements
/Day
737
1,001
1,321
1,733
2,257
3,003
3,662
4,467
4,811
6,310
6,152
4,253
4,863
3,428
Table 11.6 Cross-Border Region 3: Cross-Border People Mobility between Maesod Border Checkpoint in Thailand and
Myawaddy Border Checkpoint in Myanmar during 2002-2014
Year
206
Type of Cross-Border Official Travel Document

Passport
Border Pass
Thailand
Myanmar
Thailand
Myanmar
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
2002
164
190
3,119
3,196
10,431
10,431
269,413
264,281
2003
34
75
4,829
4,698
13,243
13,243
304,415
299,292
2004
43
32
6,801
6,679
16,457
16,457
340,444
335,429
2005
2,259
2,253
6,472
6,345
18,246
18,246
376,467
350,105
2006
351
299
7,398
7,400
20,376
20,376
412,570
355,207
2007
48
31
5,315
5,323
23,376
23,467
448,681
360,310
2008
40
20
6,591
6,595
26,748
26,748
484,670
365,511
2009
113
87
7,991
7,407
29,114
29,115
521,904
370,611
2010
9
9
71,171
87,508
26,001
26,000
485,455
365,483
2011
0
0
102,818
104,411
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
2012
28
59
188,288
158,192
35,774
35,772
398,481
370,329
2013
996
1,065
327,290
280,677
65,549
65,547
487,922
448,565
2014
3,002
2,970
408,494
381,678
105,854
105,854
721,049
687,458
Total
7,087
7,090
1,146,577
1,060,109
391,169
391,256
5,251,471
4,572,581
Source: Maesod Immigration Office, Thailand.
Note: *Myanmar unilaterally closed Myawaddy border checkpoint throughout the year 2011.
206
Total CrossBorder
Movement
(Person)
561,225
639,829
722,342
780,393
823,977
866,551
916,923
966,342
982,886
207,229
1,186,923
1,677,611
2,416,359
12,748,590
Average All
Nationalities
Movements
/Day
1,538
1,753
1,979
2,138
2,257
2,374
2,512
2,648
2,693
568
3,252
4,596
6,620
2,687
11.3 Cross-Border Vehicle Mobility

Border checkpoints also physically play vital role as gateways for facilitating vehicles
mobility, which has driven cross-border economic, social and tourism activities. During
2009-2014, there was a rapid intensity of local and regional cross-border vehicle mobility
across the study area of cross-border regions as well. The cumulative local and regional
cross-border movements of all types of automobile, excluding International Mekong river
boat in a cross-border region of Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, were as high as 3.66 million vehicles with varying
intensities of movements at 0.75 million vehicles, 1.18 million vehicles, and 1.92 million
vehicles in the cross-border regions of Aranyaprathet district in Thailand and OChrov
district in Cambodia; Maesod district in Thailand and Myawaddy district in Myanmar; and
Muang Mukdahan district in Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane in Lao PDR, respectively.
The common underlying factors contributing to this growth encompassed better
improvement of land transportation linkages, regional tourism cooperation schemes, and an
Initial Implementation of Cross-Border Transportation Agreement (IICBTA) in the Greater
Mekong Sub-region (GMS). The IICBTA implementation consisted of border checkpoints
between Aranyaprathet district in Sakaeo province of Thailand and Poipet city in OChrov
district in Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia (effective in 2012); between
Mukdahan province of Thailand and Savannakhet province of Lao PDR (effective in 2009)
and between Maesod district in Tak province of Thailand and Myawaddy district in Kayin
state of Myanmar, which was signed in 2009 but has not yet been implemented. The
additional specific factors to this growth comprised of regional tourism road transport
agreements between Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam, as well as the effects of an
agreement between Thailand and Cambodia under pilot ACMECS Single Visa effective
since December 16, 2010 (Ministry of Transport of Thailand, 2011). Hence, the trend of
intensity of cross-border vehicle mobility across the study area of cross-border regions is
likely to increase further. The assessment of cross-border vehicle mobility in a particular
cross-border region is described in the following sections.
11.3.1 Cross-Border Region 1 (between Aranyaprathet district of Thailand and
OChrov district of Cambodia)
During the last 6 years, the cumulative local and regional cross-border vehicle mobility
was as high as 0.75 million vehicles. The aggregate cross-border vehicle movements
through Aranyaprathet checkpoint steadily increased from 0.092 million vehicles in 2009
to 0.14 million vehicles in 2014. The annual average growth of cross-border vehicle
mobility was 13.30%. The average cross-border vehicle movements of both Thai and
Cambodian nationals slowly increased from 254 vehicles per day in 2009 to 400 vehicles
per day in 2014. Regarding distribution of cross-border vehicle movement by country,
movements of vehicles of Thai nationals contributed the highest share of 0.64 million
vehicles, accounted for 85.69% of accumulative cross-border vehicle movements. The
accumulative movements were divided into: (1) trucks at 0.62 million vehicles mainly for
cross-border logistics supporting cross-border trade activities, with annual average growth
of 9.67%; and (2) passenger cars at 0.21 million vehicles with annual average growth as
high as 54.78%. On the contrary, movements of vehicles of Cambodian nationals only had
passenger cars with a much lower share of 0.10 million vehicles. This figure accounted for
14.20% of accumulative cross-border vehicle movements, but its annual average growth
was exceptionally high at 186.09%. The details of cross-border vehicle mobility between
207
Aranyaprathet district in Sakaeo province of Thailand and OChrov district in Banteay

Meanchey province of Cambodia appear in Table 11.7.
11.3.2 Cross-Border Region 2 (between Mukdahan province of Thailand and
Savannakhet province of Lao PDR)
through Mukdahan checkpoint steadily increased from 0.20 million vehicles in 2009 to
0.44 million vehicles in 2014. The annual average growth of cross-border vehicle mobility
was 13.30%. The average cross-border vehicle movements of both Thai and Laotian
nationals significantly increased from 559 vehicles per day in 2009 to 1,219 vehicles per
day in 2014. In relation to distribution of cross-border vehicle movement by country, the
movements of vehicles of Laotian nationals contributed a larger share of 1.01 million
vehicles, accounted for 52.57% of accumulative cross-border vehicle movements. The
accumulative movements were divided into: (1) passenger cars as excessive as 0.93 million
vehicles with annual average growth of 22.93%; (2) international public buses at 0.48
million vehicles with annual average growth of 13.82%; and (3) trucks at 0.03 million
vehicles with annual average growth of 14.54%. On the other hand, movements of vehicles
of Thai nationals were slightly lower at 0.91 million vehicles, representing 47.42% of
cumulative vehicle movements. The accumulative movements were divided into: (1) trucks
as extraordinary as 0.35 million vehicles, mainly for cross-border logistics supporting
cross-border trade activities, with annual average growth of 8.56%; (2) passenger cars as
high as 0.51 million vehicles with annual average growth of 5.22%; and (3) international
public buses at 0.04 million vehicles with annual average growth of 10.13%.
As a result of better cross-border land transport connectivity, the aggregate cross-border
mobility of International Mekong river boats of both Thai and Laotian nationals, which
carried both passengers and freight, steadily decreased from 8,296 trips in 2009 to 6,640
trips in 2014. Likewise, the average cross-border mobility of International Mekong river
boats of both Thai and Laotian nationals slowly declined from 22 trips per day in 2009 to
18 trips per day in 2014. During the last 6 years, the accumulative number of boats of Thai
nationals crossing International Mekong river had higher share of 25,958 trips, which
accounted for 60.21% of accumulative cross-border movements of International Mekong
river boat. Moreover, the accumulative cross-border mobility of boats of Laotian nationals
crossing International Mekong River had a lower share of 17,148 trips, which represented
39.78% of accumulative cross-border movements of International Mekong river boat. The
details of cross-border vehicle mobility between Mukdahan province of Thailand and
Savannakhet province of Lao PDR is exhibited in Table 11.8.
11.3.3 Cross-Border Region 3 (between Maesod district of Thailand and Myawaddy
district of Myanmar)
through Maesod checkpoint significantly increased from 0.09 million vehicles in 2009 to
0.48 million vehicles in 2014. The annual average growth of cross-border vehicle mobility
was as high as 37.83%. The average cross-border vehicle movements of both Thai and
Burmese nationals steadily increased from 250 vehicles per day in 2009 to 1,333 vehicles
per day in 2014. Regarding distribution of cross-border vehicle movement by country,
movements of vehicles of Burmese nationals contributed a highest share of 0.79 million
vehicles, which accounted for 80.63% of accumulative cross-border vehicle movements.
208
The accumulative movements were divided into: (1) vans at 0.65 million vehicles mainly
for carrying passengers, with annual average growth of 55.69%; (2) passenger cars at 0.13
million vehicles with annual average growth of 32.87%; and (3) trucks at 0.02 million
vehicles, mainly for cross-border logistics supporting cross-border trade activities with
annual average growth of 22.56%. In contrast, Thai vehicle movements had much lower
share of 0.38 million vehicles, which accounted for 19.36% of accumulative cross-border
vehicle movements.
The accumulative movements were divided into: (1) trucks at 0.29 million vehicles mainly
for cross-border logistics supporting cross-border trade activities, with annual average
growth as high as 39.12%; (2) passenger cars at 0.08 million vehicles with annual average
growth of 46.51%; and (3) vans at 0.009 million vehicles mainly for carrying passengers,
with annual average growth of 26.14%. The somewhat low intensity of cross-border
movements of vehicles of Thai nationals might have resulted from Myanmars unilateral
restriction on passage of vehicles. This restriction was due to non-implementation of the
signed Initial Implementation of Cross-Border Transport Agreement (IICBTA) between
Thailand and Myanmar. The details of cross-border vehicle mobility between Maesod
district of Tak province in Thailand and Myawaddy district in Kayin state of Myanmar are
shown in Table 11.9.
209
Table 11.7 Cross-Border Region 1: Cross-Border Vehicle Mobility through Aranyaprathet Border Checkpoint in Thailand during
2009-2014
Year
Type of Vehicle
Passenger Car
Truck
Thailand
Cambodia
Thailand
Cambodia
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
2009
2,010
2,010
5,140
5,140
39,047
39,224
0
0
2010
1,200
1,200
3,536
3,536
43,362
43,751
0
0
2011
1,005
1,005
2,860
2,860
49,855
50,479
0
0
2012
4,567
4,567
33,537
33,537
57,691
57,994
0
0
2013
1,015
1,015
2,895
2,895
53,712
54,415
0
0
2014
1,102
1,102
5,374
5,374
66,047
66,885
0
0
Total
10,899
10,899 53,342
53,342
309,714
312,748
0
0
Source: Aranyaprathet Immigration Office, Thailand.
Total Vehicle Movement by Country

Thailand
Entry
Exit
41,057
41,234
44,562
44,951
50,860
51,484
62,258
62,561
54,727
55,430
67,149
67,987
320,613
323,647
Cambodia
Entry
Exit
5,140
5,140
3,536
3,536
2,860
2,860
33,537
33,537
2,895
2,895
5,374
5,374
53,342
53,342
Total
Vehicle
Movement
92,571
96,585
108,064
191,893
115,947
145,884
750,944
Average
Vehicle
Movements/
Day
254
265
296
526
318
400
343
210
Table 11.8 Cross-Border Region 2: Cross-Border Vehicle Mobility through Mukdahan Border Checkpoint in Thailand during
2009-2014
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Passenger Car
Thailand
Entry
Exit
34,922
36,303
39,202
42,910
42,726
44,621
44,304
44,935
42,368
44,090
46,872
48,734
250,394
261,593
Lao PDR
Entry
Exit
36,895
37,509
49,175
50,670
69,162
69,223
83,817
84,882
97,983
99,649
128,849
124,522
465,881
466,455
Type of Land Vehicle

Bus
Thailand
Lao PDR
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
2,706
2,706
2,376
2,376
4,296
4,296
4,296
4,296
4,596
4,598
4,368
4,368
4,452
4,452
4,452
4,452
4,368
4,368
4,368
4,368
4,349
4,349
4,349
4,349
24,767
24,769
24,209
24,209
Truck
Thailand
Entry
Exit
21,836
23,015
22,627
22,703
27,482
28,058
33,314
34,189
33,410
34,207
35,802
35,910
174,471
178,082
Source: Mukdahan Immigration Office, Thailand.
210
Lao PDR
Entry
Exit
1,778
1,441
2,903
1,796
2,910
2,265
3,398
2,987
3,487
2,808
3,554
3,240
18,030
14,537
Total Vehicle
Movement by Land by
Country
TH
Lao
121,488
82,375
136,034
113,137
152,028
152,289
165,646
183,987
162,811
212,663
176,016
268,863
914,023
1,013,314
International Mekong River Boat

Thailand
Entry
Exit
2,504
2,504
2,241
2,241
2,187
2,187
2,116
2,116
1,968
1,968
1,963
1,963
12,979
12,979
Lao PDR
Entry
Exit
1,644
1,644
1,480
1,480
1,374
1,374
1,383
1,383
1,336
1,336
1,357
1,357
8,574
8,574
Average
Vehicle
Movements
by
Land/Day
559
683
834
958
1,029
1,219
880
Table 11.9 Cross-Border Region 3: Cross-Border Vehicle Mobility through Maesod Border Checkpoint in Thailand during 2009-1014
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
Type of Vehicle
Passenger Car
Van
Truck
Thailand
Myanmar
Thailand
Myanmar
Thailand
Myanmar
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
8,500
8,500
6,800
6,800
1,000
1,000
14,508
14,508
13,688
13,689
1,000
1,000
4,300
4,300
5,000
5,000
400
400
21,100
21,100
13,561
13,562
1,500
1,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,350
3,350
10,000
10,000
450
450
56,271
56,271
15,407
15,407
2,000
2,000
11,001
11,001
17,500
17,500
1,200
1,200
89,552
89,552
45,273
45,273
2,900
2,900
13,500
13,500
26,000
26,000
1,800
1,800
145,907 145,908
58,044
58,044
3,100
3,100
40,651
40,651
65,300
65,300
4,850
4,850
327,338 327,339 145,973 145,975
10,500
10,500
Source: Maesod Immigration Office, Thailand.
Note: Myanmar unilaterally closed Myawaddy border checkpoint throughout the year 2011.
211
211
Total Vehicle Movement by Country

Thailand
Entry
Exit
23,188
23,189
18,261
18,262
0
0
19,207
19,207
57,474
57,474
73,344
73,344
191,474 191,476
Myanmar
Entry
Exit
22,508
22,508
28,000
28,000
0
0
68,271
68,271
109,952 109,952
170,007 170,008
398,738 398,739
Total
Vehicle
Move
ment
91,393
92,523
0
174,956
334,852
486,703
1,180,42
Average
Vehicle
Movement
/Day
250
253
0
479
917
1,333
497

This section presents the results of an assessment on important benefits gained at local and
regional scales in different cross-border regions.
11.4.1 Overview of Cross-Border Investment in the Form of Contract Farming
Since 2004, the Royal Thai Government has continuously encouraged Thai entrepreneurs
or traders to engage with counterpart farmers or entrepreneurs in neighboring countries of
CLM in growing agricultural commodities under contract farming. The targeted
agricultural commodities consisted of 10 farm plants and 3 energy crops. Among the
studied areas in Thailand, the local border SMEs entrepreneurs/investors in both Sakaeo
and Tak provinces get high advantages as they are native border residents, whereas, local
border SMEs entrepreneurs in Mukdahan province are limited. Instead, most of SMEs
entrepreneurs originate from across the Northeastern region of Thailand. Similarly, among
bordering provinces, small famers in both Banteay Meanchey and Battambong provinces
of Cambodia and Kayin state of Myanmar acquire greater benefits than counterpart small
farmers in Savannakhet province of Lao PDR. Nevertheless, the trend of the intensity of
cross-border contract farming across the studied cross-border regions is likely to expand.
11.4.2 Cross-Border People Mobility
cross-border people mobility across the studied cross-border regions. The cumulative local
and regional cross-border movements across the studied cross-border regions were as high
as 158.18 million people with varying intensities of movements at 129.18 million people,
16.25 million people, and 12.74 million people through cross-border region 1, cross-border
region 2, and cross-border region 3, respectively. These growths are substantiated by a
number of common underlying factors comprising of: better improvement of land
transportation linkages; bilateral labor cooperation; regional tourism cooperation schemes;
and presence of large border casinos in bordering countries. The factors also included
specific cross-border movement agreements between Thailand and neighboring countries
and an Initial Implementation of Cross-Border Transportation Agreement (IICBTA) in the
Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS), which connects border checkpoints between
Aranyaprathet district in Sakaeo province of Thailand with Poipet city in OChrov district
in Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia (effective in 2012); between Mukdahan
province of Thailand and Savannakhet province of Lao PDR (effective in 2009) and
between Maesod district in Tak province of Thailand and Myawaddy district in Kayin state
of Myanmar, which was signed in 2009 but not yet implemented due to bilateral political
reason. In addition, there are other specific factors that play a part in this growth of people
mobility between Thailand and neighboring countries including: regional tourism road
transport agreements between Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam; as well as the effect of an
agreement between Thailand and Cambodia under pilot ACMECS Single Visa effective
since December 16, 2010 (Ministry of Transport of Thailand, 2011). As a result, the trend
of intensity of cross-border people movement in the studied cross-border regions is likely
to proliferate.
11.4.3 Cross-Border Vehicle Mobility
212
in the studied cross-border regions as well. The cumulative local and regional cross-border
movements of all types of automobile, excluding the International Mekong river boat in a
cross-border region of Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR, were as high as 3.66 million vehicles with varying intensities of
movements at 0.75 million vehicles; 1.18 million vehicles; and 1.92 million vehicles in the
cross-border region 1; cross-border region 3; and cross-border region 2, respectively. The
common underlying factors contributing to this growth are similar to the above crossborder people mobility. Hence, the trend of cross-border vehicle mobility across the
studied cross-border regions is likely to intensify.
The findings are coherent with the study of Healey (2004) that the metaphor of flow can be
inserted into traditional essentialist geography of gravity-based traffic models. She
assumes that peoples movement in space is governed predominantly by proximity
principles. Additionally, it is evident that regional integration and agreements between
Thailand and bordering countries of Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar particularly the
ACMECS and Greater Mekong Sub-region development program in particular and the
ASEAN Community in general have been stimulating the countries towards closer
interdependence among them. The integration and agreements, coupled with greater
physical connectivity in the form of economic corridors, cross-border investment and
people movement facilitations, have rapidly increased the local and regional cross-border
flows of goods, people and vehicle mobility. Therefore, the border cities are important
gateways to capture these flows. The growth is somewhat similar to the European Union
integration process although it is moving in a slower pace. With the preceding key findings
and reflections, the hypothesis stating that cross-border trade regions are expected to gain
infrastructural, economic and service benefits at the regional scale due to production and
trading linkages is jointly supported.
213
CHAPTER 12
SUMMARY, CONCLUDION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter provides the summary, conclusion and recommendations on strategies for
integrated development of cross-border economic zones at both national and cross-border
region levels employing the relevant analysis and salient findings from the preceding
chapters.
12.1 Summary
The summaries of key findings from the preceding chapters are as follows:
12.1.1 Policy Analysis Favorable for Development of Special Border Economic Zones
in Thailand
Thailand adopts 5-year national development plan to guide development paths. Over 54
years of national development planning, spatial development policies are continually
evolving in line with national and sectoral development progress, which can be classified
into 4 distinct periods. Each period is characterized by specific spatial development
advancement. Currently, Thailand is under the fourth period (2002-2015) which is shifting
towards upholding rural-urban relations and development of special border economic
zones (SBEZs) along the Greater Mekong Economic Corridors in order to grasp the
potential of proliferating the regional cooperation and integration programs particularly for
the Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy (ACMECS), the
Greater Mekong Sub-region Economic Cooperation Program and the ASEAN Economic
Community to become integral part of the ASEAN Community.
The development of SBEZs in Thailand is intermittent due to political discontinuity. The
Thaksin Administration initially announced to promote the first SBEZs in both Chiang Rai
and Tak provinces since 2003. However, it encountered severe resistance from both local
authorities and general public who were aware of being profoundly displaced from their
local administration function by new local authorities under the proposed special border
economic zone law. This subsequently generated wide criticism on the pros and cons of the
SBEZ within the Thai society.As a result, the initiative to implement these two pilot
SBEZs was consequently sluggish for almost 8 years. As Thailand approached full entry
into the ASEAN Community by the end of 2015, the Abhisit Administration reapproved on
October 19, 2010 to develop Maesod district in Tak province as a pilot special border
economic zone. On March 22, 2011, a total budget of 14.04 million Baht was then
allocated to carry out a research for the formulation of development plan of Maesod
Special Border Economic Zone. In 2013, the Yingluck Administration renewed support for
the scheme by setting up a mechanism so called the Special Border Economic Zone
Development Policy Board. Subsequently, a strategic plan for promoting special border
economic zones was formulated in 2014 covering 5 regions across the country. The 5
regions are: 1) Northern border region comprising Maesai, Chaingsaen and Chaingkhong
districts in Chiang Rai province and Tak province; 2) Northeastern border region
consisting of Mukdahan, Nakhon Phanom and Nongkhai provinces; 3) Eastern border
region representing Sakaeo and Trad provinces; 4) Western border region comprising
Kanchanaburi province; and 5) Southern border region including Sadao district of Song
Khla province and Narathiwat province.
214
Presently, the Prayuth Administration promptly carries on hastening the implementation

