Project proposal to Thailand Research Fund (TRF)

English version

Well-Being Society scenario project

SCHOOL FOR WELLBEING STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Well-Being Society scenario project

15 September 2010 – 15 September 2013 (3 years)

Proposal Year I (+ outline for Year II and III)
 SCHOOL FOR WELLBEING STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Well-Being Society scenario project

CONTENTS

Pages

I. Introduction 3

Rationale 5

Well-Being Society scenario in comparison with two contrasting

scenarios: our thesis 9

II. Description of Well-Being Society scenario project 11

• Coordination and Synthesis; Social Innovation 11

• Conceptual Research: Re-thinking Property 20

• Action-research: Bridging the Urban Rural Divide 24

Sub-proposal (1)
Organic Farmers as Social Entrepreneurs.
Sustainable Agriculture: a Trend towards Community Interest
Companies? 25

Sub-proposal (2)
ICT and Well-Being Policy 31

III. Appendices 35

School for Wellbeing Studies and Research

Patron, Advisors, Organization 35
Addresses and Contacts 37

Summary past, present and future activities 39

Communication strategy 40

2
 SCHOOL FOR WELLBEING STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Well-Being Society scenario project

15 September 2010 – 15 September 2013 (3 years)

Proposal Year I (+ outline for Year II and III)

Introduction
As one of the major results of the ‘GNH Movement’ research development project
realized with support of Thailand Research Fund and ThaiHealth/TGLIP in the period
August 2008-March 2010, the School for Wellbeing Studies and Research was
established by MOU in August 2009. Another major result of the GNH Movement
project is the formation of a coalition of research groups within the framework of the
‘School for Wellbeing’ to formulate and submit a second phase of the GNH
Movement project over the period 2010-2013, characterized by conceptual innovation
and action-research. The project proposed here by the coalition of research groups is
titled the Wellbeing Society Scenario project.

ULTIMATE AIM
of the School for Wellbeing Studies and Research

To strengthen transformation movements

towards sustainable communities
and a global wellbeing society

The founding partners of the School for Wellbeing are: the Faculty of Political
Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok; the Centre for Bhutan Studies,
Thimphu, Bhutan; and the Sathirakoses Nagapradipa Foundation. The Patron of the
School for Wellbeing is the Prime Minister of Bhutan, H.E. Jigmi Y. Thinley. A
short description of the School for Wellbeing and the list with its Advisors is attached
to this proposal.

School for Wellbeing Studies and Research

Strategic Objective

To strengthen transformation movements towards a ‘Wellbeing Society’:

Re-shaping an intercultural ‘Third Way’ supported by a ‘Tri-Sector’
Development Dialogue. The target of this emerging Tri-Sector dialogue is the
realization of sustainable and just development in the decade 2010-2020 by
improvement of participatory decision making. The major three stakeholder-
sectors in this dialogue to be initiated at all levels (rural communities, urban
centres, nations, regional and global platforms) being: 1. governments, 2.
business and 3. civil society.

3
 Articulation of ‘Well-Being Society’: Impact

As much as the aims, impacts and social awareness regarding a ‘wellbeing society’-
scenario will be articulated, the application of the positive aspects of diverse systems
or scenarios, realized on the ground in unique combinations, will be enabled (see
pages 4-7). Evidence-based foresight of the impacts of the wellbeing society in
comparison to the neo-liberal and socialist alternatives will support mindful decision
making and informed public participation. The Well-Being Society scenario project
aims to innovate an academic platform and ‘social lab’ where participatory decision
making can be exercised and multiplied into publicly available learning materials.

Target groups

The project aspires to extend and intensify the experiences gained in the ‘GNH
Movement’ project with dialogue among three basic stakeholder categories:
Governments and inter-gouvernmental agencies; the business sector; and civil society.
As the aim of the Wellbeing Society Scenario project is to raise the level of public
participation in articulating policies towards sustainable and just development, the
fourth target group consists of the education and media sectors. This fourth sector is
considered not to be a political factor on its own but a support-system, in principal
equally, serving the three major stakeholder categories identified here.