process of these 10 SBEZs through favorably integrated development policies which are
(1) direct or explicit policies and (2) indirect or implicit policies. The direct or explicit
policies consist of special border economic zone development policies; international trade
and cross-border trade policies; customs facilitation policy; border investment and
industrial development policies; labor, public health and national security policies; and
national and cross-border transport and logistics policies. The indirect policies that aim to
indirectly sustain development of SBEZs include tourism and visa policies; international
relations, regional cooperation and official development assistance policies. These
integrated policies to some extent attract the keen interest of private investors to make real
investments in the designated SBEZs. However, there is a slight policy gap on labor
cooperation policy with bordering countries, which needs to be aligned to ensure effective
implementation of the SBEZs.
12.1.2 Cross-Border Trade Linkages and Comparative Advantages between Thailand
and Neighboring Countries
An overview of cross-border trade relations between Thailand and neighboring countries
including Cambodia, Lao PDR, Malaysia and Myanmar is analyzed using time series data
of 18 years from 1996-2013. Fostered by both geographical adjacency of structural
differences and other contributing factors, coupled with advancement of information
technology particularly the Internet and mobile phones, the pattern of local and regional
cross-border trade as well as cross-border transit trade have shown a rising trend depending
on comparative advantages. Thailand mainly exported consumer goods, oil products,
intermediate goods and machinery to neighboring countries. It imported natural gas,
electrical parts, parts and accessories of machinery, auto processors and resourcebased
products such as agricultural commodities, wood and aquatic products from neighboring
countries.
The cumulative value of formal cross-border trade between Thailand and neighboring
countries significantly reached 200.40 billion US$ with a share of 58.66% of total value of
international trade with neighboring countries. The cumulative share of cross-border export
to these neighbors was as high at 59.40%. On the other hand, the cumulative share of
cross-border import was 40.59%, contributed by Malaysia (56.15 %), Myanmar (35.39 %),
Lao PDR (6.82 %), and Cambodia (1.62 %). As a result, Thailand gained significant
cumulative balance of 37.69 billion US$ from cross-border trade. The annual average
growth of cross-border trade from 1996-2001 was 16.98% despite the fact that Thailand
had faced severe financial crisis during 1998-2001. During enforcement of AFTA from
2002-2013, it kept on increasing significantly to 22.47% per year. Above all, when the
specified AFTA tariffs became 0 % in 2010, Thailands annual cross-border trade growth
considerably increased to 32.08% compared with 2009. This growth could partly sustain
national macroeconomic stability. With the increasing trend of international trade of
Thailand, the intra-ASEAN trade and cross-border trade also gradually rose though the
proportion of share was low. Cross-border trade during 2008-2013 has reached a
significant level with sharing average of 30.77% of intra-ASEAN trade reflecting the
combined effects of bilateral and regional trade agreements and regional trade facilitation
initiatives.
Similarly, the share of cross-border trade to Thailands aggregate international trade with
the world significantly rose from 1.02% in 1996 to 6.48% in 2012 or equivalent to 7.67%
of Gross Domestic Product. Cross-border trade growth may somehow contribute to
215
regional development as both urban and rural people including the poor along border
regions between Thailand and neighboring countries can also benefit from trade, as well as
access the variety of products. This will result in better quality of life. However, crossborder traded goods are mainly produced in Bangkok and its vicinity like the eastern
region and regional growth centers. At present, the Thai border cities and towns play
distribution role. In addition, there is an existing informal or illegal cross-border trade
carried out by both local people and outsiders. There is no available data on the volume of
informal cross-border trade. However, its trend seems likely to decline because of tariff
reductions and continuing efforts to formalize cross-border trading.
Likewise, consolidated cross-border transit trade to Singapore, Vietnam and China is on
expanding trend. The patterns of cross-border trade between Thailand and neighboring
countries considerably varied from country to country, resulting from different stages of
development and diverse political and economic systems. Therefore, a number of common
and different bilateral cross-border trade problems still exist. The factors contributing to
the expanding cross-border trade included cross-border and regional infrastructure
linkages, bilateral and regional trade agreements, and regional trade facilitation initiatives.
12.1.3 Comparative Micro Level Analysis of Local Cross-Border Trade Flows of
Goods and Services
Cross-border trading is mostly undertaken by local border residents across the cross-border
regions. Most of the cross-border trader respondents across the regions are family based
businesses and mainly under the category of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
The duration of operation of the establishments across the regions is 11 to 13 years. Thai
goods are widely accepted among bordering countries. The cross-border exported
commodities across the Thai border districts are quite similar in pattern, mainly consisting
of consumer goods, intermediate and capital goods. On the other hand, the cross-border
imported commodities from bordering districts are mostly agricultural produces. There are
strong supply chain linkages between Thai border districts with Bangkok metropolis and
its vicinity and vice versa. At present, Thai border cities and towns mainly play distribution
role. Cross-border traders play important role in promoting cross-border supply chain
linkages. Thai goods hold a large market share at a varying range of 38% to 77% of total
traded commodities across the cross-border regions. Collectively, ASEAN goods hold high
market share in the range of 78.30% to 100% across the regions. Payment by cash is
widely adopted across the cross-border regions as matter of convenience. Cross-border
trader respondents across the bordering districts engaged a higher number of local labor
with 12 to 41 workers mainly for loading and unloading activities. In contrast, respondents
across Thai border districts employed a lower number of local and immigrant labor with a
range of 7 to 10 workers. Only respondents across the Thai border districts employed
immigrant labor at the range of 5 to 9 workers. The daily wage rates across the Thai border
districts are approximately 3 times higher than the counterpart study location of bordering
districts. Respondents across Thai border districts of Maesod (5.60%), Muang Mukdahan
(16.60%), and Aranyaprathet (22.70%) have performed cross-border transit trade with
Vietnam. Improvement of cross-border connectivity (e.g., roads and international river
bridges) facilitated cross-border trade. The respondents perceived that border banking and
Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) services across the border districts of
Thailand are noticeably well-organized than the counterpart bordering districts.
216
12.1.4 Local Border Wholesaling, Retailing and Cross-Border Shopping Activities
1) Local Border Wholesaling

Most of the border wholesaler respondents across the cross-border regions are family based
businesses and belong to SMEs category. The average duration of operation of the
establishments is 14 years. Respondents across the cross-border regions sell a wide range
of essential commodities. There are 3 types of cross-border supply chains in the crossborder regions. Respondents across the Thai border districts get goods mainly from
manufacturers in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity, whereas, respondents in the
bordering districts obtain goods mainly from cross-border wholesalers in Thailand. The
average number of labor employed in an establishment across the cross-border regions
significantly varies from 4 to 14 workers. On the other hand, the number of immigrant
labor employed in an establishment across the Thai border districts ranges from 6 to 8
workers. The average daily wage rate across the Thai border districts is 2 to 3 times higher
than the counterpart bordering districts.
2) Local Border Retailing
Border retailer respondents across 5 border districts are mainly informal retailers, except in
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, where 91% of respondents registered their
enterprises with taxpayer registrations. Respondents in 2 Thai border districts of
Aranyaprathet and Maesod have establishments with longer duration of operation of more
than 12 years. On the other hand, respondents in bordering districts of OChrov district of
Cambodia and Myawaddy district of Myanmar have establishments operating within the
last 6 to 7 years. While respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR have
establishments with longer duration of operation of 12 years, respondents in Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand have establishments with shorter duration of operation
(8 years). The respondents sell almost similar kinds of goods. Respondents across the
cross-border regions mainly procure goods from cross-border wholesalers, signifying the
existence of cross-border supply chain linkages. Most (30.30% to 69.20%) of the
respondents across the cross-border regions said that their goods originated from Thailand.
The number of immigrant labor employed by a retailer across Thai border districts varied
from 3 to 5 workers. The daily wage rate for immigrant labor across the Thai border
districts is 2 to 2.50 times higher than counterpart bordering districts.
3) Cross-Border Shopping
available products, and high quality standards of Thai products). Cross-border shopping is
also associated with cross-border tourism. There are more (53.30% to 62.20%) male crossborder shoppers among the respondents across Thai border districts. On the other hand,
respondents across the bordering districts have more (53.30% to 56.60%) female shoppers.
The average ages of respondents across Thai border districts range from 40 to 47 years old,
whereas, the average age of respondents across the bordering districts are much younger
ranging from 24 to 40 years old. Most (31.10% to 63.30%) of respondents across Thai
border districts originate from other neighboring provinces. Moreover, 43.30% and 82.30%
of respondents in the 2 bordering districts of OChrov in Cambodia and Myawaddy in
Myanmar, respectively, are local border residents. Also, slightly 4 fifth of respondents in
Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR originate from bordering Savannakhet province.
Thai cross-border shopper respondents who come from Muang Mukdahan (54.20%) and
Aranyaprathet (79.20%) districts shop at border duty free shops in bordering Kaysone
217
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and OChrov district of Cambodia. Three fifth of Thai
shopper respondents in Maesod district do shopping a wide range of Burmese products at
Rim Moei border market, which is located in Maesod district of Thailand. On the other
hand, 40% to 93.30% of cross-border shopper respondents across the bordering districts
mainly buy at leading modern border retail stores across Thai border districts (e.g., Tesco
Lotus and Big C, etc.).Thai shopper respondents in Muang Mukdahan (32.10 %) and
Aranyaprathet (56.60 %) districts purchase luxury goods (e.g., liquor and wine, which are
made in western countries) in counterpart bordering districts. Quite the reverse, more than
2 third of Thai shopper respondents in Maesod district buy fresh and dry sea aquatic
products in bordering Myawaddy district of Myanmar. In contrast, 50% to 59.40% of
cross-border shopper respondents across the bordering districts procure consumers goods.
Respondents across the bordering districts spend higher average amount per shopping.
Respondents across the bordering districts perform more frequent cross-border shopping
than those respondents across Thai border districts. Ranging from 40 % to 90 % of
respondents across the cross-border regions do cross-border shopping for their own
consumption.
12.1.5 Local and Regional Cross-Border Production Linkages
The number of border industrial developer respondents across Thai border districts who
have formal business registrations are more than counterpart respondents in the bordering
districts. Interestingly, respondents across the bordering districts gain greater investment
incentives from respective bordering governments than counterpart respondents across
Thai border districts. More respondents in Thai border districts have exogenous industries.
In contrast, more respondents in 2 bordering districts have endogenous industries.
Moreover, OChrov district of Cambodia hosts the highest (83.30%) number of
respondents having exogenous industries. Most of the respondents across Thai border
districts relocate to open new factories or services. Thai border districts have
establishments operating for more than 7 years. Bordering districts of other countries have
establishments operating recently, within the last 4 years. Investment capital significantly
varies across the cross-border regions. Respondents in Thai border districts are mostly
small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) with average capital investment of about 40
million Baht, which is much higher as compared to other districts of bordering regions
Myawaddy district of Myanmar and Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR. On the
contrary, remarkably 96.70% of respondents in OChrov district of Cambodia own
informal micro-enterprises with investment capital of just about 0.50 million Baht. The
manufactured products or service goods significantly vary across the cross-border regions.
Generally, the Thai border districts are more industrialized than the 2 bordering districts,
except in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, which is more industrialized than the
counterpart bordering Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand. Remarkably, major
productions are concentrated on items related to fashion industries in both Maesod district
of Thailand (specializing in high-end products) and OChrov district of Cambodia
(specializing in low-end products). Outstandingly, four fifth of respondents in Maesod
district of Thailand are manufacturers of fashion goods, of which two third of respondents
produce high-end wearable apparels and garments. About 10 percent of respondents make
textile products. As a result, Maesod district has become an important fashion cluster of
Thailand and has been connected with global community chains. Sources of labor
noticeably vary across the cross-border regions depending on national and international
division of labor. More respondents across Thai border districts employ semi-skilled
immigrant labor. On the contrary, respondents across bordering districts mainly engage
internal migrant labor. The cross-border movement patterns of immigrant labor
218
significantly vary across the cross-border regions. There is an existing international

division of immigrant labor by gender across Thai border districts. Respondents across
Thai border districts pay higher (1.6 to 3 times) wages to immigrant labor than counterpart
respondents in the bordering districts. A slightly higher number of respondents across Thai
border districts have local backward linkages than their counterparts in the bordering
districts. On the other hand, more respondents across the bordering districts have crossborder production linkage strategies than the counterpart respondents in Thai border
districts. Strikingly, there is an existing spatial division of labor reflected by almost 3
quarters of respondents in Maesod district of Thailand who have only domestically
outsourced productions. These establishments are Original Equipment Manufacturer
(OEM) from Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity. Regional and cross-border subcontracting linkages are significantly prevalent across the cross-border regions. There is an
existing cross-border market interdependence in the studied cross-border regions.
12.1.6 Local Cross-Border Interactions, Employment and Household Income
Ranging from 43% to 79% of respondents across the cross-border regions are largely
represented by women. Respondents (70.20% to 89.30%) across the cross-border regions
are already married. The respondents across the cross-border regions are of working age
with the average of 49 to 60 years old. Respondents across Thai border districts have
higher educational attainment than counterpart respondents in the bordering districts.
Therefore, the number of illiterate respondents across Thai border districts is very low
(2.60 % to 6.90 %). On the contrary, there is quite high illiteracy rate across the bordering
districts represented by 20 % to 32 % of respondents. The monthly household income
notably varies across the cross-border regions, depending on the distance from the city.
The nearer the residence is from the city center, the more income is generated. The
monthly household income across Thai border districts is generally higher (1.1 to 3 times)
than counterpart respondents in the bordering districts.
It is noticeable that a section of respondents across the cross-border regions are still facing
poverty incidence. Poor households mainly living in rural areas with monthly income less
than 3,000 Baht/month are most prevalent across the bordering districts. This is reflected
by 25.10 %, 33.30 %, and 42.70 % of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao
PDR, Myawaddy district of Myanmar, and OChrov district of Cambodia, respectively. On
the other hand, a lower number of respondents in the 2 Thai border districts of
Aranyaprathet (10.30 %) and Muang Mukdahan (21.80%) are found having household
poverty incidence. Similarly, rather poor households with monthly income ranging from
3,000 to 7,000 Baht are also reflected by higher number of respondents in bordering
districts of Kaysone Phomvihane (26.40 %) in Lao PDR, OChrov (39.80 %) in Cambodia
and Myawaddy (43.30 %) in Myanmar. In contrast, respondents in Thai border districts
revealed lower rate of rather poor border households as reflected by 2.60 %, 8.6 %, and 18
% of respondents in the districts of Maesod, Aranyaprathet, and Muang Mukdahan,
respectively. Respondents across the cross-border regions similarly have high burden of
monthly household expenses depending on varying zonal distances. This means
respondents residing at farther distances from the city will incur lesser monthly household
expenses.
Respondents across the bordering districts have more extended families than counterpart
respondents in Thai border districts. Respondents across Thai border districts have more
native residents compared to counterpart respondents in the bordering districts.
Respondents across Thai border districts have lower landless households than the
219
counterpart respondents across the bordering districts. Main sources of border household
incomes considerably vary across the cross-border regions. There are complementary
linkages of sources of household income between Thai border districts and the bordering
districts, particularly on labor and cross-border outsourcing activities. Respondents who
live in the cities across Thai border districts and in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao
PDR mostly engage in local trade and services, whereas, 45 % to 52.60 % of respondents
who reside in rural areas across Thai border districts, mainly involve in farming activities.
Moreover, respondents who live in cities in the 2 bordering districts of OChrov (33%) in
Cambodia and Myawaddy (36.70 %) in Myanmar mainly provide labor services for crossborder trade-related activities. On the contrary, 15.70 % to 30 % of respondents who live in
rural areas across the bordering districts involve in farming activities. Respondents across
Thai border districts reflect good practices of community development. The secondary
roads across Thai border districts are well developed and currently in better conditions than
the counterpart bordering districts. More respondents who are involved in agricultural
activities across Thai border districts are market-oriented farmers. After the opening of the
border during the last 5 years, respondents across the bordering districts gained greater
economic and social benefits than the counterpart respondents across Thai border districts.
12.1.7 Regional and Local Benefits at Different Cross-Border Regions
1) Overview of Cross-Border Investment in the Form of Contract Farming
Since 2004, the Royal Thai Government has continuously encouraged Thai entrepreneurs
or traders to engage with counterpart farmers or entrepreneurs in neighboring countries of
CLM in growing agricultural commodities under contract farming. The targeted
agricultural commodities consisted of 10 farm plants and 3 energy crops. Among the
respondents in the study areas in Thailand, the local border SMEs entrepreneurs/investors
in both Sakaeo and Tak provinces get more advantages as they are native border residents,
whereas, the local border SMEs entrepreneurs in Mukdahan province receive limited
benefits. Most of the SMEs entrepreneurs originate from across the Northeastern region of
Thailand. Similarly, among bordering provinces, small famers in both Banteay Meanchey
and Battambong provinces of Cambodia and Kayin state of Myanmar acquire greater
benefits than counterpart small farmers in Savannakhet province of Lao PDR.
Nevertheless, the trend of cross-border contract farming intensity across the studied crossborder regions is likely to expand.
2) Cross-Border People Mobility
cross-border people mobility across the studied cross-border regions. The cumulative local
and regional cross-border movements across the study cross-border regions were as high as
158.18 million people with varying intensities of movements at 129.18 million people,
16.25 million people, and 12.74 million people through cross-border region 1, cross-border
region 2, and cross-border region 3, respectively. These growths are substantiated by a
number of common underlying factors comprising of: better improvement of land
transportation linkages; bilateral labor cooperation; regional tourism cooperation schemes;
and presence of large border casinos in bordering countries. The factors also included
specific cross-border movement agreements between Thailand and neighboring countries
and an Initial Implementation of Cross-Border Transportation Agreement (IICBTA) in the
Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS), which connects border checkpoints between
220
Aranyaprathet district in Sakaeo province of Thailand with Poipet city in OChrov district
in Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia (effective in 2012); between Mukdahan
province of Thailand and Savannakhet province of Lao PDR (effective in 2009) and
between Maesod district in Tak province of Thailand and Myawaddy district in Kayin state
of Myanmar, which was signed in 2009 but not yet implemented due to bilateral political
reason. In addition, there are other specific factors which play a part of this growth of
people mobility between Thailand and neighboring countries. These factors include
regional tourism road transport agreements between Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam, as
well as the effect of an agreement between Thailand and Cambodia under pilot ACMECS
Single Visa effective since December 16, 2010 (Ministry of Transport of Thailand, 2011).
As a result, the trend of cross-border people movement intensity in the study cross-border
regions is likely to proliferate.
3) Cross-Border Vehicle Mobility
in the studied cross-border regions as well. The cumulative local and regional cross-border
movements of all types of automobile, excluding International Mekong river boat in a
cross-border region of Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand and Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR, were as high as 3.66 million vehicles with varying intensities of
movements at 0.75 million vehicles, 1.18 million vehicles, and 1.92 million vehicles in the
cross-border region 1, cross-border region 3, and cross-border region 2, respectively. The
common underlying factors contributing to this growth are similar to those factors that
increased cross-border people mobility. Hence, the trend of cross-border vehicle mobility
across the study cross-border regions is likely to intensify.
Based on summary of findings and reflections discussed in previous Chapters, a synthesis
has been made using SWOT Analyses for three cross-border regions and presented in
Table 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3.This has been used for deriving appropriate recommendations.
221
Table 12.1 SWOT Analysis of Aranyaprathet district of Sakaeo province in Thailand

Strengths
Weaknesses
The cross-border economic zone is located in key border nodes along
the Southern Economic Corridor.
A rapid increase of local and regional cross-border trade, particularly for
consumer, intermediate and capital goods, cross-border shopping, cross-border
mobility of people and vehicles.
Thai goods gain wide acceptance in Cambodia.
Thai Baht is a widely accepted currency in bordering cities.
Rong Klea Integrated Border Market plays crucial role in enhancing crossborder economy. Both local Thais and Cambodian nationals are freely able to
do businesses in this market.
There exists a long established SMEs entrepreneurship represented by more
than half of cross-border traders and border wholesalers who are local border
residents. Regarding retailing, 93.80% of respondents are informal Thai and
Cambodian border retailers. Large retail chain establishments are increasing.
Mode of payment for cross-border trade is mostly by cash.
60% of border industrial developers are long established
endogenous industries and 50% of industrial developers are MSMEs and family
businesses. The major industries are basic agro-industry, food and beverage,
handicraft and wearable apparels/garments.
Strong local industrial backward linkages are existing.
Employment of immigrant Cambodian labor is prevalent in all economic and
household sectors.
Border banking services are conveniently available.
77.40% of border households are native local residents.
Border households in Aranyaprathet district have 3 times higher average
monthly income than counterparts in bordering OChrov district of Cambodia.
Almost 90% of border households in Aranyaprathet district
have land ownerships.
There is a well-developed community road network.
Opportunities
Cross-border traded goods are mainly produced

in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity and the
eastern region of Thailand.
Border city of Aranyaprathet currently plays
major role as distribution center, while industrial
development along Aranyaprathet border region
has not progressed enough to capture the full
potential of this trade.
Traffic congestion at Aranyaprathet border
checkpoint affects trade flows.
Border industries are on decline due to
restriction by government policy for using
imported agricultural produce as input for border
production.
Employed migrant Cambodian labor adopted
step migration by working in Aranyaprathet
district for a while, then, mostly fleeing to
Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity due to wage
differences. This consequently causes disruption
to local border industries.
There is few cross-border industrial
linkages existing.
Border household income clearly varies with
distances from city center, which means, the
farther from the city center, the lesser income
generated. Border household poverty incidence is
rather low at 10.30% of respondents.
Approximately 63% of border households in
Aranyaprathet district gain low economic
benefits after the opening of the border during the
last 5 years.
Threats
Contributing factors to expansion of cross-border trade

include cross-border and regional infrastructure linkages, bilateral and regional
trade agreements, bilateral and regional investment agreements and regional
trade facilitation initiatives.
An Initial implementation of Cross-Border Transport Agreement at
Aranyaprathet border checkpoint (Thailand) and Poipet border checkpoint
(Cambodia) increases greater intensity of cross-border people and vehicle
mobility.
Access to abundant cheap immigrant labor from bordering Banteay Meanchey
province of Cambodia, which can help solve labor shortages in bordering
Aranyaprathet district of Thailand.
Potential market expansion of Thai products to bordering
Cambodian market.
Existence of Royal Thai Government integrated policies including
investment incentives to establish special border economic zones in
Aranyaprathet and surrounding districts could foster stronger cross-border
production linkages and outsourcing of productions with bordering OChrov
district of Cambodia.
Promising prospect for cross-border investment in the form
of contract farming from Sakaeo province to bordering Banteay Meanchey
province of Cambodia.
Being a strategic gateway for conducting cross-border transit trade to
Vietnam.
Source: Field surveys during 2000-2012.
222
Threats in Banteay Meanchey province of

Cambodia are as follows:
Frequent changes on applied customs tariffs
and Customs practices in Cambodia do not meet
international standard.
Limited authorized banks in Poipet border
city of Cambodia.
Border trade largely transact in informal
manner relying on mutual trust, which affect
confidence and diluting business environment
and trade expansion.
Complex and changing financial system,
irrelevant rules and regulations and money
transfer procedures in Cambodia affect crossborder trade environment.
Presence of several large border casinos in
bordering Poipet city might spoil both local and
regional Thai tourists to some extent causing
social impacts.
Table 12.2 SWOT Analysis of Muang Mukdahan district of Mukdahan province in Thailand
Strengths
Weaknesses
The cross-border economic zone is located in strategic border nodes along

the East-West Economic Corridor.
consumer, intermediate and capital goods, cross-border shopping, crossborder mobility of people and vehicles.
Thai goods gain wide acceptance in Lao PDR.
Thai Baht is widely an accepted currency in bordering cities.
There is an existing long established SMEs entrepreneurship represented
by more than half of cross-border traders and border wholesalers who are
local border residents and 66.60% of border traders are informal retailers.
Large retail chain establishments are increasing.
Also, 62.70% of border industrial developers are long established endogenous
industries and 70% of industrial developers are MSMEs and family
businesses. The major industries are construction materials, basic agroindustry, food and beverage, wood products and furniture.
Strong local industrial backward linkages are existing.
Rather established cross-border production linkages with bordering Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR.
Border entrepreneurs are mainly self-employed.
Border banking services are conveniently available.
63% of border households are native local residents.
Border households in Muang Mukdahan district have 1.1 times higher
average monthly income than counterparts in bordering Kaysone Phomvihane
district of Lao PDR. 85% of border households in Muang Mukdahan district
have land ownerships. 63% of border households are native local residents.
Cross-border traded goods are mainly

produced in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity
and the eastern region of Thailand. Border city of
Muang Mukdahan currently plays major role as
distribution center, while industrial development
along Muang Mukdahan border region has not
progressed enough to capture the full potential of
this trade.
Traffic congestion at Mukdahan border
Border industries are stagnant due to restriction
by government policy for using imported
agricultural produce as input for border production.
Employed migrant Laotian labor adopts step
migration by working in Muang Mukdahan district
for a while. Then, they mostly flee to Bangkok
metropolis and its vicinity due to wage differences.
It consequently causes disruption to border
industries.
Border household income clearly varies with
distances from city center, which means, the farther
from the city center, the lesser income generated.
Border household poverty incidence is rather high
at 21.80% of respondents.
Almost half of border households rely on farming.
Approximately 40 % of border households in
Muang Mukdahan district gain low economic
benefit after opening border during the last 5 years.
Opportunities
Threats
An Initial implementation of Cross-Border Transport Agreement at

Mukdahan border checkpoint (Thailand) and Savannakhet border checkpoint
(Lao PDR) increases greater intensity of cross-border people and vehicle
mobility.
Contributing factors to expansion of cross-border trade include cross-border
and regional infrastructure linkages, bilateral and regional trade agreements,
bilateral and regional investment agreements and regional trade facilitation
initiatives.
Access to abundant cheap immigrant labor from bordering Savannakhet
province of Lao PDR, which can help solve labor shortages in bordering
Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand.
Potential market expansion of Thai products to bordering Lao
PDR market. Existence of Royal Thai Governments integrated policies
including investment incentives to establish special border economic zones in
Muang Mukdahan and surrounding districts could foster stronger cross-border
production linkages and outsourcing of productions with bordering Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR.
Border industries could be expanded, particularly for agro-processing

industries using agricultural input for production from bordering Savannakhet
province. It is a promising prospect for cross-border investment in the form of
contract farming from Mukdahan province to bordering Savannakhet
province of Lao PDR.
Being a strategic gateway for conducting cross-border transit trade
to both Vietnam and Southern part of China.
Threats in Savannakhet province of Lao PDR are

as follows:
1% inter-provincial tax charge for goods
movements causes high cross-border trade costs.
High customs facilitation costs (e.g., over time
charges and high import tax) lead to illegally
organized trade.
Frequent changes on trade rules and regulations
(e.g., 20% tax charge for export of wood products,
etc.)
Low trade facilitation performance causes
delay for trade of perishable goods.
Trade law is not standardized across Lao PDR.
There is high cost of cross-border money transfer
in Lao PDR.
Imposing import quota on selected commodities
(e.g., cement, vegetable oil and steel, etc.)
Presence of a large border casino in bordering
Kaysone Phomvihane city may spoil both local and
regional Thai tourists to some extent causing social
impacts.
223
Table 12.3 SWOT Analysis of Maesod district of Tak province in Thailand

Strengths
The cross-border economic zone is located in strategic border nodes along the
East-West Economic Corridor.
consumer, intermediate and capital goods, cross-border shopping, cross-border mobility of
people and vehicles.
Thai goods gain wide acceptance in Myanmar.
Weaknesses
Cross-border traded goods are mainly
produced in Bangkok metropolis and its
vicinity and the eastern region of Thailand.
Border city of Maesod currently plays major
role as distribution center.
Traffic congestion at Maesod border
Thai Baht is a widely accepted currency in bordering cities.
Weak local backward linkages and cross Rim Moei Integrated Border Market play important role in boosting cross-border
economy. Both local Thais and Myanmar nationals are freely able to do businesses in this border production linkages.
Employed migrant Burmese labor adopts
market.
step migration by working in Maesod district
There is an existing long established SMEs entrepreneurship represented by half of
for a while, then, mostly fleeing to Bangkok
cross-border traders and border wholesalers who are local border residents. Regarding
metropolis and vicinity due to wage
retailing, 60% of traders are formal retailers and large retail chain establishments are
differences. It consequently causes serious
increasing. Border banking services are conveniently available.
disruption to local border industries.
Border household income clearly varies
Also, 40% of border industrial developers are long established endogenous industries and with distances from city center, which means,
most of industrial developers are MSMEs and family businesses. The key industries are
the farther from the city center, the lesser
wearable apparels, garments and textile leading Maesod district to become an important
income generated.
national production base for fashion industry, as well as fostering strong linkages with
Slightly more than half of border
global commodity chains.71% of border industries are either locally or domestically
Households rely on farming activities.
outsourced productions in the form of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) mainly
Approximately 20% of border households
from Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity. And 23% of border industries produced for their
in Maesod district gain nothing (in terms of
own brands.
economic or social benefits) after the opening
Border industries, trade and household sectors widely employed cheap migrant Burmese
of the border during the last 5 years. These
labor.
sort of households can be considered as the
55 % of border households are native local residents and with low border poverty
excluded group.
incidence.
Border households in Maesod district have almost 3 times higher average monthly
income than counterparts in bordering Myawaddy district of Myanmar.
Most of border households in Maesod district have land ownerships.
Opportunities
Threats
Contributing factors to expansion of cross-border trade include cross-border and regional Threats in Kayin state of Myanmar are as
follows:
infrastructure linkages, bilateral and regional trade agreements, bilateral and regional
Internal political uncertainty in Kayin state
investment agreements and regional trade facilitation initiatives.
affects cross-border trade environment.
Initial implementation of Cross-Border Transport Agreement at Maesod border
Unilateral closure of Myawaddy border
checkpoint and Myawaddy border checkpoint (Myanmar) increases greater intensity of
checkpoint since July 2010 until December
cross-border people and vehicle mobility.
2011 led to a loss of 80% of trade value per
Access to abundant cheap immigrant labor from bordering Kayin state of Myanmar,
month.
this can help solve labor shortages in bordering Maesod district of Thailand.
Frequent changes on applied customs
Promoting Maesod district as a strategic national fashion industry cluster.
tariffs and customs formalities at Myawaddy
Potential market expansion of Thai products to bordering Myanmar market.
border checkpoint do not comply with
Existence of Royal Thai Government integrated policies including
international standard.
investment incentives to establish special border economic zones in Maesod and
Lack of local and regional road
surrounding districts as pilot special border economic zones could foster stronger crossInfrastructure in Myanmar.
border production linkages and outsourcing of productions with bordering Myawaddy
Long importation process (2 days)
district of Myanmar.
Lack of decentralization of power to local
Border industries could be expanded, particularly for agro-processing
officials to issue ASEAN Integration System
industries using agricultural input for production from bordering Kayin state.
of Preferences (AISP) certificate.
Promising prospect for cross-border investment in the form of contract
Several channels for imported goods are
farming from Tak province to bordering Kayin state of Myanmar.
risky as they are located in minority group
Being a strategic gateway for conducting cross-border transit trade to both India and
strongholds, which are not authorized by
Bangladesh.
Burmese government.
Internal ceasefire agreement could sustain political stability in Myanmar.
Immigrant Burmese labor could carry
communicable diseases.
224
12.2 Conclusion
With the advent of ASEAN integration, cross-border regions have emerged as new growth
centers. Thailand, which is located in the mainland of greater Mekong sub-region,
possesses promising geo-economic and connectivity with bordering countries especially
through the realization of the Greater Mekong Sub-region Corridors, particularly the EastWest and Southern economic corridors. In order to grasp this potential, Thailand has
recently materialized to transform existing interdependent borderlands towards integrated
development of special border economic zones across the country. It has also planned to
foster supply chain and production linkages with counterpart border economic zones in less
developed neighboring countries. As a result, the overall national border economic zone
development policies and strategies in Thailand have been proposed. Also, a number of
development strategies for specific cross-border economic zones in Thailand consisting of
Aranyaprathet district of Sakaeo province, Muang Mukdahan district of Mukdahan
province, and Maesod district of Tak province have subsequently been recommended in
order to promote integrated borderlands development and cross-border regional
development with respective bordering districts of OChrov in Cambodia, Kaysone
Phomvihane in Lao PDR and Myawaddy in Myanmar.
The preceding chapters have already supported the three specific hypotheses of this
research. The findings of this research have both common and different features in
comparison with other empirical studies. Similar to the other empirical studies, the findings
of this research uphold the following specific hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: National and regional level policies and strategies are vital for border
economic zones in order to boost and catalyze respective national and regional
development.
This research coincided with the work of Houtum (2000) who identified trends within
geographical studies of the European Union Integration process. Houturns work
comprises three approaches, namely, flows and barriers, cross-border cooperation, and
people much similar in outlook with the development of border economic zones in
Thailand linking with border countries. This research also resembles well with the work of
Brunet Jailley (2005) who conceptualized the theory of borderlands studies. The work is
especially relevant to policy activities of multiple levels of governments in adjacent
borders. Likewise, such kind of policies on promotion of special border economic zones
and linkages with counterpart bordering countries are gradually evolving in Thailand.
Hypothesis 2: Locational advantage of border towns/cities with regional transport
networks is essential for fostering socio-economic and local area development.
This study also found that the cross-border regions are fast urbanizing. It corresponded
with the findings of Scott (2002) stating that border urban growth patterns reveal annual
growth rates averaging around 2.2 % for US border cities and 3.5 to 6 % for Mexican
border cities in the period between 1980 and 1990. The study discovered that the Thai
cross-border regions are fastly emerging towards new growth centers along the GMS
economic corridors. Likewise, Blatter (2004) stated that European developers describe
their cross-border regions as a place in the center of Europe and North Americans talk
about port of entry, corridors and gateways. Staudt et.al (2010) also found that a sprawling
transnational urban space along the U.S.-Mexico border has mushroomed into a
225
metropolitan region whose livelihoods depend on global manufacturing, cross-border

trade, and border control jobs.
Noticeably, raw materials and components for border industries and supplies for crossborder trade across the cross-border regions originated from Bangkok metropolis.
Therefore, the cross-border regions in three bordering countries of Cambodia, Lao PDR
and Myanmar are growth periphery of Bangkok metropolis. Similarly, Kratke (2002)
found that most Maquiladora establishments in the Mexican part of the border region is
being controlled by US firms, which are located outside the US-Mexican border region. A
fairly high proportion of the Maquiladoras are linked to the US firms in the Los Angeles
metropolitan area. Thus, parts of the Mexican border region are functioning as a growth
periphery of the Los Angeles conglomeration.
Hypothesis 3: Cross-border trade regions are expected to gain infrastructural, economic,
and service benefits at the regional scale due to production and trading linkages.
The AFTA integration process has driven closer economic and trade ties between Thailand
and bordering countries. This coincided with the findings of Scott (2002) stating that the
NAFTA integration process has steered economic interdependence between the US and
Mexican relations. It is evident that local and regional cross-border trade and the
development of the Maquiladora industry have fueled the growth of binational urban
economies. Spatial division of labor pattern is somewhat existent in some cross-border
regions. For example, Maesod district of Thailand is specialized in production of high-end
wearable apparel and connected with the global commodity chains. On the other hand,
OChrov district of Cambodia is specialized in production of low-end wearable apparels.
Likewise, Krtke (2002) found that the industrial regions of East Central Europe will
specialize in labor-intensive production, leaving the Western European industrial regions
to concentrate on more scientifically and technically advanced production. Bazaar
economy is prevalent across the studied cross-border regions and a large number of people
across the cross-border regions engage in cross-border trade. This study concurred with the
research findings of Krtke (1998) informing that border areas offer especially favorable
conditions for the expansion of a bazaar economy, which is based on export activity. The
marketplaces near the border are its spatial anchoring points. In some border areas in
Eastern Central Europe, cross-border trade has become the basis of economic life for more
than half the working population.
Cross-border shopping is based on geographical adjacency of structural differences. The
pattern of consumer expenditure by Thai residents in bordering districts and bordering
resident visitors to Thai border districts is rather asymmetric, partly due to different
consumption patterns and income. Thai shoppers spend lower average amount ranging
from 625 Baht to 1,878 Baht per shopping, while shoppers in bordering region expense
higher average amount ranging from 1,500 Baht to 4,607 Baht per shopping. Thai shoppers
tend to buy both expensive and cheaper goods such as liquor and wine, mushroom, herbal
medicines forest and sea aquatic products. Shoppers from bordering region are likely to
buy manufacturing goods and necessities such consumer goods, shoes, fashion purses,
ready-to-wear clothes, electric appliances, computer and parts, household goods, medicines
and medical apparatuses, food stuff, fruits and vegetables, chemical fertilizer and medical
services. Regarding consumption patterns, this study is found to be quite similar in
findings with a research conducted by Herzog (1991) on the case of US-Mexico crossborder shopping, though the income gaps between these countries may be different. In
Herzogs study, he mentioned that US consumers travel south to purchase prescription
226
drugs, bottled beverages, furniture, foods, arts and crafts, medical and dental services, car
repairs and entertainment. On the other hand, Mexican consumers travel north for
manufacturing goods such as clothing, electronic products, refrigerators, washing
machines, automobiles and auto parts, etc.
In relation to different features, most of the large-scale cross-border merchants across the
cross-border regions are formal traders under the category of SMEs. Male cross-border
traders are represented by 54.40% to 76.70% of respondents across the cross-border
regions. Thailand exports consumer, intermediate and capital goods to bordering countries
(Cambodia, Lao PDR, Malaysia and Myanmar) and imports agricultural commodities,
natural gas and capital goods from these bordering countries. In contrast, Afrika and
Ajumbo (2012) found that due to different stages of development, the small-scale informal
cross-border trade is a source of income to about 43% of Africas population and majority
of informal cross-border traders are women. According to the United Nations Development
Fund for Women (UNDFW), in the Southern African Development Community region,
women comprise about 70 percent of the informal cross-border traders. In the Western and
Central parts of Africa, women consist nearly 60 percent of informal traders. Traded goods
are not only agricultural commodities but also include small electronics, household
appliances, clothes, shoes and cosmetics, among others. Therefore, informal cross-border
trade can help alleviate poverty and enhance regional food security. The study found that
there is non-existent of cross-border institution across the studied cross-border regions.
Whereas, Blatter (2004) found that there are a variety of cross-border institutions in
European and North American border regions.
Three cross-border regions have grown disproportionately and it is more concentrated and
developed in Thailand territory as compared to others. This is due to locational advantages
and coupled with well-developed transport networks in Thailand and limitedly in the
counterparts. The regions have been gradually progressive taking advantage of existing
policy instruments of Thailand (both explicit and implicit policies). Due to infrastructural
development, industrial productions in fashion goods and trading linkages, the regions are
quite vibrant and offered employment and income opportunities to migrant labors from
bordering countries and more specifically to local people in the immediate districts. This
study has confirmed with the findings of other scholars in the context of cross-border
regions between Thailand and bordering countries. In addition to this, this has also
provided several implications not so much addressed by other scholars under similar
situation. Cross-border trade regions contributed for regional as well as local development.
In terms of theoretical knowledge, the findings together fits more or less with the theories
of comparative advantage by Richardo (1817), resource and trade theory by Ohlin (1933),
gravity model by Tinbergen (1962), home market effect by Krugman (1980), world system
theory by Wallerstein (1974), level of economic integration by Carbaugh (2009), model on
specific factors and income distribution by Krugman, Obstfeld and Melitz (2010), standard
model of trade by Obstfeld and Melitz (2010), spatial division of labor by Massey (1984),
cross-border regions by Perkmann and Sum (2002), paradigms of cross-border interactions by
Martinez (1994), types of cross-border cooperation based on different geographical scales of
cross-border linkages between regional economies by Krtke (2002), concept of border
economics by Fullerton (2003), central premises that determine the inter-urban hierarchy of
border space by Alegria (1989), dynamic and static comparative advantages of regions by
Krugman and Livas (1992), locational advantages by Hanson (1996), theory of borderland
studies by Brunet Jailley (2005), the determinants of open and closed borders by Boehmer and
227
Pena (2012), dynamic border interpretation framework by Haselsberger (2014), border as