Civil society: networks of diverse NGO’s (dedicated to a diversity of issues) and

PO’s; groups and independent leaders dedicated to engaged spirituality; religious
organizations and networks for inter-faith dialogue

Business: business owners and shareholders; urban and rural responsible business
networks; consumer groups and entities mediating between producers and consumers;
investors; managers; middle management; labour groups; co-operatives; trainers and
consultants; farmers

Governments: policy makers in ministries; government agencies; politicians, political

parties; inter-governmental agencies; advisors

Education and the Media: diversity of universities and disciplines; policy makers;
lectures, assistants, students; independent researchers and research groups; teachers
and education consultants; media policy makers; producers and journalists; media
groups

4
 Well-Being Society scenario project
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationale

The ‘Third Way’ between socialism and capitalism has never matured into an
1
alternative in its own right. The most recent attempts to create a ‘Third Way’ ,
notably by political leaders Bill Clinton and Tony Blair have resulted in compromises
between free-market and socialist systems that honoured the negative aspects of both
rather than combining the positive dimensions of each.

Parallel to this effort a comparable approach was conceived in Asia by Nicanor

Perlas, Philippines, but it never reached the mainstream like the ‘Third Way’ did in
2
England and USA .

The ‘Third Way’ never matured into a systemic alternative realized massively and
consequently on the ground over a longer period of time.

A major obstacle towards emergence of a genuine ‘alternative economy’ has been the
assassination of Mahatma Gandhi before he could start his governance experiment,
including ‘trusteeship’ ruling property, and a village-based economy, in independent
India.

The emerging blend of liberalization within communist China still maintains a lighter
ecological footprint than that of the West, but the Chinese economy as it develops, is
not genuinely sustainable and just.

The European ‘social-market economy’, instead of carving out its own course,
increasingly followed the principles of the USA economy. It was hard hit by the
economic crisis of 2008 which revealed its unsustainable characteristics, in spite of
enormous efforts to change the course.

The ‘co-operative movement’ was articulated in modern history as a potentially

alternative economic framework, for example by Robert Owen (1771-1858) in
England. The movement now includes an enormous number of co-operatives,
including some of the largest enterprises, spread all over the world. However co-
operatives in general adjusted to the economic environment and the movement did
hardly offer a systemic alternative for national economies.

1
The USA-British initiative of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair was advised by Anthony Giddens author of
The Third Way: the renewal of Social Democracy, 1998. After initial success the efforts were reversed
and the economies nearly collapsed in 2008.

2
Shaping Globalization. Civil Society, Cultural Power and Threefolding by Nicanor Perlas, Centre for
Alternative Development Ininitatives (CADI), 2000.

5
In Africa Julius Nyerere induced co-operatives nation-wide in Tanzania. However the
original impulse evolved towards a restrictive government-driven system. While the
inspiration towards ‘endogenous development’, including traditional forms of co-
operative business, as pioneered by Joseph Ki-Zerbo in Burkina Faso, was
marginalized.

Nearly all over the world natural resources are governed by private property-
(individuals and corporates) or public property- (the state) regimes, often maintained
from far and anonymously. In traditional, endogenous and contemporary alternative
worldviews nature is considered to be common property shared by all in a multiple
generational perspective and cared for – not exploited – by communities directly
involved.

Socio-political crisis-ridden Thailand’s struggle to comply with sufficiency economy,

and the positive charisma surrounding the newly constituted democracy Bhutan with
its Gross National Happiness, offer two possible important ‘social labs’ for exploring
new combinations that include elements of capitalist and socialist systems but above
all could draw their guidance towards a new direction in development, from a possible
‘third scenario’: the wellbeing society.

In order to facilitate countries and above all civil societies to determine their own
unique mix of development philosophy and economic theory guiding practice, it is
important to give the ‘wellbeing society’ a stronger, transformative, profile.

The ‘wellbeing society’ should not be seen as a compromise between neo-liberal and
socialist systems but as a development path based on a distinct vision, worldview and
authentic, intrinsic values.

Bhutan launched its Gross National Happiness philosophy as a new development

paradigm. Whether it really can make a difference will be determined within a
3
decade . Thailand is exploring avenues – beyond ritual – towards a genuine
sufficiency economy and since the political crisis of May 2010, no longer can escape
from facing the challenge to bridging the gap between rich and poor. A new
development paradigm, however, may as much emerge from efforts to bridging the
urban-rural divide, as from focusing on ‘wealth distribution’, though not at all
ignoring the urgent need for ‘economic justice’.

Best practices gathered in the framework of this project from both agriculture and ICT
(Information and Communication Technology) undertakings, as well as
contemplation on property regimes will offer analytical material to test this
assumption: skillfully addressing the urban-rural divide has strong transformational
impact. The relevant pioneering minority in agriculture being the organic agriculture
movement. And within the world of ICT this is the ‘creative commons’ approach.

Not only will this assumption be tested by means of academic dialogue but as well in
simulation of decision making regarding the policy dilemmas involved. Assessing and
re-thinking Food Security policies provide a challenging framework for this exercise.

3
As stated by H.E. Prime Minister Jigmi Y. Thinley of Bhutan at several occasions.

6
Thailand and Bhutan offer two exemplary opportunities to co-create unique
development pathways. Both countries have their complex problems as well as their
unique ‘cultural capital’. From Thailand-Bhutan interaction in this perspective, links
can be established to regional (Mekong countries, S.E. Asia), continental (Asia
Pacific) and global networks operating in the same field of articulating an alternative,
new ‘Third Way’ economy, an economy of sharing.

In addition to secular initiatives, a new generation ‘Buddhist Economics’ is being

4
explored and may offer new windows to alternative development .

Common denominators to be revealed among this diversity of alternatives – unique

but in many ways representative for other unique cultures in Asia – could provide the
foundations of a wellbeing society - perspective.

If common ground can indeed be found and given a strong profile, this would
strengthen the contributions of movements in Thailand and in Bhutan to the debate on
5
re-thinking economic performance and social progress in South-East and in South
6
Asia .

The discourse could influence the new role of Asia in shaping progress towards
appropriate global governance, including interaction with initiatives evolving from
7
other continents .

The construction of a ‘wellbeing society’ scenario is intended to provide a framework

for dialogue at various levels. The purpose is to engage the government, business and
civil society sectors as equal partners in a common effort to shape development. For
this reason the concept deserves an exploration into more depth.

4
See the Buddhist Economics Research platform e.g. the academic papers of Apichai Puntasen,
Thailand, and the practitioners exchanges within the International Network of Engaged Buddhists
(INEB) guided by Japanese economist Nakamura Hisashi.

5
See the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission Report on Measurement of Economic Performance and
Social Progress.

6
Thailand and Bhutan are engaged respectively in the political frameworks ASEAN and SAARC.
Neighbouring countries of Thailand are bound together in the Mekong-region network – the Mekong
river springs from the Tibetan plateau north of Bhutan – while Bhutan is an independent country at the
core of the Himalayan region, neighboring India and China. Both Thailand and Bhutan are involved in
the BIMSTEC regional framework and UN-ESCAP, the regional UN Social and Economic
Commission for Asia-Pacific .

7
Asia-Europe is formalized in the ASEM (Asia-Europe Meeting). The first ASEM was held in
Bangkok, 1995. Example of a NGO-driven intercontinental network is Asia-Africa collaboration was
initiated in the Bandung conference which commemorates its 55th anniversary in Indonesia, October
2010.

7
Participatory decision making in policy development can be exercised by modes of
simulation games with backing of academic research, forecasting the impacts of
alternate decisions. The design, experimentation and evaluation of the informed
simulation offers material for a multi-media communication project which brings
decision-making on contemporary global dilemmas into the direct face-to-face human
sphere, and beyond mere intellectual exchange. The simulated decision making
process can possibly be shared with the public, including by means of social
networking.

The School for Wellbeing Studies and Research aims to provide a platform for
exchanges and debate on wellbeing-driven policy development. ‘The School’
intends to be an independent think-tank in this field.

8
 Well-Being Society scenario in comparison with two contrasting
scenarios: our thesis

General characteristics

All three scenarios have both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ characteristics and impacts.
Development reality will always result in a unique mix of systems. However, for
right choices to make, principles have to be clearly distinguished so that synergies
indeed enable the achievement of intended results.

Assumption

Local diversity will lead to optimal holistic ‘added value’, if global networks serve a
common cause determined by consensus building. This common cause is tentatively
perceived as the ‘global well-being society’: well-being for all.

Scenario Scenario towards Socialist scenario Neo-liberal scenario

wellbeing societies

Systemic characteristic Wellbeing society Welfare state Free market abundance

Responsibility Common responsibility Collective Individual

in social systems responsibility responsibility
Indicators of progress Wellbeing; happiness; (Basic) income; Profit; wealth;
altruism Equality individual success
Major actors Major actor is civil Major actor is the state Major actor is private
society business