resource by Sohn (2012), emergence of cross-border metropolitan region by Van Geenhuizen
and Ratti (2001) and concept of border industrialization by Pipkin and Samstad (2005).
12.3 Recommendations
There are several implications for planning of special border economic zones, including
policies and strategies in the context of national and regional development, for the
promotion of economic and sociocultural boundaries. Currently, the planning of special
border economic zones is mainly carried out by central governments. Therefore, it is
crucial to promote greater multilevel governance to link local, provincial, regional and
central government. SWOT analysis for the 3 locations have been attempted, with results
presented in Table 12.1, Table 12.2, and Table 12.3. Based on the results, a set of
recommendations have been made as outlined in the following sections.
12.3.1 National Development
The recommended policies and strategies for integrating development of border economic
zones into national development in Thailand are as follows:
1) Policies
Adopt the border economic zone concept as strategy for both promoting regional
economic development within Thailand, as well as fostering regional production networks
of Thailand with bordering cities along economic corridors in order to fully integrate with
the ASEAN Community and global economy.
Integrate the implementation of border economic zones with national security
policies and programs in order to advance towards integrated borderlands development
between Thailand and bordering countries.
Relocate less competitive industries which require labor-intensive production to
particular border economic zones, so that it can gain advantages of cross-border
cooperation, international and spatial division of labor between Thailand and bordering
countries.
Promote the use of Thai Baht as key currency for cross-border trade transactions
between Thailand and bordering countries. Furthermore, internationalize the Thai Baht
currency across the Greater Mekong Sub-region to help facilitate cross-border payment.
Set up an international institutional mechanism for administering integrated crossborder economic zones based on the concept of Two Countries-One Region. It should
then define clear physical boundary of the integrated cross-border economic zones between
Thailand and bordering countries. Within this region, cross-border movements of goods,
capital, people and vehicle could freely flow.
An array of aid for trade programs through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should
also be extended to bordering countries consisting of Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar,
in order to address common border development and management issues.
2) Strategies
Provide quality cross-border infrastructure linkages, as well as promote crossborder trade facilitation, investment and people movement. Also, negotiate and facilitate
cross-border transit trade with nearby countries (e.g., Vietnam, China, India and
Bangladesh, etc.).
Control and overcome the portion of illegal cross-border trades in order to bring
228
tradeable goods under the formal cross-border trade undertaking. This can suppress largescale import of low quality agricultural produce into Thailand and recover the loss of
revenue for both Thailand and bordering countries.
An inter-ministry coordination and integration mechanism is very much desired to
bring the responsible agencies and stakeholders associated with cross-border trade
promotion and facilitation and border industrial development. The key ministries are
Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Industry, Ministry of Finance, Thailand Immigration
Bureau, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, etc.
It is important to promote local direct investments in order to provide cross-border
logistics services competitive with multinational logistics providers. In addition, collective
efforts for nurturing entrepreneurship of all types of traders should be initiated by the
Ministry of Commerce and the Thai Chamber of Commerce.
Widely publicize the implementation of BEZs and grant investment privileges to
potential investors locally and internationally.
National institutional capacity building for BEZs should be promoted. As border
economic zone concept is newly adopted in Thailand, a wide range of capacity building
schemes should be provided by the Office of National Economic and Social Development
Board (NESDB) and other relevant agencies in order to efficiently deal with multifaceted
issues on SBEZ development.
Cross-border region institutions should be fostered in order to coordinate local
cross-border interactions.
3) Regulatory Measures
Create a new set of regulations favorable for cross-border trades and provide
independence from the existing broad regulations on international trade. This is because
cross-border trade between Thailand and neighboring countries is somewhat a different
track. Therefore, it is necessary to design such regulations in response to the changing
cross-border trade environment in the context of ASEAN Community and other regional
cooperation programs (e.g., ASEAN and China and ASEAN and India, etc.).
Allow daily cross-border movement of migrant labor from bordering countries to
work in the SBEZs.
12.3.2 Regional and Local Development
The SWOT Analysis method is employed to identify both internal and external factors
contributing towards development of cross-border economic zones. The internal factors
consisted of strengths and weaknesses internal to the specific cross-border economic zones,
while external factors are comprised of the opportunities and threats posed by the
environment external to the specific cross-border economic zones. Then, the results form a
basis leading to further formulate strategies for regional and local border economic zones
development and for further integration into cross-border regional development with
bordering countries. The SWOT analysis is divided into the internal and external factors
focusing on development prospect of the studied Thai border districts and potential
linkages with counterpart border districts in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar.
The internal factors attributed to Thai border districts comprised of (1) strengths including
locational border advantages, structure of cross-border economy, border entrepreneurships
and settlements; and (2) weaknesses encompassing internal problems or constraints
hindering progressive SBEZ development. The external factors affecting the Thai border
districts involved (1) opportunities for optimizing development potentials including
specific enabling national policies; rules and regulations; and regional agreements
229
conducive to development of special border economic zones; and (2) threats assessed from
hindering measures, rules and regulations in counterpart bordering districts of Cambodia,
Lao PDR and Myanmar, which could affect tangible implementation of special border
economic zones in counterpart border districts of Thailand. Subsequently, the results of the
above SWOT analysis are rationally employed as basis for recommendations on
corresponding regional and local development strategies and programs for further
integration into cross-border regional development with counterpart bordering districts as
follows:
1) Cross-Border Economic Zone 1: Aranyaprathet district of Sakaeo province in
Thailand Bordering with OChrov district in Banteay Meanchey province of
Cambodia
(1) Strategies
Place special emphasis on border endogenous MSMEs with strong local resource
endowments as priority industrial investments. This can be executed by clustering border
industrial development. It can help strengthen border industrial entrepreneurship, as well as
create sustainable employment opportunities to both local Thai nationals and to some
extent, the bordering Cambodian nationals. The domestically relocated SMEs and large
industries or foreign direct investments should be made eligible to investment incentives
rendered by the Royal Thai Government. If local border raw material is scarce, importing
from bordering OChrov district of Cambodia should be allowed with fast track
facilitation.
It is necessary to sustain local backward linkages, which should be initiated by the
Ministry of Industry and Federation of Industry through promotion of industrial production
clusters in line with the needs of respective countries and focusing on the interests of the
local communities. Cross-border outsourcing in specific industries from Aranyaprathet
district in Thailand to border OChrov district in Cambodia should be boosted in order to
promote cross-border supply chain linkages.
Continuously promote cross-border contract farming from Sakaeo province to
bordering Banteay Meanchey province of Cambodia to help uphold income generation and
poverty reduction along border areas. Additionally, imported agricultural produce can be
supplied as raw materials for local border industries.
Relax and revise regulations to make them favorable for cross-border trade
undertaking. Encourage establishment of associations for cross-border trade and logistics
in order coordinate cross-business transactions in an organized manner. The association
will be a platform for exchanging cross-border trade practices, problems and possible
solutions. This association will also liaise with concerned government agencies in
nurturing entrepreneurships and tackling constraints to cross-border trade. Likewise, it
should also promote collective participation of border community-based enterprises and
cooperatives to integrate into cross-border economy.
Innovate modern modes of cross-border payment to support cross-border trade
(e.g., internet banking and e-Commerce), which can help reduce cost, complexity, risk and
improve efficiency.
Expand market penetration to both bordering Banteay Meanchey province and
across Cambodia. In parallel, cross-border transit trade to Vietnam should be facilitated.
Promote Rong Klea Integrated Border Market as emerging center for distributing
goods within Thailand and across Cambodia.
Foster cross-border shopping as a means to generate and distribute income to local
border communities and Sakaeo province.
230
(2) Programs
Provide quality infrastructures in response to rapid urbanization and development
of border economic zone in Aranyaprathet district. This consists of (1) physical
infrastructure (e.g., truck terminal, distribution center, bridge, road and additional border
checkpoints) that will ease traffic congestions at the main entry point; (2) social
infrastructure involving school, hospital, public safety, Customs, Immigration and
Quarantine (CIQ) and urban planning; and (3) environmental infrastructure comprising of
solid waste disposal, waste water treatment and natural resource management, etc.
Deliver skills training in response to specific needs of both local Thai nationals and
bordering Cambodian labor.
Support cross-border shared utilization of social and economic infrastructures (e.g.,
skills training center, hospital and airport, etc.). This will help alleviate shortcomings, as
well as manage the efficient use of infrastructures.
Enhance inclusive border advancement through sustainable rural development in
order to alleviate poverty. Border food cooperatives should be promoted, taking advantage
of emerging local cross-border market. Furthermore, foster balanced urban-rural relations
in Aranyaprathet district in order to fully integrate into the cross-border, regional and
national economy.
(3) Projects
Render training for upgrading of local border wholesalers to become local crossborder traders.
Provide markets for local border retailing in order to create jobs for the interest of
local residents.
Legalize informal border retailing in order to effectively manage local border
economy, as well as generate revenue for local government.
(4) Regulatory Measures
Allow daily cross-border movement of migrant labor from bordering OChrov
district of Cambodia. This can help sustain production of border industries and trade based
on spatial division of labor between Thailand and Cambodia. Aranyaprathet Border
Economic Zone should be exempted from the regulated minimum daily wage. Instead,
floating wage rate for cross-border labor market should be adopted in order to attract
greater investments into Aranyaprathet Border Economic Zone.
2) Cross-Border Economic Zone 2: Muang Mukdahan district of Mukdahan province
in Thailand Bordering with Kaysone Phomvihane district of Savannakhet
province in Lao PDR
(1) Strategies
Place particular emphasis on border endogenous MSMEs with strong local resource
endowments as priority industrial investments. This can be executed by clustering border
industrial development. It can help to strengthen border industrial entrepreneurships, as
well as create sustainable employment opportunities to both local Thai nationals and to
some extent the bordering Laotian nationals. The domestically relocated SMEs and large
industries or foreign direct investments should be made eligible to investment incentives
rendered by the Royal Thai Government. If local border raw material is scarce, importing
from bordering Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR should be allowed with fast
track facilitation.
It is necessary to sustain local backward linkages, which should be initiated by the
231
Ministry of Industry and Federation of Industry through promotion of industrial production

clusters in line with the needs of respective countries and focusing on the interests of the
local border communities. Cross-border outsourcing in specific industries from Muang
Mukdahan district of Thailand to bordering Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR
should be enhanced in order to promote cross-border supply chain linkages.
Continuously support cross-border contract farming from Mukdahan province to
bordering Savannakhet province of Lao PDR to help uphold household income generation
and poverty reduction along border areas. Additionally, imported agricultural produce can
be supplied as raw materials for local border industries.
Relax and revise regulations to make them favorable for cross-border trade and
logistics pursuit. Encourage establishment of associations for cross-border trade and
logistics in order to coordinate cross-border business transactions in an organized manner.
The association will be a platform for exchanging cross-border trade and logistics
practices, problems and possible solutions. This association will also liaise with concerned
government agencies in nurturing entrepreneurships and tackling constraints to crossborder trade and logistics. Likewise, it should also promote collective participation of
border community-based enterprises and cooperatives to integrate into cross-border
economy.
Initiate innovative forms of cross-border payment to support cross-border trade
(e.g., internet banking and e-Commerce) which can help reduce cost, complexity, risk and
improve efficiency.
Increase market penetration to bordering Savannakhet province and across southern
and central regions of Lao PDR. In parallel, cross-border transit trade to Vietnam and
southern region of China should be facilitated.
Upgrade Indochina Border Market as emerging center for distributing goods both
within Thailand and across Lao PDR.
Promote cross-border shopping as a means to generate and distribute income to
local border communities and Mukdahan province.
(2) Programs
Provide or upgrade quality infrastructures in response to rapid urbanization in
Muang Mukdahan district. This consists of (1) physical infrastructure (e.g., truck terminal
and by-pass road) that will ease traffic congestion at the main border check point;
(2) social infrastructure involving school, skill training center, hospital, public safety,
Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) and urban planning; and (3) environmental
infrastructure comprising of solid waste disposal, waste water treatment and natural
resource management, etc.
Foster cross-border shared utilization of social and economic infrastructures (e.g.,
skills training center, hospital and airport, etc.). This will help alleviate shortcomings, as
well as manage efficient use of infrastructures.
Improve comprehensive borderlands growth through integrated rural development
in order to alleviate poverty. Border food cooperatives should be promoted, taking
advantage of the emerging local cross-border market. Also, foster balanced urban-rural
relations in Muang Mukdahan district in order to alleviate border poverty incidence, as
well as fully integrate into the cross-border, regional and national economy.
(3) Projects
232
local residents.
Allow daily cross-border movement of migrant labor from bordering Kaysone
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR. This can help sustain production of border industries and
trade based on spatial division of labor between Thailand and Lao PDR. Muang Mukdahan
Border Economic Zone should be exempted from regulated minimum daily wage. Instead,
floating wage rate in the cross-border labor market should be adopted in order to attract
greater investment into Mukdahan Border Economic Zone.
3) Cross-Border Economic Zone 3: Maesod district of Tak province in Thailand
Bordering with Myawaddy district in Kayin State of Myanmar
(1) Strategies
Place particular emphasis on endogenous border MSMEs for fashion industries
with strong local resource endowments, as priority industrial investments. Strive to
upgrade type of production from being Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) to
become Original Brand Manufacturer (OBM) with strong link in the global commodity
chain. This can be executed by clustering border industrial development, which can help
strengthen the border industrial entrepreneurships, as well as create sustainable
employment opportunities to both local Thai nationals and to some extent, the bordering
Burmese nationals. The domestically relocated SMEs and large industries or foreign direct
investments should be made eligible to investment incentives rendered by the Royal Thai
Government. If local border raw material is scarce, importing from bordering Myawaddy
district should be allowed with fast track facilitation in order to promote cross-border
supply chain linkages.
Promote research and development to local border fashion industries.
It is necessary to sustain local backward linkages focusing on the interests of the
local border communities. Cross-border outsourcing in specific industries from Maesod
district to bordering Myawaddy district should be enhanced.
Continuously promote cross-border contract farming from Tak province of
Thailand to bordering Kayin state of Myanmar to help uphold household income
generation and poverty reduction along border areas. Additionally, imported agricultural
produce can be supplied as raw materials for local border industries.
Encourage establishment of associations for cross-border trade and logistics in
order to coordinate cross-border business transactions in an organized manner. The
association will be a platform for exchanging cross-border trade and logistics practices,
problems and possible solutions. This association will also liaise with concerned
government agencies in nurturing entrepreneurships and tackling constraints to crossborder trade and logistics.
Relax and revise regulations to make them favorable to cross-border trade and
logistics. Likewise, collective participation of border community-based enterprises and
cooperatives should be promoted to integrate into the cross-border economy.
Introduce modern modes of cross-border payment to support cross-border trade
(e.g., internet banking and e-Commerce) which can help reduce cost, complexity, risk and
improve efficiency.
Expand market penetration to bordering Kayin state and across Myanmar. In
parallel, cross-border transit trade to India and Bangladesh should be facilitated.
233
Upgrade Rim Moei Border Market as emerging center for distributing goods both
within Thailand and across Lao PDR.
Promote cross-border shopping as a means to generate and distribute income to
local border communities and Tak province.
(2) Programs
Provide or upgrade quality infrastructures in response to rapid urbanization in
Maesod district. This consists of (1) physical infrastructure (e.g., truck terminal, bridge,
airport and by-pass road) that will ease traffic congestion at the main border checks point;
(2) social infrastructure involving school, skill training center, hospital, public safety,
Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) and urban planning; and (3) environmental
infrastructure comprising of solid waste disposal, waste water treatment, natural resource
management and disaster preparedness, etc.
Foster cross-border shared utilization of social and economic infrastructures (e.g.,
skill training, hospital and airport, etc.). This will help alleviate shortcomings, as well as
manage efficient use of infrastructures.
Enhance inclusive borderlands advancement through integrated and sustainable
rural development in order to alleviate poverty. Promote establishment of border food
cooperatives by grasping advantage of emerging local cross-border market. Moreover,
foster balanced urban-rural relations in Maesod district in order to fully integrate into the
cross-border, regional and national economy.
(3) Projects
local residents.
Arrange daily cross-border movement of migrant labor from bordering Myawaddy
district of Myanmar. This can help sustain production of border industries and trade based
on spatial division of labor between Thailand and Myanmar. Maesod Border Economic
Zone should be exempted from regulated minimum daily wage. Instead, floating wage rate
in the cross-border labor market should be adopted in order to attract greater investments
into Maesod Border Economic Zone.
234
REFERENCES
Afrika, J. and Ajumbo, G.(2012). Informal Cross Border Trade in Africa
: Implications and Policy Recommendations. Africa Economic Brief, Volume 3, Issue
10, November 2012.African Development Bank.
Alegria, T. (1989). La Ciudad y los Procesos Trasfronterizos Entre Mexicoy Estados
Unidos. Frontera Norte, 1: 5390.
Akom. (2009).Casinos in Bordering Cities Surrounded Thailand. Retrieved from
http://www.oknation.net/blog/akom /2009/06/11/entry-1.on September 1, 2015.
ASEAN Secretariat. (2007). Fact Sheet of the Singapore-Kunming Railway Link
Project. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
ASEAN Secretariat.(2008). ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA): An Update. Retrieved from
http://www.asean.org/communities/asean-economic-community/item/asean-free-tradearea-afta-an-update, on March 15, 2008).
ASEAN Secretariat. (2009). Implementing the Roadmap for an ASEAN Community 2015.
Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
ASEAN Secretariat. (2010). Fact Sheet of ASEAN Comprehensive Investment
Agreement, Second Edition, Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
Asian Development Bank. (2005). Greater Mekong Sub-region Biodiversity Conservation
Initiative: Strategic Framework and Technical Assessment 2005-2014, Manila: ADB.
Asian Development Bank. (2007). Key Development Indicators 2007: Inequality in
Asia, Manila: ADB.
Asian Development Bank. (2007). GMS Transport Sector Strategy, Coast to Coast and
Mountain to Sea: Towards Integrated Mekong Transport Systems, Manila: ADB.
Asian Development Bank. (2007). Mid-Term Review of the 10-Year GMS Strategic
Framework (2002-2012), Manila: ADB.
Asian Development Bank Institute and Asian Development Bank. (2011). Asias Free
Trade Agreements: How Is Business Responding?, Edited by Masahiro Kawai and
Ganeshan Wignaraja. Manila: ADB.
Asian Development Research Forum Secretariat. (2005). Regional Production
Networks and Implications for Trade and Investment Policies and Regional
Cooperation in East Asia, Thailand Research Fund, Bangkok.
Aung, W.S. (2010).The Role of Cross-Border Trade in Myanmar. Institute for Security and
Development Policy. Sweden.
Bangkok Post of Thailand.2015.Industrial Inaction. published on 17 August 2015.
235
Blatter, J.(2004).From Spaces of Place to Spaces of Flows? Territorial and Functional

Governance in Cross-border Regions in Europe and North America. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Volume 28.3, 530-548.
Brannon, J., James, D., & Lucker, G. (1994). Generating and Sustaining Backward
Linkages between Maquiladoras and Local Suppliers in Northern Mexico, World
Development, Vol.22, No. 12, 1933-1945.
Boehmer.C.R. & Pena.S. (2012) the Determinants of Open and Closed Borders. Journal
of Borderlands Studies, 27:3,273-285.
Brouthers, L.E., McCray, J.P., & Wikinson, T.J. (1999).Maquiladoras: Entrepreneurial
Experimentation to Global Competitiveness, Business Horizons, March-April, 37-44.
Brunet Jailley.E. (2005).Theorizing Borders: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Geopolitics,
10:633-649.
Carbaugh, R.J.(2009). International Economics, 12th Edition, South-Western Cengage
Learning, USA.
Chalamwong, Y., Jitsuchon, S., Chandueiwit, W. & Latthaphipat, D. (2013).Impacts of
Policy on Minimum Daily Wage Rate at 300 Baht per Day and Bachelor Degree Holder
Starting Monthly Salary at 15,000 Baht. Thailand Development Research Institute.
Retrieved from http://tdri.or.th/tdri-insight/labour300/, on April 10, 2012.
Chandoevwit, W., Chalamwong, Y., & Paitoonpong, S. (2005). Thailands Cross Border
Economy: A Case Study of Sa Kaeo and Chiang Rai, Cambodia Development
Research Institute (CDRI).
Czinkota, M.R. & Ronkainen, I.A. (1993).International Marketing.3rd Edition. Fort
Worth, TX: Dryden Press.
Crawford, J.N, & Fiorentino, R.V. (2005).Discussion Paper No.8: The Changing
Landscape of Regional Trade Agreements. Geneva: World Trade Organization
Secretariat.
Daily Newspaper of Thailand. (2010). Operation Problems of Rong Klea Border Market.
Published on November 18, 2010.
Department of ASEAN Affairs. (2008). ASEAN Free Trade Area: AFTA, Retrieved from
http://www.mfa.go.th/internet/document/620.doc, on June 15, 2008.
Department of Customs of Thailand. (2012). Lists of Major Cross-Border Exported and
Imported Commodities. Retrieved from http://www.customs.go.th/wps/wcm/connect/
Library+cus501th/InternetTH/11/, on March 18, 2012.
Department of Customs of Thailand. (2012). Lists of Informal Cross-Border Trade of
Goods. Retrieved from http://www.customs.go.th/wps/wcm/jsp/home/index.jsp, on
April 15, 2012.
236
Department of Foreign Trade of Thailand.(2009).Thailands ASEAN Hub Strategies.

Retrieved from http://www.dft.go.th/level4Frame.asp?sPage=the_files/$$59/level3/
StrategyASEANHub.pdf&level3=1104, on March 6, 2009.
Department of Foreign Trade of Thailand. (2011). Definition of Cross-Border Trade.
Retrieved from http://bts.dft.go.th/btsc/index.php/aboutus/define/bordertrade, on April
14, 2011.
Department of Foreign Trade of Thailand. (2012). Statistics of Cross-Border Transit
Trade. Retrieved from http://www.dft.moc.go.th/level3.asp?level2=110, on April 25,
2012.
Department of Highways. (2011).International Road Networks. Retrieved from
http://www.doh.go.th/content.aspx?c_id=26&sc_id=90, on May 10, 2011.
Department of Local Administration of Thailand. (2015).Thailands Borderlands with
Neighboring Countries. Retrieved from http://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations
/thailand/
documents/thailande_eucoop/
migration_management/3_4current_
migration_ challengers_in_hailand_th.pdf, on September 1, 2015.
Department of Trade Negotiations. (2000).Trade Agreement between the Governments of
The Kingdom of Thailand and the Government of Malaysia, Retrieved from
http://www.dtn.moc.go.th/dtn/cms/doc_ comment.php?ref_id=3083, on June 15, 2008.
Department of Trade Negotiations.(2012). Progress of BIMSTEC Free Trade Area,
Retrieved from http://www.thaifta.com/ThaiFTA/Portals/0/ftaapr54_bim.pdf, on
April 25, 2012.
Frobel, F., Heinrichs, J. & Kreye, O.(1980).The New International Division of
Labor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fullerton, T. (2003). Recent Trends in Border Economics. Social Science Journal, 40, 583592.
Gereffi, G., Korenniewicz, M. & Korenniewicz, R.P.(1994).Introduction: Global
Commodity Chains. In G. Gereffi and M.Korenniewicz. (eds.), Commodity Chains
and Global Capitalism. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1-14.
Hanson, G.H.(1996).Economic Integration, Interindustry Trade and Frontier
Regions. European Economic Review, 40:941-949.
Hanson, G. H. & Chong, X. (2004). The Home Market Effect and Bilateral Trade
Patterns. American Economic Review, 94, No. 4: 110829.
Harvey, D. (2005).Hettner-Lectures on Notes Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical
Development. Franz Steiner Verlag, 55-89.
Healey, P. (2004).The Treatment of Space and Place in the New Strategic Spatial Planning
in Europe. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Volume 28.1, 4567.
237
Haselsberger, B. (2014).Decoding Borders. Appreciating Border Impacts on Space and

People. Planning Theory & Practice, Vol.15.No 4:505-526.
Hatch, W. & Yamamura, K. (1996).Asia in Japans Embrace: Building a Regional
Production Alliance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herzog, L.A. (1991).Cross-National Urban Structure in the Era of Global Cities: the USMexico Transfrontier Metropolis. Urban Studies, 28,519-533.
Houtum.H.V. (2000).An Overview of European Geographical Research on Borders and
Border Regions. Journal of Borderlands Studies, Vol.XV, No.1, Spring.
Iskandar Malaysia Authority.(2011).Profile of Iskandar Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://www.iskandarmalaysia.com.my/, on May 2, 2011.
Jessop, B. (2002).The Political Economy of Scale, in Perkmann, M. & Ling Sum, N.
(Eds.), Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border Regions (pp.25-49). New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kasikorn Research Center. (2006). The Indochina Economic Trend for the Year 2007, 12th
year, Volume 1937, Released on 29 December 2006, Bangkok.
Kim, Y.U. & Koo, H.K. (1997).AsiaPacific Region in Changing Global Economy.
Human Systems Management, 16:285-291.
Krtke, S. (2002). Cross-Border Cooperation and Regional Development in GermanPolish Border Area, in Perkmann, M. & Ling Sum, N. (Eds.), Globalization,
Regionalization and Cross-Border Regions (pp.125-147). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Krongkaew, M. (2004).The Development of the Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS): Real
Promise or False Hope?, Journal of Asian Economics, 15, 977-998.
Krugman, P. R. (1980). Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of
Trade. American Economic Review, 70: 9509.
Krugman, P.R. & Livas, R. (1992).Trade Policy and the Third World Metropolis.
Working Paper, 4238.
Krugman, P. R., Maurice, O. & Marc, M. eds. (2010). International Economics: Theory
and Policy. 9th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Krungthep Dhurakit Newspaper of Thailand. (2016). Office of the National Economic and
Social Development Board Promotes Special Economic Zones to Uphold ASEAN
Economic Community. published on 12 January 2016.
Manager Online of Thailand. (2008). A Research Paper on Factors Influencing Southern
Thai People to Find Jobs in Malaysia. Bangkok.
Manager Weekly of Thailand. (2010).Status of Immigrant Labor and Public Health in
238
Thailand.2ndYear, Volume 95 (23/1242).Published on September 20-26, 2010.

Massey, D.(1984).Spatial Divisions of Labour: Social Structures and the Geography of
Production. New York: Methuen.
Matichon Newspaper of Thailand. (2010).The Trend of Thai Tourists Cross-Border to Play
Casinos in Neighboring Cities. Published on May 10, 2010.
Martinez, O.J. (1994). The Dynamics of Border Interaction: New Approaches to Border
Analysis. In Global Boundaries, World Boundaries, ed. Clive H. Schofield, Vol. 1,
115. London: Routledge.
Ministry of Commerce of Thailand. (2005). Summary Report of Workshop for Adjusting
Trade-Related Organizations under Ministry of Commerce, Bangkok.
Ministry of Commerce of Thailand. (2006).Contract Farming Investment Plan for the Year
2006-2007.Retrieved frompcoc.moc.go.th/.../42/.../%20%20CF.d. on June 26,
2015.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand. (2008). Agreement between the Government of
the Kingdom of Thailand and the Government of the Union of Myanmar for the
Promotion and Protection of Investments, Retrieved from http://www.mfa.go.th/web/
989.php, on June 14, 2008.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand. (2008). The Economic Cooperation Strategy Plan
of Action. Bangkok. Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand. (2011). Progress of Economic Cooperation
Policies With Neighboring Countries. Retrieved from http://www.mfa.go.th/main/th
/policy/2751, on May 15, 2011.
Ministry of Labor of Thailand. (2006). A Labor Master Plan for the Years 2007-2011,
Bangkok. Ministry of Labor.
Ministry of Tourism and Sports of Thailand. (2008). Tourism and Sports Strategies for the
Years 2008-2011, Bangkok. Ministry of Tourism and Sports.
Ministry of Transport of Thailand. (2011). Thailands Regional Transport Agreements.
Retrieved from http://vigportal.mot.go.th, on March 15, 2011.
Murshid, K. (2005). From Cross Border Trade to Regional Integration: The Cross Border
Economies of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam.Cambodia Development
Resource Institute.Phnom Penh.
Niebuhr, A. & Stiller, S. (2002).Integration Effects in Border Regions-A Survey of
Economic Theory and Empirical Studies. Hamburgisches Welt-Wirtschafts-Archiv
(HWWA) Discussion Paper. Hamburg: Hamburg Institute of International Economics.
Neighboring Countries Economic Development Cooperation Agency (NEDA) of
Thailand. (2009).Annual Report 2009.Bangkok.NEDA.
239
Neighboring Countries Economic Development Cooperation Agency of Thailand.

(2011).Annual Report 2011. Bangkok: NEDA.
Newman, D. (2003).On Borders and Power: A Theoretical Framework. Journal of
Borderlands Studies, 18.1, 13-25.
Office of Board of Investment (BOI) of Thailand. (2004).Thailands Outward Direct
Investment Strategies. Retrieved from http://www.thaiset.com/thaiset/ news/270147/
new01.htm, on June 10, 2008.
Office of Board of Investment of Thailand. (2009).Thailands Outward Direct Investments
in Neighboring Countries. Bangkok: BOI.
Office of Board of Investment (BOI) of Thailand. (2013). 5-Year Investment Promotion
Strategies (20132017). Bangkok: BOI.
Office of Board of Investment of Thailand.2015. Handbook for Investing in the Special
Economic Zones. BOI: Bangkok.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) of Thailand.
No year of publication. Development of Special Border Economic Zone in Tak
Province, (in Thai language), Bangkok: NESDB.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand. (1998).
Direction for Border Areas Economic Development. Bangkok: Bophit Printing.
Economic Dam, Bangkok: NESDB.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand and Asian
Development Bank. (2005). Planning for Sustainable Urbanization in Thailand
Project: Towards Sustainable Urban Development, Prepared by Douglas Webster,
Bangkok: NESDB.
Progress Report on Establishment of Special Border Economic Zone in Chiang Rai
Province, in Thai Language).Bangkok: NESDB.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand. (2006). Final
Report on Feasibility Study on the Establishment of Special Border Economic Zone in
Sadao District, Song Khla Province Linking with Bukit Kayu Hitam, Kedah State of
Malaysia, Prepared by Chula Unisearch. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand. (2007). State
of Infrastructure Development in Thailand (in Thai Language), Unpublished.
Regional Development Strategies Framework. Bangkok: NESDB.
240
Poverty Assessment Report 2007, Prepared by Office of Database Development and

Social Indicators, Bangkok: NESDB.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand.
(2009).Directions for Driving Integrated Aging Development Strategies. Bangkok:
NESDB.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand. (2010). Data
on Gross Regional Products and Gross Provincial Products during 1981-2009,
Bangkok: NESDB.
Customs Operations 24 Hours at Cross-Border Check Points across Thailand,
Bangkok: NESDB.
Border Economic Zones: Development of Thai Economy Along With Neighboring
Countries. Journal of Economic and Social Development 50, No. 3: 812.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand.2016.Special
Economic Zones in Thailand. retrieved from www.nesdb.go.th, on 15 November 2015.
Ohlin, B. (1933). Interregional and International Trade. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Pea, S. (2005).Cross-Border Planning, What Is It? Implication for the U.S.-Mexico
Border.Aesop,Vienna:1-10.
Perkmann, M. & Sum, N-L, eds. (2002). Globalization, Regionalization and CrossBorder Regions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pick, J.B., Viswanathan, N. & Hettrick, J. (2001). The U.S.-Mexican Borderlands Region:
A Binational Spatial Analysis, The Social Science Journal, 38,567-595.
Paitoonpong, S. (2006).Thailands Cross-Border Trade in the Greater Mekong Subregion: Some Issues Never Solved. TDRI Quarterly Review, 21, No 1:11-19.
Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United
Nations Secretariat. (2008).World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision and World
Urbanization Prospects. Retrieved from http://esa.un.org/unpp, on June 13, 2008.
Prachachat Dhurakit Newspaper of Thailand.(2015).Revealed 6 Special Economic Zones
with Land Leases and Investment Incentives. published on 19 March 2015.
Prachachat Dhurakit Newspaper of Thailand.(2016).Royal Thai Cabinet Will Enact Special
Economic Zones Act. published on 3 March 2016.
Post Today Newspaper of Thailand.(2015).Speed up Developing Special Economic Zones
for Attracting Investments. published on 17 April 2015.
241
Post Today Newspaper of Thailand.(2015).Allocated Budget for Developing Special

Economic Zones. published on 5 September 2015.
Post Today Newspaper of Thailand.(2016).Increase Land for Special Economic Zones to
12,000 Rais. published on 19 January 2016.
Prince of Song Khla University. (2002).Border Trades between Thailand and Malaysia.
Song Khla: Prince of Song Khla University.
Ratmanee, C., Bangon, T., Pornchai, M., Soonthorn, T., Chatchai, B. & Jiraporn, R.
(2004).Illegal Migrant Labor and Problems on National Security, Public Health,
Society and Economy. Bangkok: Office of the Senator.
Reardon, J., Kling, N.D., McCorkle, D.E. & Miller, C. (2002). The Formation of
Regional Trade Blocs: a Theoretical Perspectives Using Game Theory. American
Business Review, 20, No.1:91-99.
Royal Thai Government.(2008). Statement of Government Policies. Retrieved from
http://www.thaigov.go.th, on June 15, 2008.
Royal Thai Government.(2009). Royal Thai Government Administration Plan for the
Years 2009-2011. Retrieved from http://www.nesdb.go.th, on March 17, 2009.
Samstad, J.G. & Pipkin, S. (2005).Bringing the Firm Back In: Local Decision Making and
Human Capital Development in Mexicos Maquiladora Sector, World Development,
Vol.33, No.5, 805-822.
Santangelo, G.D. (2009). MNCs and Linkages Creation: Evidence from a Peripheral Area.
Journal of World Business, 44, 192-205.
Sargent, J. & Mattews, L. (2003).Boom and Bust: Is It the End of Mexicos
Maquiladoras?. Business Horizon, March.
Sassen, S.(2001). The Global City: New York, Tokyo and London. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Sassen, S. (2001).Chapter 16: Cities in the Global Economy, in Handbook of Urban
Studies.Edited by Ronan Paddison, 274-291.
Scott, J.W. (2002).On the Political Economy of Cross-Border Regionalism: Regional
Development and Cooperation on the US-Mexican Border. in Perkmann, M. and
Sum, N-L. (eds.).(2002).Globalization, Regionalization and Cross- Border Regions
:191-211. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sohn, C.(2012). The Border as a Resource in the Global Urban Space: A Contribution to
the Cross-Border Metropolis Hypothesis. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 38:1697-1711.
Staudt, K., Fragoso, J., Fuentes & Csar M. eds. (2010).Cities and Citizenship at the
242
U.S.-Mexico Border the Paso del Norte Metropolitan Region. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Sum, N-L. (2002). Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border Modes of Growth in
East Asia: the (Re-) Constitution of Time-Space Governance, in Perkmann, M. &
Sum, N-L. (Eds.), Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-Border Regions
(pp.50-76). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sumitr, S. & Worabuntoon, S. (2004). International Economics: Fifth Editions, Faculty of
Economics. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Tak Provincial Industrial Office of Thailand. (2010). Statistics of Factories Classified by
District. Tak: Tak Provincial Industrial Office.
Thai Chamber of Commerce.(2007).Effects of Thai Baht fluctuation on Cross-Border
Trade. Bangkok: Thai Chamber of Commerce.
Thai Post Newspaper of Thailand.2015.Urban Planning and Special Border Economic
Zones. published on 17 November 2015.
Than Setthakit Newspaper of Thailand.2016.SMEs Receive Privileges as Thai Prime
Minister Supports Investments in the Special Economic Zones.published on 21 January
2016.
Than Setthakit News Paper of Thailand.2016.Progress of Special Border Economic Zones
in Thailand. publihsed on 31 July-2 August 2016.
Than Setthakit News Paper of Thailand.2016.Progress of Nakhon Phanom Special Border
Economic Zone.No.36, Issue 3, 180, 4-6 August 2016.
Thai Rath Newspaper of Thailand. (2008).Imports of Goods Under Contract Farming with
Neighboring Countries. published in 2008.
Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation (TDRI). (1997).Thailands Border
Trade with Cambodia, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Malaysia and Myanmar,
in United Nation Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(UNESCAP), Border Trade and Cross-Border Transactions of Selected Asian
Countries, Studies in Trade and Investment 29:99-121.New York: United Nations.
Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the World Economy: Suggestions for an International
Economic Policy. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund.
Tsuneishi, T. (2008). IDE Discussion Paper No.153, Development of Border Economic
Zones in Thailand: Expansion of Border Trade and Formation of Border Economic
Zones. Chiba: Institute of Developing Economies (IDE), JETRO.
UN Millennium Project. (2005). Trade for Development, Taskforce on Trade.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division
.(2009). World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision: New York (updated 22
243
October 2010). Retrieved from http://esa.un.org/unpp, on March 13, 2010.

Van Geenhuizen, M. & Ratti, R.(eds). (2001). Gaining Advantage from Open Borders. An
Active Space Approach to Regional Development.Ashgate.Aldershot.
Vimolsiri, P. (2008). Thailand Development Cooperation with Neighboring Countries
under The Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle (IMT-GT). Bangkok:
NESDB.
Vimolsiri, P. (2008). Subregional Cooperation in GMS, ACMECS and IMT-GT: The Way
Forward to Regional Integration. Bangkok: NESDB.
Vries, J. & Priemus, H. (2003).Megacorridors in North-West Europe: Issues for
Transnational Spatial Governance, Journal of Transport Geography, 11, 225-233.
Wei, S.J. & Frankel, J.A. (1998).Open Regionalism in a World of Continental Trade
Blocs. International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, 45:440
Wallerstein, I.M.(1974). The Modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and
The Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York:
Academic Press.
Weiler, S. & Zerlentes, B. (2003). Maquila Sunrise or Sunset? Evolution of Regional
Production Advantages, The Social Science Journal, 40, 283-297.
World Bank. (2006). Labor Migration in the Greater Mekong Sub-region, Synthesis
Report: Phase I. Bangkok: World Bank.
World Trade Organization. (2009).International Trade Statistics 2009.Geneva: WTO.
World Trade Organization. (2011).Some Figures on Regional Trade Agreements Notified
To the GATT/WTO and In Force. Retrieved from http://www.wto.org/english/tratop
_e/region_ e/region_ e.htm, on April 20, 2011.
Yamane, T. (1967).Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, NY. Harper and Row, pp. 886887.
Yang, C. (2006). The Pearl River Delta and Hong Kong: An Evolving Cross-Boundary
Region under One Country, Two Systems, Habitat International, 30, 61-86.
Yeung, H.W.(2001).Organizing Regional Production Networks in Southeast Asia:
Implications for Production Fragmentation, Trade, and Rules of Origin. Journal of
Economic Geography, 1:299-321.
Yoon, S. (2007).An Economic Perspective of Kaesong Industrial Complex in North Korea,
American Journal of Applied Sciences, 4 (11), 938-944.
244
Internet Websites
http://www.acmecsthai.com/web/16.php?id=19889, retrieved on May 21, 2008.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/20/world/fg-briefs20.2, retrieved on February 11,
2009.
http://www.aseansec.org/, retrieved on 22 May 2008.
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=335333, retrieved on
March 9, 2009.
http://www.bimstec.org/, retrieved on May 22, 2008.
http://www.boi.go.th/thai/clmv/2008_Lao/ThaiLao3.htm, retrieved on May 22, 2008.
http://www.boi.go.th for data on Investment Promotions, retrieved on April 22, 2008.
http://www.burmainfo.org/autopagev3/show_page.php?group_id=1&auto_id=5&topic_id
65&topic_no=6&page=1&gaction=on, retrieved on May 22, 2008.
http://www.chiangmainews.co.th, retrieved on May 22, 2008.
http://www.darkseptemberrain.com/ideas/advantages.htm, retrieved on March 14, 2009.
http://service.nso.go.th/nso/g_data23/stat_23/toc_11/11.1.1-12.xls, retrieved on April 14, 2009.
http://www.dft.go.th/level4Frame.asp?sPage=the_files/$$59/level3/bt_8.htm&level3=
1090, retrieved on May 22, 2008.
http://www.diw.go.th/diw_web/html/file_excel, retrieved on April 12, 2009.
http://www.dopa.go.th, retrieved on May 15, 2008.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200608/07/eng20060807_290665.html, retrieved on
January 20, 2009.
http://www.exim.go.th/doc/research/targeted_country/4042.pdf, retrieved on May 20,
2008.
http://www.eduquan.com/english/390/417/200707268538.html, retrieved on March 14,
2009.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/glossary/showTerm.asp#91, retrieved on March 10,
2009.
http://www.izproperty.com/index.php?option=com_hotproperty&task=view&id=189
&Itemid=55, retrieved on April 7, 2009.
http://www.jsccib.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20&Itemid=
13, retrieved on April 27, 2009.
http://www.geocities.com/indsakaeo/main.htm, retrieved on April 11, 2009.
http://www.geocities.com/industak/, retrieved on April 11, 2009.
http://www.ryt9.com/es/prg/47674/, retrieved on April 9, 2009.
http://www.kidmac.com/, retrieved on May 22, 2008.
http://www.laobaotrade.gov.vn/lawcontent_en.asp?vb_id=11, retrieved on April 7, 2009.
http://www.lannacorner.net/weblanna/article/article_w.php?type=B&ID=1633, retrieved
on May 23, 2008.
http://library.dip.go.th/multim5/edoc/14913.doc, retrieved on May 23, 2008.
http://www.invest.laopdr.org/special%20zone.htm, retrieved on April 7, 2009.
http://www.manager.co.th, retrieved on February 13, 2008.
http://www.mfa.go.th/web/200.php?id=4436 - 70k, retrieved on May 23, 2008.
http://www.mfa.go.th/asean/asean_web/docs/AMBDC_1202.doc, retrieved on May 23,
2008.
http://www.mfa.go.th/web/1746.php, retrieved on May 24, 2008.
http://www.mfa.go.th/asean/asean_web/docs/economic_afta.doc, retrieved on May 24,
2008.
http://www.moe.go.th/policy/policy_gov44_2.htm, retrieved on May 24, 2008.
http://www.msmun.go.th/ab-history.htm, retrieved on April 11, 2009.
245
http://www.ryt9.com/news/2004-07-28/14626299/, retrieved on May 24, 2008.

http://www.sakaeo.go.th/chapter1/data8.htm, retrieved on April 11, 2009.
http://www.sakaeo.go.th/spoc/Mis/General/MIS5.htm, retrieved on April 11, 2009.
http://www.tak.go.th/history_maesod.htm, retrieved on April 11, 2009.
http://www.takchamber.com/index.php?lay=show&ac=article&Id=343288&Ntype=1,
retrieved on April 7, 2009.
http://thailand.prd.go.th/asean_corner/view_coop.php?id=11, retrieved on May 24,
2008.
http://www.thaiechamber.com/cms/content.jsp?id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_9129b295
c0a81019-7d2f3d06-b0d12d67, retrieved on May 24, 2008.
http://www.thairath.co.th/online.php?section=newsthairathonline&content=83278,
retrieved on May 24, 2008.
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/india-positive-about-economiczones-along-pakistan-border_10053143.html, retrieved on February 11, 2009.
http://www.statelessperson.com/www/?q=node/3019, retrieved on April 19, 2011.
http://www.bangkokbiznews.com/home/detail/politics/opinion/coruption/20100719/A3.ht
ml, retrieved on April 21, 2011.
http://www.backtohome.org/autopagev4/show_page.php?topic_id=597&auto_id=4&Topic
Pk=, retrieved on May 9, 2011.
http://www.mwgthailand.org/autopagev4/show_page.php?topic_id=93&auto_id=4&Topic
Pk=, retrieved on May 9, 2011.
http://learners.in.th/blog/theerarat/394867, retrieved on May 9, 2011.
http://www.oknation.net/blog/print.php?id=463566, retrieved on April 19, 2011.
http://www.oknation.net/blog/print.php?id=620312, retrieved on May 10, 2011.
http://www.tnnthailand.com/news/details.php?id=15743, retrieved on May 21, 2011
http://www.wood4season.com/index.php?lay=boardshow&ac=webboard_show&Categor
=wood4seasoncom&thispage=201336, retrieved on May 24, 2008.
http://www.thaifta.com/ThaiFTA/Home/FTAbyCountry/tabid/53/ctl/detail/id/4/mid/480/u
emastercontainer/true/Default.aspx, retrieved on May 25, 2008.
http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/Publications/TIS_pubs/pub_2303/ThailandB5.pdf,
retrieved on May 25, 2008.
http://www.the-thainews.com/analized/domestic/dom220251_3.htm, retrieved on
May 25, 2008.
http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl16_e.htm, retrieved on March 10
2009.
http://www.wtothailand.or.th/jointwto.php?trans_id=4141, retrieved on May 26, 2008.
http://en.xamat.info.vn/, retrieved on April 7, 2009.
http://www.manager.co.th/politics/viewnews.aspx?NewsID=9560000118007, retrieved on
February 27, 2014.
246
Appendix A: Research Coordination Schema

Objective
1. To assess the
locational advantages,
linkages and potential
with respective
neighboring countries
and account for flows
of goods and services
through cross-border
trade.
Attribute
Data Source (in Thailand)
Method of Analysis
and Analytical Tools
Content analysis
Spatial analysis
1.1 Locational
advantages
- Geographical distance of border city in Secondary sources from

Thailand from adjacent border city in
- Border cities offices
- Department of Highways
-Geographical distance of border city
both within Thailand and bordering
countries with their capital cities
- Key border cities located along the
GMS Economic Corridors
- Border cities located along the Asian
and ASEAN Highways Routes
1.2 Connectivity
-Number of cross-border road links

- Number of cross-border bridge links
- Number of cross-border pier links
Department of Highways
Border cities offices
Customs Houses in the study
areas
Provincial Transport Office
Content analysis
1.3.2 Economic
linkages
Local and cross-border trade

- Quantity of cross-border trade
- Value of cross-border trade
- Major traded commodities
- Number of cross-border large scale
traders
- Number of cross-border retail traders
- Number of cross-border wholesale
traders
-Total population
-Dependency ratio
Customs Houses in the study

areas
Department of Customs
Questionnaires
Locational analysis
Comparative crossborder analysis
Questionnaires
247
2. To study the social
and economic
Variable/Parameter/Indicator
Demographic
247
Objective
characteristics of the
joint border economic
zones for promoting
cross-border production
linkages and share of
employment and
income potential.
Attribute
Social
Economic
248
3. To analyze the policy Policy instruments
instruments at different
levels for upholding
development of border
economic zones.
-Gender ratio
-Nativity
-Immigration
-Primary education
-Secondary education
-Marital status
-Home ownership
-Local main occupation
-Local supplementary occupation
-Cross-border-labor movement
-Types of industrial development
-Border industrial productions
-Employment of both Thai and
neighboring countries labor force
-Local backward industrial linkages
-Cross-border industrial linkages
- Cross-border out-sourcing
- Cross-border technology transfer
- Cross-border joint venture
-Special border economic zone
development policies
-Trade policies particularly on crossborder trade
-Industry and Investment
-Visa
-Transport
-Customs and logistics
-Labor
-Tourism
248
Method of Analysis
Questionnaires
Questionnaires
NESDB
Board of Investment
Department of Foreign Trade
Department of Trade
Negotiations
Ministry of Transport
Department of Customs
Ministry of Labor
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
National Security Council
Policy analysis
Objective
Attribute
4. To assess the benefits Benefits of greater

(infrastructural,
linkages
services, employment
and income, etc.)
gained by respective
study cross-border
regions and more
particularly at local and
regional levels.
249
5. To recommend and Development of
Method of Analysis
-National security
-Official development assistance
Cross-border contract farming
-Quantity of cross-border import of
commodities under contract farming
with neighboring countries
- Major imported commodities
Ministry of Tourism and

Sports
Provincial Commercial
Affairs Office
Department of Foreign Trade
Cross-border vehicle movement

-Vehicles mobility
-Cross-border logistics
Border Customs House in the

study areas
Peoples mobility
- Cross-border social visits
- Number of cross-border Thai national
tourists
- Number of cross-border neighboring
countries nationals tourists
- Number of cross-border foreign
national tourists
Border Customs House in the

study areas
Cross-border shopping
- Quantity of cross-border shopping
- Value of cross-border shopping
- Major shopping commodities
-Number of cross-border Thai national
shoppers
- Number of cross-border neighboring
countries national shoppers
-Strategy for overall development of
Questionnaires
- Findings from Chapters 4 to
SWOT Analysis
249
Objective
Attribute
formulate strategy for

integrating
economic zones in the
context of regional and
national development.
border economic
zones in the context
of regional and
national
development
special border economic zones in
Thailand.
-Strategy for development of specific
special border economic zones in
Thailand linking with counterparts in
Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar.
250
250

Chapter 11
Method of Analysis
Appendix B
Questionnaire for Cross-Border Large Scale Trader
Name of respondent:
House number:
Village number:
Name of the village:
Name of Sub-District:
Name of District:
Province:
Country: Thailand/Myanmar/Cambodia/Lao PDR (please underline the corresponding
country)
***************************************************************
1. Sex of respondent
a ( ) male b ( ) female
2. What is your race?
a ( ) Thai b ( ) Cambodian c ( ) Laotian d ( ) Burmese
3. Marital status
a ( ) single b ( ) married c ( ) divorced d ( ) widowed e ( ) other please
specify.
4. How old is the respondent?
a ( ) < 30 years old b ( ) 30-45 years old c ( ) 45-60 years old d ( )> 60 years old
5. What is your educational attainment level?
a ( ) illiterate b ( ) elementary school c ( ) lower secondary school d ( ) higher
secondary school e ( ) college f ( ) bachelor degree g ( ) master degree
6. Are you native border resident?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If No, How long have you been living in your border city?
a ( )<5 years b ( ) 5-10 years c ( ) 10-15 years d ( ) 15-20 years e ( )>20 years
7. What is your cross-border trade segment?
a ( ) Export only
b ( ) Import only
c ( ) Both export and import
d ( ) Combination of export, import and wholesaling
e ( ) Integrated export and import, wholesaling and retailing
f ( ) Shipping services
g ( ) Re-export only
8. What type of your business registration?
a ( ) merchant shop b ( ) tax payer c ( ) partnership limited d ( ) ordinary partnership
e ( ) company limited
251
9. How long have you established your business?

a ( ) <10 years b ( ) 10-15 years c ( ) >15 years
10. What is your exported commodity? You can provide more than 1 answer.
a ( ) consumer goods b ( ) food products c ( ) electric appliances d ( ) brandnew clothes
e ( ) brand-new shoes f ( ) brand-new leather g ( ) fruits and vegetables
h ( ) kitchenwares i ( ) textile and garment j ( ) construction materials k ( ) construction
materials l ( ) fuel and cooking gas m ( ) spare part of motorcycle and bicycle
n ( ) agricultural produce o ( ) secondhand clothes p ( ) woods and handicraft products
q ( ) recycled products r ( ) machinery s ( ) live cattle t ( ) jewelry u ( ) furniture
11. What is your imported commodity? You can provide more than 1 answer.
a ( ) agricultural produce b ( ) dry freshwater fish c ( ) live freshwater fish d ( ) rice
e ( ) dry aquatic products f ( ) secondhand clothes g ( ) brand-new clothes
h ( ) secondhand shoes i ( ) secondhand leather j ( ) hand-woven clothes
k ( ) construction materials m ( ) animal feed and fertilizers n ( ) cars and motorcycles
o ( ) used cars p ( ) auto parts q ( ) machinery r ( ) cooking gas s ( ) fuel
t ( ) consumer goods u ( ) cosmetics v ( ) liquor and beverage w ( ) medicines and
medical apparatuses x ( ) electric appliances y ( ) wood furniture z a.2 ( ) processed
wood a.3 ( ) forest products a.4 ( ) kitchenwares a.5 ( ) fishing net a.6 ( ) recycled
products
12. Where do you procure sold goods? You can provide more than 1 answer.
a ( ) local community enterprise b ( ) local wholesalers c ( ) regional wholesalers
d ( ) wholesalers in capital city e ( ) cross-border wholesalers f ( ) cross-border
wholesalers in capital city g ( ) local manufacturers h ( ) regional manufacturers
i ( ) manufacturers in capital city and vicinity j ( ) cross-border manufacturers in capital
city
13. Where is your country origin of sold goods? You can provide more than 1 answer.
a ( ) Thailand b ( ) Lao PDR c ( ) Cambodia d ( )Myanmar e ( ) Vietnam
f ( ) Malaysia g ( ) Singapore h ( ) China i ( ) South Korea j ( ) Japan l ( ) USA
14. What is your role as being cross-border trader? You can provide more than 1 answer.
a ( ) authorized distributor b ( ) distributor to both border province and across a
neighboring countries/ home country c ( ) sole exporter across a neighboring country
d ( ) sole authorized distributor across home country/bordering country
e ( ) being cross-border franchising
15.What is the form of your cross-border payment?
a ( ) cash b ( ) credit c ( ) combination of cash and credit d ( ) money transfer through
local banks in border cities in Thailand e ( ) letter of credit f ( ) money transfer from
their headquarter to suppliers g ( ) barter trade
16. What is your adopted cross-border logistics arrangement?
a ( ) transported by informal cart carriers
b ( ) rely on local cross-border logistics providers
c ( ) arranged by buyers from bordering cities
d ( ) arranged by your own company
252
e ( ) arranged by manufacturers in Thailand

f ( ) international scheduled bus
g ( ) boat crossing the international river
17. Do you engage any labor?
a ( ) yes ( ) no
If Yes, How many labors do you employ?
a ( )<5 workers b ( ) 5-15 workers c ( ) >15 workers
18. Do you employ any immigrant labor?
a ( ) yes ( ) no
If Yes, how many immigrant workers do you hire?
19. How much do you pay for engaged labor?
a ( )< 80 Baht b ( ) 80-110 Baht c ( ) >110 Baht
20. What is your reason for employing immigrant labor?
a ( ) local Thai labor for is choosy for jobs.
b ( ) shortage of local Thai labor force in your border city.
c ( ) immigrant labor is cheap; so you can reduce labor cost.
d ( ) competent communication of neighboring countrys language
e ( ) possess specific skill and craftsmanship
21. What is cross-border movement pattern of immigrant labor?
a ( ) daily b( ) seasonal c ( ) circular d ( ) long-stayed immigration with all family
members
22. What is gender composition of your immigrant labor?
a ( ) 100 % women labor
b ( ) 100 % men labor
c ( ) 50 % of men labor and 50 % of women labor
d ( ) 25 % of men labor and 75 % of women labor
e ( ) 75 % of men labor and 25 % of women labor
23. Is there any positive impact on employing immigrant labor?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If yes, please explain in more details.
a ( ) substitute shortage of Thai labor.
b ( ) access to cheap labor.
c ( ) reduce labor cost.
d ( ) increase business competitiveness.
e ( ) contribute to local economic growth
f ( ) no response
24. Is there any negative impact on employing immigrant labor?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
253

a ( ) create social and environmental problems
b ( ) likely to commit crime
c ( ) likely to carry communicable diseases
d ( ) likely to displace local labor
e ( ) no response
25. Does your company perform cross-border transit trade to other nearby country?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If yes, which countries?
a ( ) Vietnam b ( ) Malaysia c ( ) China d ( ) Bangladesh e ( ) Japan f ( ) USA
26. What is your perception on current condition of cross-border road or river bridge links?
26.1 Road
a ( ) excellent b ( ) good c ( ) moderate d ( ) poor
26.2 Cross-river bridge
27. What is your perception on services of border banking facilities in your city?
28. What is your perception on the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine services to
facilitate cross-border trade and people movement?
29. What should be improved for better cross-border trade facilitation? Please identify
254
Appendix C
Questionnaire for Border Wholesaler
Name of respondent:
House number:
Village number:
Name of District:
Province:
country)
*************************************************************
2.What is your race?
3. Marital status
specify
4. How old is the respondent?
a ( ) < 30 years old b ( ) 30-5o years old c ( ) 50-60 years old d ( )> 60 years old
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
a ( )<5 years b ( ) 5-10 years c ( ) 10-20 years d ( ) 20-30 years e ( )>30 years
7. How much is your monthly household income in Thai Baht or Thai Baht equivalent?
a ( ) <30,000 Baht b ( ) 30,000-100,000 Baht c ( ) 100,000-170,000 Baht
d ( ) 170,000-240,000 Baht e ( ) 240,000-310,000 Baht f ( ) 310,000-380,000 Baht
g ( )> 380,000 Baht
8. Do you register your wholesaling business?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If Yes, what is the type of registration?
e ( ) company limited f ( ) non-governmental organization
9. How long have you established your business?
255

10. What is your wholesaled commodity? You can provide more than 1 answer.
a ( ) consumer goods b ( ) cosmetics c ( ) food products d ( ) electric appliances
e ( ) brand-new clothes f ( ) brand-new shoes g ( ) fruits and vegetables
h ( ) kitchenwares i ( ) textile and garment j ( ) construction materials k ( ) fuel and
cooking gas l ( ) spare part of motorcycle and bicycle m ( ) agricultural produce
n ( ) woods and handicraft products o ( ) recycled products p ( ) jewelry q ( ) furniture
r ( ) IT products s ( ) stationery t ( ) antique objects u ( ) souvenir v ( ) liquor and
beverage w ( ) pharmaceutical and medical apparatuses x ( ) household goods
11. Where do you procure sold goods? You can provide more than 1 answer.
wholesalers in capital city g ( ) local manufacturers h ( ) cross-border manufacturers in
capital city/bordering city i ( ) regional manufacturers i ( ) manufacturers in capital city
and vicinity j ( ) produced by your own business k ( ) cross-border community-based
enterprises l ( ) cross-border importers
12. Where is your country origin of sold goods? You can provide more than 1 answer.
f ( ) Malaysia g ( ) Philippines h ( ) Indonesia i ( ) China i ( ) India
13. Do you engage any labor?
a ( ) yes ( ) no
a ( ) yes ( ) no
a ( )<5 workers b ( ) 5-15 workers c ( ) >15-25 workers
a ( )< 50 Baht b ( ) 50-150 Baht c ( ) >150 Baht
e ( ) possess specific skill and craftsmanship
members
18.What is gender composition of your immigrant labor?
256
a(
b(
c(
d(
e(
) 100 % women labor

) 100 % men labor
) 50 % of men labor and 50 % of women labor

a ( ) yes b ( ) no
e ( ) contribute to local economic growth.
f ( ) no response
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If Yes, please explain in more details.
a ( ) create social and environmental problems.
b ( ) likely to commit crime.
c ( ) likely to carry communicable diseases.
d ( ) likely to displace local labor.
e ( ) no response
257
Appendix D
Questionnaire for Border Retailer
Name of respondent:
House number:
Village number:
Name of District:
Province:
country)
***************************************************************
2.What is your race?
3. Marital status
specify.
4.How old is the respondent?
a ( ) < 30 years old b ( ) 30-50 years old c ( ) 50-60 years old d ( )> 60 years old
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
a ( )<5 years b ( ) 5-10 years c ( ) 10-15 years d ( ) 15-20 e ( )> 20 years
7. How much is your monthly household income in Thai Baht or Thai Baht equivalent?
a ( ) < 30,000 Baht b ( ) 30,000-50,000 Baht c ( ) 50,000-70,000 Baht
d ( ) 70,000-90,000 Baht e ( ) >90,000 Baht
8.Do you register your retailing business?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If Yes, what is the type of registration?
e ( ) company limited
9.How long do you establish your business?
258
10.What is your retailed commodity? You can provide more than 1 answer.
a ( ) consumer goods b ( ) cosmetics c ( ) food products d ( ) electric appliances
e ( ) brand-new clothes f ( ) brand-new shoes g ( ) secondhand shoes h ( ) brand-new
leather i ( ) secondhand leather j ( ) fashion accessories k ( ) kitchenwares l ( ) liquor
and beverage m ( ) cigar n ( ) glass and watch o ( ) bedding p ( ) toys q ( ) jewelry
r ( ) wood products s ( ) spare part of motorcycles and bicycles t ( ) forest products
u ( ) dry freshwater fish v ( ) fruits and vegetables w ( ) machines x ( ) IT products
y ( ) home decoration products z ( ) stationery a.2 ( ) construction materials
a.3 ( ) agricultural produce
11.Where do you procure retailed goods? You can provide more than 1 answer.
wholesalers in capital city g ( ) local manufacturers h ( ) cross-border manufacturers in
capital city/bordering city i ( ) produced by your own business k ( ) cross-border
community-based enterprises
12.Where is your country origin of sold goods? You can provide more than 1 answer.
f ( ) Malaysia g ( ) Singapore h ( ) Indonesia i ( ) China i ( ) India j ( ) Hong Kong
k ( ) South Korea l ( ) Taiwan m ( ) Japan n ( ) USA o ( ) Switzerland p ( ) UK
13.Do you engage any labor?
a ( ) yes ( ) no
a ( ) yes ( ) no
a ( )< 50 Baht b ( ) 50-80 Baht c ( ) 80-110 Baht d ( ) 110-150 Baht e ( )> 150 Baht
e ( ) possess specific skill and craftsmanship.
17.What is cross-border movement pattern of immigrant labor?
a ( ) daily b ( ) seasonal c ( ) circular d ( ) long-stayed immigration with all family
members
259
Appendix E
Questionnaire for Cross-Border Shopper
Name of respondent:
Name of District:
Province:
country)
*****************************************************
1. Sex of shopper
2. What is your marital status?
a ( ) single b ( ) Married c ( ) divorced
3.What is your age?
a ( ) < 30 years old b ( ) 30-60 years old c ( ) >60 years old
4.What is your original resident?
a ( ) study border district b ( ) study border province c ( ) neighboring province
d ( ) capital city e ( ) other regions
5. Where is your shopping place?
a ( ) border market b ( ) border duty free shop
c ( ) border city market d ( ) leading modern border retail store
6. What is your shopped commodity?
a ( ) liquor and wine b ( ) cigar c ( ) fashion purse d ( ) ready to wear garment
e ( ) shoe f ( ) mobile phone g ( ) consumer goods h ( ) electric appliances
i ( ) computer and parts j ( ) household goods k ( ) medicines and medical apparatuses
l ( ) herbal medicines m ( ) mushroom n ( ) fruit and vegetable o ( ) food stuff
p ( ) sea aquatic product q ( ) chemical fertilizer r ( ) forest product
7. What is your spending amount per each shopping?
a ( ) <2,500 Baht b ( ) 2,500-3,500 Baht c ( ) >3,500-2500 Baht
8. How frequent do you make cross-border shopping?
a ( ) daily b ( ) weekly c ( ) monthly d ( ) every 3-month
e ( ) every 6-month f ( ) rarely
9.What is your purpose for shopping?
a ( ) own consumption b ( ) resale c ( ) both own consumption and resale
10.What is mode of cross-border transport?
a ( ) passenger car b ( ) international scheduled bus/van c ( ) international river boat
d ( ) tourist bus e ( ) car rental f ( ) local transport g ( ) bicycle h ( ) on foot
260
Appendix F
Questionnaire for Border Industrialist
Name of respondent:
Name of company:
Village number:
Name of District:
Province:
country)
*************************************************
1. Sex of the respondent
( ) male b ( ) female
2. Where is the country of origin of your company?
a ( ) Thailand b ( ) Myanmar c ( ) Cambodia d ( ) Lao PDR e ( ) South Korea
3.What does your type your industrial registration?
a ( ) company limited b ( ) ordinary partnership c ( ) partnership limited d ( ) cottage
industry
4 Does your company gain investment promotion privileges?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If yes, from which country?
a ( ) Thailand investment incentives in Zone 3 b ( ) Myanmar investment incentives
c ( ) Cambodia investment incentives d ( ) Lao PDR investment incentives
e ( ) Thailand outward investment incentives
5. Are you endogenous border industries?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If No, What is your reason for locating border industries?
a ( ) close proximity to market in bordering city/country
b ( ) access to abundant local labor
c ( ) access to abundant raw materials in bordering city
d ( ) access to abundant labor in bordering city
e ( ) access to abundant local materials
f ( ) local market expansion
6. What is your purpose of border industrial establishment?
a ( ) open new factory or service together with headquarter.
b ( ) open new branch plant.
c ( ) being domestically out-sourced.
d ( ) being cross-border out-sourced.
e ( ) being cross-border franchising.
261
7.How long do you establish your border industries?

a ( ) <5 years b ( ) 5-10 years c ( ) 10-15 years d ( ) >15 years
8. How much is your registered investment capital in Thai Baht or Thai Baht equivalent?
a ( ) <1.00 million Baht b ( ) 1.00-10.00 million Baht c ( ) >10.00 million Baht
9.What type of product/services does your company produce/deliver?
a ( ) wearing apparels/garments b ( ) textile c ( ) basic agro-industry d ( ) food and
beverage e ( ) handicrafts f ( ) construction materials g ( ) wood products/furniture
h ( ) embroidery of secondhand clothes i ( ) bedding products j ( ) secondhand engines
and parts k ( ) recycled products l ( ) liquidified gas m ( ) car and motorcycle
n ( ) electric appliances o ( ) kitchenwares p ( ) leather goods q ( ) jewelry
r ( ) distribution center s ( ) local/cross-border logistics services
10. Where does your company mainly acquire raw material from?
a ( ) in the district (local content) b ( ) in the province c ( ) in the region
d ( ) from Capital city and surrounding provinces e ( ) from other regions
f ( ) from bordering country/capital city in bordering country
g ( ) from bordering city h ( ) other countries, please
specify
11. What is your exported raw material, component or industrial commodity?
a ( ) agricultural produce b ( ) ready to wear garment c ( ) construction material
d ( ) cooking palm oil e ( ) bedding f ( ) rice grain g ( ) food h ( ) secondhand engine
and part i ( ) fish j ( ) processed wood k ( ) jewelry and gem l ( ) handicraft products
12.What is your exported raw material, component or industrial commodity?
a ( ) textile fabric and accessory b ( ) processed wood c ( ) sand and stone
d ( ) agricultural produce e ( ) machinery/mould and die/intermediate goods and parts
f ( ) steel g ( ) young plant h ( ) construction material i ( ) dust saw
13.Where is your source of labor?
a ( ) local labor b ( ) regional migrant labor c ( ) immigrant labor from bordering city
d ( ) immigrant labor from other countries e ( ) self-employed
14.How many workers do you employ?
a ( ) self-employed b ( )<10 workers c ( ) 10-50 workers d ( ) >50 workers
15. How many immigrant workers do you engage?
a ( ) none b ( ) <10 workers c ( ) 10-50 workers d ( ) >50 workers
16.How much do you pay for engaged labor?
a ( )< 50 Baht b ( ) 50-80 Baht c ( ) 80-110 Baht d ( ) 110-150 Baht e ( )> 150 Baht
f ( ) based on piece basis
b ( ) shortage of local Thai labor force in your border city
262
e ( ) possess specific skill and craftsmanship.

members
19. What is gender composition of your immigrant labor?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
E ( ) contribute to local economic growth.
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
a ( ) create social and environmental problems.
b ( ) likely to commit crime
c ( ) likely to carry communicable diseases
d ( ) likely to displace local labor
22. Do you provide support to immigrant labor?
a ( ) yes b ( )
If Yes, what type of support do you render to immigrant labor?
a ( ) dormitory b ( ) food c ( ) health care d ( ) social security
23. Do you face voluntary turnover problem of either local or immigrant labor?
a ( ) yes b ( )
If Yes, How many voluntary turnover rates do you encounter per month?
a ( ) <5 % b ( ) 5-10 % c ( ) 10-15 % d ( ) > 15 %
24.Have your company created local backward production linkages?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If Yes, What strategy does your company use to establish local backward production
linkages?
263
a ( ) supplying of intermediate products and components by local farmers or local

community-based enterprises
b ( ) interaction with local suppliers/community-based enterprises
c ( ) sub-contracting or out-sourcing of production activities/processes to local firms/
community-based enterprises/households
d ( ) supplying of raw materials by local suppliers
e ( ) supplying of intermediate products or components by local suppliers
f ( ) establish intra-industry linkages
g ( ) supplying contracts to local firms
h ( ) donating by-products to local community-based enterprises
25. Have your company created cross-border production linkages with border cities in
neighboring countries?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If yes, what strategy does your company use to establish cross-border production linkages
with border cities in neighboring countries?
a ( ) supplying of intermediate products and components by border wholesalers or firms
b ( )sub-contracting out or out-sourcing of production activities/processes to border
households
c ( )supplying of raw materials by border firms
d ( ) Interacting with border suppliers or community-based enterprises
e ( )supplying contracts with border firms or community based enterprises
f ( ) skill training
g ( ) contract farming
26. What is your production arrangement?
a ( ) being either locally or domestically out-sourced production
b ( ) being cross-border out-sourced production
c ( ) only produced their own brand/services
d ( ) both produced their own brand and being out-sourced production
27. How many border, regional or cross-border subcontracting linkages (sub-contractors)
do you engage with?
a ( ) 5 sub-contractors b ( ) 5-10 sub-contractors c ( ) 10-15 sub-contractors
d ( ) 15-20 sub-contractors e ( ) 20-25 sub-contractors f ( ) 25-30 sub-contractors
g ( ) 30-35 sub-contractors
28. Do you engage cross-border joint venture?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If Yes, What type of cross-border joint venture do you engage with?
a ( ) investment joint venture b ( ) franchising c ( ) contract farming
29. What is your market distribution of manufactured products or services?
a ( ) local market b ( ) domestic market c ( ) bordering city d ( ) Cambodia
e ( ) Myanmar f ( ) Vietnam g ( ) ASEAN h ( ) China i ( ) East Asia
j ( ) USA k ( ) Europe
30. What is the form of your cross-border payment?
264
a ( ) cash b ( ) credit c ( ) money transfer through local banks in border cities in

Thailand d ( ) letter of credit
31. What is your adopted cross-border logistics arrangement?
a ( ) transported by informal cart carriers
b ( ) rely on local cross-border logistics providers
c ( ) arranged by buyers from bordering cities
d ( ) arranged by your own company
e ( ) international scheduled bus
f ( ) boat crossing the international river
32. What is your perception on current condition of cross-border road or river bridge links?
32.1 Road
32.2 Cross-river bridge
33. What is your perception on services of border banking facilities in your city?
34. What is your perception on the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine services to
facilitate cross-border trade and people movement?
265
Appendix G
Questionnaire for Border Household
Name of respondent:
Village number:
Name of District:
Province:
country)
**********************************************
1.Sex of respondent
2.What is your marital status?
a ( ) single b ( ) married c ( ) divorced d ( ) widowed
3.What is your educational attainment?
secondary school e ( ) vocational certificate f ( ) bachelor degree g ( ) master degree
4.How much is your monthly household income in Thai Baht or Thai Baht equivalent?
a. ( ) <3,000 Baht b ( ) 3,000-15,000 Baht c ( ) >15,000 Baht
5. How much is your monthly household expense in Thai Baht or Thai Baht equivalent?
a ( ) <3,000 Baht b ( ) 3,000-6,000 Baht c ( ) 6,000-9,000 Baht d ( ) 9,000-12,000 Baht
e ( ) 12,000-15,000 Baht f ( ) 15,000-18,000 Baht g ( ) >18,000 Baht
6. What is the distance from your home to your border city center?
a ( ) you live within the zone of city center b ( ) 4-5 Km away from border city center
c ( ) 5-10 Km from border city center d ( ) 10-15 Km from border city center
e ( ) 15-20 Km from border city center f ( )>20 Km from border city center
7.How many member do you have in your family?
a ( ) <2 members b ( ) 2-4 members c ( ) 4-6 members
d ( ) 6-8 members e ( ) 8-10 members f ( ) > 10 members
8. How many child and elderly do you have in your family?
a ( ) None b ( ) <1 member c ( ) 2-3 members d ( ) 3-4 members
e ( ) 4-5 members f ( ) 5-6 members g ( ) > 6 members
9.Does your family has home ownership?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If No, how does your family manage the house?
a ( )you family rents the house b ( ) you family lives on government land c ( ) being
squatter settlement d ( ) company shelter e ( ) lives with parents/relatives
266
10.Are you native border resident?

a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If No, how long have you been living in this border city?
a ( )< 10 years b ( ) 10-20 years c ( ) 20-30 years d ( ) >30 years
11.For non-native border resident, where were your origin?
a ( ) from other districts
b ( ) from other provinces within the region
c ( ) from other regions
d ( ) from bordering city
12.Do you have land ownership?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If Yes, how large of land do you own? (Note: 2.53 Rais is equivalent to 1 Acre.)
a ( )< 5 Rais b ( ) 5-10 Rais c ( ) 10-15 Rais
d ( ) 15-20 Rais e ( ) 20-15 Rais f ( )>25 Rais
13.What is your main source of household income?
a ( ) farming activities b ( ) grocery c ( ) petty business d ( ) individual sub-contracted
industries/cottage industries e ( ) individual service providers f ( ) employee in local
industry g ( ) government service h ( ) wage labor for cross-border trade i ( ) employee
in border casinos j ( ) employee in local services k ( ) elderly relying on remittance
14.Do you have supplementary source of household income?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If Yes, what is your supplementary source of household income?
a ( ) farming activities b ( ) livestock c ( ) aquaculture d ( ) horticulture e ( ) grocery
f ( ) petty business g ( ) service providers h ( ) wage labor i ( ) individual subcontracted industries/cottage industries j ( ) local industrial employee k ( ) local service
employee
15.Does your occupation hire any labor?
a ( ) yes ( ) no
If Yes, where is the source of labor?
a ( ) totally hire local labor
b ( ) half unpaid family member force and employed half immigrant labor from bordering
city
c ( ) wholly employed immigrant labor from bordering city
d ( ) employed half local labor force and half immigrant labor from bordering city
e ( ) half unpaid family member force and half locally hired labor force
16.Do you engage immigrant labor?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If Yes, how many immigrant labor do you engage?
a ( ) none b( )<5 workers c ( ) 5-15 workers c ( ) >15 workers
267
17.What is the reason for engaging immigrant labor?

a ( ) local Thai labor force is choosy for jobs.
b ( ) shortage of Thai labor force in your border city
c ( ) immigrant labor in your border city is cheap; so you can reduce labor cost of
production.
18.What is the gender proportion of your engaged immigrant labor?
19.How much do you pay for daily wage rate to immigrant labor?
a ( ) 51-80 Baht b ( ) 80-110 Baht c ( ) 110-150 Baht d ( ) >150 Baht
20.Do you have any family member crossing border for jobs in Thailand?
a ( ) yes b ( ) no
If Yes, how many of your family member crossing border for jobs in Thailand?
a ( ) 1 member b ( ) 2-3 members c ( ) 4-5 members
21.Where will they go for working in Thailand?
a ( ) adjacent border city b ( ) neighboring provinces c ( ) Bangkok metropolitan and
vicinity
22.Do you have any involvement with community-based enterprises?
a ( ) yes b ( )
If Yes, What type of community-based enterprises do you involve with?
a ( ) cooperative b ( ) farmer organization c ( ) One Tambon (Sub-district) One Product
(OTOP) d ( ) women occupation group e ( ) community saving group
23.What is your perception on condition of secondary road or district road in the past 10
years?
a ( ) good b ( ) moderate c ( ) poor
24. What is your perception on current condition of secondary road or district road?
a ( ) good b ( ) moderate c ( ) poor
25.What is the type of your current community road?
a ( ) gravel b ( ) dirt road c ( ) concrete road d ( ) asphalt road
26.What is your marketing channel for selling agricultural produce?
a ( ) totally keeps for your own consumption
b ( ) partly keeps for your own consumption and partly sells to the middlemen at farm
c ( ) sells to local industries
d ( ) totally sells to intermediary traders at farm
e ( ) sells at local periodic market
f ( ) sells to buyers in bordering city
268
27. How much any benefit do you get after opening the border in the last 5 years?
a ( ) not at all b ( ) low c ( ) moderate d ( ) high e ( ) very high
269
Appendix H
Checklist for Group Discussion of Local Border Community Leader
Name of District:
Name of Province:
Country:
*****************************************************
1. What is the major occupation of local border people?
2. How is the employment and unemployment situation of local people in your border city?
3. Is there any out-migration of local people to either larger cities or bordering cities ?
4. Do communities get benefits from greater improvement of cross-border connectivity
(road, rail, and river pier links)?
5. How often does your community interact with bordering communities?
6. How do you rate the strength of community-based organizations/community-based
enterprises in your communities/border city?
7. What does the benefit that local communities get from cross-border trade?
8. How large of illegal and legal immigrant workers in your communities/border city?
9. What is the impact of influx of immigrant workers in your communities/border city?
10. Does your community based enterprise establish linkages with local industries?
11. What is the impact of exporting/importing of contract farming commodities in your
communities/border city?
12. How should we integrate community-based enterprises into local and cross-border
economies?
270
Appendix I
Checklist of Key Informant Interview
(Border Provincial Governor)
Name of Province:
Country:
***************************************************
1. What are the relations between your province and adjacent bordering province?
2. Do you have economic and social development plan or strategy to promote closer
cooperation with bordering province?
3. What is the problem hindering cooperating between your province and adjacent
bordering province?
4. What is the prospect for fostering closer economic and social ties between your province
and adjacent bordering province?
271
Appendix J
Checklist for Key Informant Interview
(Members of Provincial Chamber of Commerce, Members of Provincial Industry
Federation and Cross-Border Logistics Service Providers)
Name of District:
Name of Province:
Country:
****************************************************
1. What is the role of commerce and industry to local, border city or cross-border
cities development?
2. How does effectiveness of government policy to facilitate cross-border trade in
your border city?
3. How does local commerce and industry get benefit from greater improvement of
connectivity?
4. Have you established linkages with communities-based enterprises? If so, in what
way?
5. What is the impact of influx of illegal and legal immigrant labor to your business
and community? Both positive and negative impacts?
6. How often does your interact with your counterparts in border cities in neighboring
countries?
7. Do you have any cross-border joint venture or cross-border investment in border
cities in neighboring countries? In what form?
8. Have you established cross-border business and production linkages with border
cities in neighboring countries?
9. How does competitiveness of your company/industry to take advantage of
locational advantages and the likely arrival of MNCs to be set up in your
communities or border city?
10. What should the local government do to manage the growth of the border cities
towards special border economic zone?
11. What should the central government further do to promote expansion of crossborder trade, industry cooperation and cross-border logistics services?
272
Appendix K
Linkages of Research Objectives, Findings and Implications
Research objectives
1. To assess the
locational advantages,
linkages and potential
with respective
and account for flows
of goods and services
through cross-border
trade.
273
2. To study the social
and economic
characteristics of the
joint border economic
zones for promoting
Findings
Implications
Fostered by both geographical adjacency of structural differences and the contributing factors, the Policies
pattern of local and regional cross-border trade, as well as cross-border transit trade have shown a Promote the application of Thai Baht as key currency for
rising trend. Using an 18-year time series data from 1996-2013, the cumulative formal crosscross-border trade transactions between Thailand and
border trade value between Thailand and 4-neighboring countries has reached 200.40 billion US$
bordering countries. Furthermore, internationalize Thai
with a share of 58.66 % of total international trade value with these 4-neighboring countries. As a
Baht currency across the Greater Mekong Sub-region,
result, cross-border trade flows in the study cross-border regions are highly significant. The
which can help facilitate cross-border payment.
cumulative share of cross-border export to these neighbors is as high as 59.40 %; whereas, the
Provide quality cross-border infrastructure linkages, as
cumulative share of cross-border import was at 40.59 %, contributed by Malaysia (56.15 %),
well as promoting cross-border trade facilitation,
Myanmar (35.39 %), Lao PDR (6.82 %) and Cambodia (1.62 %).As a result, Thailand gained
investment and people movement. Also, negotiate and
substantially cumulative balance of cross-border trade at 37.69 billion US$. During enforcement
facilitate cross-border transit trade with nearby countries,
of AFTA (from 2002-2013), cross-border trade growth significantly kept increasing by 22.47 %
e.g. Vietnam, China, India and Bangladesh, etc.
per year. Above all, when the specified AFTA tariffs became 0 % in 2010, its annual cross-border Control and overcome the section of illegal cross-border
trade growth considerably increased to 32.08 % compared with 2009.With increasing trend of
trades in order to bring tradable goods under formal crossinternational trade of Thailand, the intra-ASEAN trade and cross-border trade are also gradually
border trade undertaking, which can be suppressing large
rising though the proportion of share is low. Cross-border trade during 2008-2013 has reached
scale import of low quality agricultural commodities into
significant level sharing average of 30.77 % to intra-ASEAN trade. Similarly, the share of crossThailand and recover the loss of revenue to both Thailand
border trade to Thailands aggregate international trade with the world significantly rose from
and bordering countries.
1.02 % in 1996 to 6.48 % in 2012 or equivalent to 7.67 % of Gross Domestic Product. CrossRegulatory measure
border trade growth may somehow contribute to regional development as both urban and rural
Create a new set of regulations favorable for cross-border
people including the poor along border regions between Thailand and neighboring countries can
trades and be independent from the existing broad
also benefit from trade, as well as accessing to variety of products.
regulations of international trade. This is because crossborder trade between Thailand and neighboring countries
are somewhat different track. Therefore, it is necessary to
design such regulations in response to the changing crossborder trade environment in the context of ASEAN
Community and other regional cooperation programs e.g.
ASEAN and China and ASEAN and India, etc.
The key findings of comparative cross-border analyses are as follows:
2.1 Cross-border large scale trading: Cross-border trading is mostly undertaken by local border Strategies
residents across the cross-border regions. Most of cross-border trader respondents across the Introduce modern modes of cross-border payment to
regions are family based businesses and being mainly small and medium-sized enterprises support cross-border trade e.g. internet banking and e(SMEs). The length of establishment across the regions is between 11 to13 years. Thai goods are Commerce, which can help reduce cost, complexity, risk
273
Research objectives
cross-border
production linkages
and share of
employment and
income potentials.
274
Findings
widely accepted among bordering countries. Cross-border exported commodities across the Thai
border districts are quite similar pattern, mainly consisted of consumer goods, intermediate and
capital goods. Whereas, cross-border imported commodities from bordering districts are mostly
agricultural produces. There are strong supply chain linkages between Thai border districts with
the core area of Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity and vice versa. However, cross-border traded
goods are mainly produced in Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity such as eastern region and
other centers. At present, Thai border cities and towns mainly play distribution role. Cross-border
traders play important role in promoting cross-border supply chain linkages. Thai goods hold a
large market share at the varying range of 38 % to 77 % of total traded commodities across the
cross-border regions. Collectively, ASEAN goods hold high market share in the range of 78.30 %
to 100 % across the regions. Payment by cash is widely adopted across the cross-border regions
as matter of convenience. Cross-border trader respondents across the bordering districts engaged
higher number of local labor between 12 to 41 workers mainly for loading and unloading
activities. Whereas, respondents across Thai border districts have employed lower number of
local and immigrant labor with a range of 7 to 10 workers. Only respondents across the Thai
border districts employed immigrant labor, at the range from 5 to 9 workers. The daily wage rates
across the Thai border districts are higher than counterpart study bordering districts and it is
approximately by 3 times. Respondents across Thai border districts of Maesod; Muang Mukdahan
and Aranyaprathet have performed cross-border transit trade to Vietnam at 5.60 %; 16.60 % and
22.70 %, respectively. Improvement of cross-border connectivity e.g. roads and international
river bridges facilitated cross-border trade. The respondents have perceived that border banking
and Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) services across the border districts of Thailand
are noticeably well organized than the counterparts of bordering study districts.
Implications
and improve efficiency.
Expand market penetration to bordering provinces and
across bordering countries.
Encourage establishment of associations for crossborder trade and logistics in order to coordinate crossborder business transactions in an organized manner. The
association will be a platform for exchanging cross-border
trade and logistics practices, problems and possible
solutions. This association will also liaise with concerned
government agencies in nurturing entrepreneurships and
tackling constraints to cross-border trade and logistics.
Promote collective participation of border communitybased enterprises and cooperatives to integrate into the
cross-border economy.
2.2 Local border wholesaling: Most of border wholesaler respondents across the cross-border
regions are family based businesses and belong to SMEs. The average length of establishment is
14 years. Respondents across the cross-border regions sell a wide range of essential commodities.
There are 3 types of cross-border supply chains in the cross-border regions. Respondents across
the Thai border districts get goods mainly from manufacturers in Bangkok metropolis and its
vicinity. Whereas, respondents in the bordering districts mainly obtain goods from cross-border
wholesalers in Thailand. The number of engaged labor across the cross-border regions really
varies from 4 to 14 workers. The number of engaged immigrant labor across the Thai border
districts ranges from 6 to 8 workers. The average daily wage rates across the Thai border districts
are higher than the counterpart bordering districts by 2 to 3 times.
Strategy
Promote Rong Klea Integrated Border Market and other
local border wholesale markets as emerging center for
distributing goods both within Thailand and across
bordering countries.
Project
Render training for upgrading local border wholesalers
towards local cross-border traders.
2.3 Local border retailing: Border retailer respondents across 5 border districts are mainly being
informal retailers. Except in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, where they are registered
274
Projects
Research objectives
Findings
Implications
enterprises at 91%, evident from taxpayer registrations. Respondents in 2 Thai border districts of Provide markets for local border retailing in order to
Aranyaprathet and Maesod have longer length of establishment for more than 12 years. While, create jobs for the interest of local residents.
respondents in bordering districts of OChrov district of Cambodia and Myawaddy district of Legalize informal border retailing in order to effectively
Myanmar have establishments within last 6 to 7 years. On the contrary, respondents in Kaysone manage local border economy, as well as generating
Phomvihane district of Lao PDR have longer length of establishment (12 years). In contrast, revenue for local government.
respondents in Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand have lower length of establishment (8
years). They sell almost similar kinds of goods. Respondents across the cross-border regions
mainly procure goods from cross-border wholesalers, which signify the existence of cross-border
supply chain linkages. Goods, which are originated from Thailand, possess market share between
30.30 % to 69.20 % across the cross-border regions. The number of engaged immigrant labor
across Thai border districts vary between 3 to 5 workers. Daily wage rate for immigrant labor
across the Thai border districts are higher than counterpart bordering districts by 2 to 2.50 times.
275
2.4 Cross-border shopping: Cross-border shopping is currently on the rising trend due to Strategy
adjacency of structural differences between Thailand and bordering countries e.g. price Promote cross-border shopping as a means to generate and
differences, differing product availability and high quality standards of Thai products. It is also distribute income to local border communities and border
associated with cross-border tourism. Respondents across Thai border districts have greater men provinces.
shoppers ranging from 53.30 % to 62.20 %. Whereas, respondents across the bordering districts
have greater women shoppers ranging from 53.30 % to 56.60 %. The average ages of
respondents across Thai border districts range from 40 to 47 years old. Whereas, the average age
of respondents across the bordering districts are much younger ranging from 24 to 40 years old.
Respondents across Thai border districts originate from other neighboring provinces ranging from
31.10 % to 63.30 %. Whereas, respondents in the 2 bordering districts of OChrov in Cambodia
and Myawaddy in Myanmar are local border residents at 43.30 % and 82.30 %, respectively.
Also, slightly 4 fifth of respondents in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR originate from
bordering Savannakhet province.
Shopping places also largely vary across the cross-border regions. Thai cross-border shopper
respondents who come from Muang Mukdahan and Aranyaprathet districts shop at border duty
free shops in bordering Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR and OChrov district of
Cambodia at 54.20 % and 79.20 %, respectively. While, 3 fifth of Thai shopper respondents in
Maesod district do shopping a wide range of Burmese products at Rim Moei border market,
which is located in Maesod district of Thailand. Whereas, cross-border shopper respondents
across the bordering districts mainly buy at leading modern border retail stores across Thai border
districts, e.g. Tesco Lotus and Big C, etc. ranging from 40 % to 93.30 %. There are different
patterns of shopped commodities across the cross-border regions. Thai shopper respondents in
Muang Mukdahan and Aranyaprathet districts purchase luxury goods, e.g. liquor and wine, which
275
Research objectives
Findings
are made in western countries in counterpart bordering districts at 32.10 % and 56.60 %,
respectively. Quite the reverse, greater than 2 third of Thai shopper respondents in Maesod
district buy fresh and dry sea aquatic products in bordering Myawaddy district of Myanmar In
contrast, cross-border shopper respondents across the bordering districts procure consumers
goods ranging from 50 % to 59.40 %. Respondents across the bordering districts spend higher
amount per each shopping. Respondents across the bordering districts perform more frequent
cross-border shopping than those respondents across Thai border districts. Purposes of crossborder shopping are for their own consumption ranging from 40 % to 90 % across the crossborder regions. Modes of cross-border transport noticeably vary across the cross-border regions
depending on geographical and extent of improved infrastructure linkages.
Implications
276
2.5 Local border industrial development: Border industrial developer respondents across Thai Policy
border districts have formal business registrations than counterpart respondents in the bordering Relocate low competitive industries, which required
districts. Interestingly, respondents across the bordering districts gain greater investment labor-intensive production to particular border economic
incentives from respective bordering governments than counterpart respondents across Thai zones so that it can gain advantages of cross-border
border districts. Respondents in Thai border districts have higher exogenous industries. In cooperation and spatial division of labor between Thailand
contrast, respondents in 2 bordering districts have higher endogenous industries. Except in and bordering countries.
OChrov district of Cambodia, it hosts highest exogenous industries (83.30 %).Respondents Strategies
across Thai border districts mostly open new factories or services. Thai border districts have Place special emphasis on border endogenous MSMEs
establishments for more than 7 years. Bordering districts of other countries have establishments industries with strong local resource endowments as
recently within last 4 years.Investment capital significantly varies across the cross-border regions. priority industrial investments. This can be executed in the
Respondents in Thai border districts are mostly small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), in form of clustering border industrial development. It can
which average capital investment is about 40 million Baht, which is much higher as compared to help strengthen border industrial entrepreneurships, as well
other districts of bordering regions - Myawaddy district of Myanmar and Kaysone Phomvihane as creating sustainable employment opportunities to both
district of Lao PDR, respectively. On the contrary, remarkably 96.70 % of respondents in local Thai nationals and to some extent bordering
OChrov district of Cambodia are informal micro-enterprises with investment capital just about nationals. Regarding either domestically relocated SMEs
0.50 million Baht. Manufactured products or service goods significantly vary across the cross- and large industries or foreign direct investments, it should
border regions. Generally, the Thai border districts are more industrialized than 2 bordering be eligible to investment incentives as rendered by the
districts, except in Kaysone Phomvihane district of Lao PDR, which is more industrialized than Royal Thai Government. If local border raw material is
the counterpart bordering Muang Mukdahan district of Thailand. Remarkably, major productions scarce, it should be allowed importing from bordering
are concentrated related to fashion industries in both Maesod district of Thailand specializing in countries with fast track facilitation.
high-end products and OChrov district of Cambodia specializing in low-end products. It is necessary to sustain the local backward linkages,
Outstandingly, 4/5thof respondents in Maesod district of Thailand are manufacturers of fashion which should be initiated by the Ministry of Industry and
goods, of which 2/3rdof respondents produce high-end wearing apparels and garments. About 10 Federation of Industry by promoting industrial production
percent of respondents make textile products. As a result, Maesod district has become an clusters in line with respective country needs focusing on
important fashion cluster of Thailand and being connected with global community chains. the interests of the local communities and cities along the
Sources of labor noticeably vary across the cross-border regions depending on national and
276
Research objectives
Findings
international division of labor. Respondents across Thai border districts markedly employ semiskilled immigrant labor. On the contrary, respondents across bordering districts mainly engage
internal migrant labor. Cross-border movement patterns of immigrant labor significantly vary
across the cross-border regions. There is existent of international division of immigrant labor by
gender across Thai border districts. Respondents across Thai border districts pay higher wages for
immigrant labor than counterpart respondents in the bordering districts by 1.6 to 3 times.
Respondents across Thai border districts have slightly higher local backward linkages than the
counterparts in the bordering districts. On the other hand, respondents across the bordering
districts have greater cross-border production linkage strategies than the counterpart respondents
in Thai border districts. Strikingly, almost 3 quarters of respondents in Maesod district of
Thailand is only domestically out-sourced productions in the form of Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM) from Bangkok metropolis and its vicinity. Regional and cross-border subcontracting linkages are significantly prevalent across the cross-border regions. There is existence
of cross-border market interdependence in the study cross-border regions.
Implications
border.
It is important to promote local direct investments in
providing cross-border logistics
services to be competitive with multinational logistics
providers. In addition, collective efforts for nurturing
entrepreneurship of all types of traders should be initiated
by the Ministry of Commerce and the Thai Chamber of
Commerce.
Foster cross-border outsourcing linkages with counterpart
cities in bordering countries.
Deliver skill trainings in response to specific needs to both
local Thai nationals and bordering Cambodian labor.
Regulatory measure
Regulated minimum daily wage in BEZs should
be exempted. Rather, floating wage rate for cross-border
labor market should instead be adopted in order to attract
greater investments into BEZs.
277
2.6 Local border communities: Border women respondents represent between 43 % to 79 % Strategies
across the cross-border regions. Border household respondents across the cross-border regions are Enhance inclusive border advancement through
working and their ages range from 49 to 60 years. Respondents across Thai border districts have sustainable rural development in order to alleviate
higher educational attainments than counterpart respondents in the bordering districts. Monthly poverty. Border food cooperatives should be promoted
household income notably varies across the cross-border regions, and monthly income differences taking advantage of emerging local cross-border market.
are based on the near city center, the more income generated. The disposable monthly household Furthermore, foster balanced urban-rural relations in
incomes across Thai border districts are generally higher than counterpart respondents in the BEZs in order to fully integrate into the cross-border,
bordering districts and ranges from 1.1 to 3 times. Respondents across the bordering districts have regional and national economy.
greater extended families than counterpart respondents in Thai border districts. Respondents
across Thai border districts have greater nativity than counterpart respondents in the bordering
districts. Respondents across Thai border districts have lower landless households than the
counterpart respondents across the bordering districts. Main sources of border household incomes
considerably vary across the cross-border regions. Complementary linkages exist for sources of
household income between Thai border districts and the counterpart bordering districts
particularly on labor and cross-border out-sourcing activities. Respondents across Thai border
districts reflect good practices of community development. Current conditions of secondary roads
across Thai border districts are well developed than the counterpart bordering districts.
Respondents, who are involved in agricultural activities across Thai border districts, are more
market-oriented farmers. After opening the border during the last 5 years, respondents across the
277
Research objectives
3. To study the policy

instruments at different
levels for upholding
economic zones.
Findings
bordering districts gained greater economic and social benefits than the counterpart respondents
across Thai border districts.
Development of border economic zones in Thailand is intermittent. However, the current Royal
Thai Government has exerted strong effort through explicit and implicit border economic zone
development policies. Presently, the Prayuth Administration promptly carries on hastening the
implementation process of these 10 SBEZs through favorably integrated development policies.
These are (1) direct policies or explicit policies consist of special border economic zone
development policies; international trade and cross-border trade policies; customs facilitation
policy; border investment and industrial development policies; labor, public health and national
security policies; national and cross-border transport and logistics policies. And (2) Indirect
policies aiming to indirectly sustain development of SBEZs include tourism and visa policies and
international relations, regional cooperation and official development assistance policies.
Nevertheless, there is a slight policy gap on labor cooperation policy with bordering countries,
which needs to be aligned to ensure effective implementation of the SBEZs.
278
4. To assess the
benefits
The key findings of comparative cross-border analyses are as follows:

4.1 Cross-border contract farming: The Royal Thai Government has continuously encouraged
278
Implications
Policies
Adopt border economic zone concept as strategy for
both promoting regional economic development within
Thailand, as well as fostering regional production
networks of Thailand with bordering cities along economic
corridors in order to fully integrate into the ASEAN
Community and global economy.
Integrate the implementation of border economic zones
with national security policies and programs in order to
advance towards integrated borderlands development
between Thailand and bordering countries.
Set up an international institutional mechanism for
administering integrated cross-border economic zones
based on the concept of Two Countries-One Region. It
should then define clear physical boundary of the
integrated cross-border economic zones between Thailand
and bordering countries. Within this region, cross-border
movements of goods, capital, people and vehicle could
freely flow.
An array of aid for trade programs through Ministry of
Foreign Affairs should also be extended to bordering
countries consisting of Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar
in order to address common border development and
management issues.
Strategy
National institutional capacity building for implemented
BEZs should be promoted. As border economic zone
concept is newly adopted in Thailand, a wide range of
capacity building schemes should be provided by Office of
the National Economic and Social Development (NESDB)
and other relevant agencies in order to efficiently deal with
multifaceted issues on BEZs development.
Strategy
Research objectives
(infrastructural,
services, employment
and income, etc.)
gained by respective
cross-border regions
and more particularly
at local and regional
levels.
5.Conclusion
279
Findings
Implications
Thai entrepreneurs or traders to engage with counterpart farmers or entrepreneurs in neighboring Constantly promote cross-border contract farming from
countries of CLM in growing agricultural produce under contract farming since 2004.The Thai border provinces with bordering countries so that it
targeted agricultural produces consisted of 10 farm plants and 3 energy crops. Among the study can help uphold income generation and poverty reduction
areas in Thailand, the local border SMEs entrepreneurs/investors in both Sakaeo and Tak along border areas. Additionally, imported agricultural
provinces get advantages as they are native border residents. Whereas, local border SMEs commodities can be supplied as raw materials for local
entrepreneurs in Mukdahan province are limited. Instead, most of SMEs entrepreneurs originate border industries.
from across the Northeastern region of Thailand. Similarly among bordering provinces, small
famers in both Banteay Meanchey and Battambong provinces of Cambodia and Kayin state of
Myanmar acquire greater benefits than counterpart small farmers in Savannakhet province of Lao
PDR. Nevertheless, the trend of cross-border contract farming intensity across the study crossborder regions is likely to expand.
4.2 Cross-border people and vehicle mobility: During 2002-2014, there was a rapid increase of Strategy
local and regional cross-border people mobility across the cross-border regions. During 2009- Facilitate cross-border people and vehicle mobility
2014, there was a rapid intensity of local and regional cross-border vehicle mobility across the through accelerating Initial Implementation of Crosscross-border regions as well. As a result, the trend of cross-border people and vehicle mobility Border Transport Agreement with bordering countries.
intensities across the cross-border regions are likely to increase in coming years.
With the advent of ASEAN integration, cross-border regions have emerged as new growth
centers. Thailand locates on mainland of greater Mekong sub-region possesses promising geoeconomic and connectivity with bordering countries especially through the realization of the
Greater Mekong Sub-region Corridors particularly for the East-West and Southern economic
corridors. In order to grasp this potential, Thailand has recently materialized to transform existing
interdependent borderlands towards integrated development of special border economic zones
across the country. It is also planned to foster supply chain and production linkages with
counterpart border economic zones in neighboring countries. As a result, overall national border
economic zone development strategies in Thailand have been proposed. Also, a number of
development strategies for specific cross-border economic zones in Thailand consisting of
Aranyaprathet district of Sakaeo province, Muang Mukdahan district of Mukdahan province and
Maesod district of Tak province in order to promote integrated borderlands development and
cross-border regional development with respective bordering districts of OChrov in Cambodia,
Kaysone Phomvihane in Lao PDR and Myawaddy in Myanmar have subsequently been
recommended. The researchs findings have both common and different features in comparison
with other studies.
279

Border Economic Zones and Development Dynamics in Thailand: A Comparative Study of Bordering Countries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Border Economic Zones and Development Dynamics in Thailand: A Comparative Study of Bordering Countries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Border Economic Zones and Development Dynamics in Thailand:

A Comparative Study of Bordering Countries

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Prof. Jayant Kumar Routray (Chairperson)

Prof. Sergio Pea Medina

Asian Institute of Technology

Data Collection Methods

Policy Analysis: Development of Special Border Economic Zones

Profiles of the Study Cross-Border Regions and Local Border

Macro Level Analysis of Cross-Border Trade Linkages and

Comparative Micro Level Analysis of Local Cross-Border Flows of

Local Cross-Border Large Scale Trading

Local Border Wholesaling, Retailing and Cross-Border Shopping

Local and Regional Cross-Border Production Linkages

Local Cross-Border Interactions, Employment and Household

Regional and Local Benefits at Different Cross-Border Regions

Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations

Globalization and regionalization in East Asia: the two

Number of sampling sizes of cross-border shoppers

Brief integrated development policies for special border

Educational levels of respondents

International trade value of Thailand

Cross-border trade segments

Reasons for employing immigrant labor

Registrations of border wholesaling businesses

Reasons for locating border industries

Sourcing of raw materials

Benefits gained by local border households after opening

Cross-border contract farming between Sakaeo province

SWOT Analysis of Aranyaprathet district of Sakaeo

Proposed border economic zones in Thailand and its

Geographic scales of cross-border cooperation

Cross-border trades between Thailand and Cambodia

GMS corridors network

Map 1.1 GMS Corridors Network

Source: Asian Development Bank.2007.GMS Transport Sector Strategy, Coast to

Map 1.2 Locations of border checkpoints in Thailand

Source: The Customs Department, Thailand

2) Aranyaprathet district in Sakaeo province bordering with OChrov district in

Figure 1.2 Conceptual Framework

Cross-border trade induced interactions between Thailand and

Analysis of both explicit and implicit special border economic zone

Joint border economic zones and development

1.4 Hypotheses of the Research

In terms of limitations, there is limited availability of secondary data on socio-economic

by stimulating supply-side competitiveness at the regional level. In this form,

Possible sources of export

ASEAN growth triangle

Production relocation from

Brunei Darussalam-IndonesiaMalaysia-Philippines East ASEAN

Improvement of infrastructural links

ADB growth triangle

Greater Mekong Sub-region

Joint natural resources development

or transnational region-building processes. Examples are foreign direct investment that

availability of EU policies and grants, supranational deregulation allowing regional

Figure 2.1 Geographic scales of cross-border cooperation: Type A - long distance

Section C: Concepts of Borderlands Development

currency, water) or in differences in tax regimes and regulations. Based on an international

border cities, as well as promoting technology transfer to domestic industry (Brannon et

1. It has not yet gone beyond the stage of being

3. Dichotomies exist on both sides in

Pick et al., 2001

on the Mexican side contributed to