Governance focus Community spirit and
localized regulation;
global inter-cultural
networking
Governance mode Democratically
supported consensus-
building mechanisms
Core values Solidarity
underpinning
Worldview
Ethics Responsibility towards
the common good and
shared values
Social security system; Co-responsibility of
education; health care civil society (families,
communities, religious
and ethics-based
organizations), the state
and the business sector.
Education and health
care ‘owned’ by civil
society
Equitable economic Multi-stakeholder
Collectivism and state Individualism and de-
regulation; state-driven regulation; global
global governance governance dominated
by multinational
corporations
Multi-party democracy Money- (lobby-ism)
(in communist system: and media- manipulated
single party); majority democratic system;
rule security
Justice Freedom
Duty towards collective Freedom to conquer
aims and equal rights individual success;
competition
Rights-based social Social security
security arranged by determined by market
state and taxation of mechanism; private
business and private education and
persons; state education privatized health care
and health care
Wealth distribution by Regime that suppresses

9
development dialogue between civil
society- government-
business- sectors
leading to bridging the
gap between rich and
poor; bridging the
urban-rural divide
Scientific orientation Holistic science
Property Emphasis on common
property
Agriculture system and Community based
Food security small-scale organic
farming and natural
resources management;
bio-diversity and fair
trade through local and
international networks;
‘food sovereignty’
Information and Networks of ‘creative
communication commons’; responsible
and participatory
media; equal efforts
and customized service
catering urban and
rural participants
Description Well-Being Society scenario project
10
taxation; governance conflict between rich
by the masses and poor; balanced by
philanthropy
Historic materialism Pragmatism
Emphasis on public Emphasis on private
property property
Collective and large- Large scale farming;
scale farming under land, seeds, processing
government and marketing channels
regulations; state owned by private
distribution business; free market
mechanism
ICT sector in hands of Private sector driven,
state enterprises; commercially
government sector structured services and
primary customer; products; purchasing
censorship power of urban
customers drives
product development
and services; free
expression
 • Coordination and Synthesis; Social Innovation
The Coordination Team will be responsible for aligning the various research projects
and to enable synthesis. The Coordination Team intends to innovate conceptual and
action-research progress towards new insights and experimentation.

WELL-BEING SOCIETY SCENARIO PROJECT

Sharpening Evidence by Simulated Decision Making

Scenario Comparison

Re-thinking Property

ICT ‘creative
Organic Farmers as commons’ for Well-
Social Entrepreneurs Being Policies

Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide

From HIA to Wellbeing Impact Assessment?

The Well-Being Society scenario as drafted above (pages 9-10) will be gradually
fine-tuned during the 3 years’ project, based on academic evidence and

11
forecasting, and in comparison with the ‘socialist’ and ‘neo-liberalist’ scenarios.
The comparison will focus on ‘Re-thinking Property’ and ‘Bridging the Urban-
Rural Divide’ as two critical factors defining the Well-Being Society scenario.

Academic evidence will be gathered (within the limitations of this project) guided
by the Health Impact Assessment (HIA)- approach. The HIA- approach will be
gradually developed towards a Well-Being Assessment approach.

Rationale of selecting ‘Re-thinking Property’ and ‘Bridging the

Uraban-Rural Divide’ as the core areas of research

The core issue proposed to be studied in order to understand the current economic
system and its impact on the wellbeing of people is the notion of property. Much
attention has been given to monetary turn-over, indicators to monitor it like Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), and critique on GDP as a misleading measurement of
wellbeing.
In contrast new indicators of wellbeing like Gross National Happiness in Bhutan have
been explored and have guided us towards in-depth research on utility, contentment
and altruism as manifestations of happiness or wellbeing (Amartya Sen, Matthieu
Ricard) and how a shift in producer-consumer orientations from this point of view
could result in new approaches to economics (Apichai Puntasen).
However, during the GNH-movement platform on ‘Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide’
the diversity of (often conflicting) property regimes as uphold by different
stakeholders was highlighted, mainly as an obstacle for transformation towards
sustainable development. A leading traditional notion of property, ‘the commons’
(Vandana Shiva), has been almost wiped out by the primacy of state ownership in
communist systems, and is at present overruled by a neo-liberal monoculture of
private property claims.
In order to find windows towards ‘re-setting’ the economy as the backbone of the
future wellbeing society, it is necessary to gain full understanding of this factor that
programmes society and to find sources for bringing about alternative approaches:
“re-defining property”.

It is a challenging research question whether and in what ways property regimes

correlate with the perceived urban-rural divide; and how insights can help to bridging
this divide. One assumption is that traditional notions of common property are
revitalized in ‘regenerative’ rural development and that this movement resonates with
new approaches to intellectual property, notable the ‘creative commons’ movement in
the area of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) a typically urban-
driven response to the supremacy of mainstream private and public property regimes.

A further rationale for selection of the theme ‘Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide’ for
this research project is provided in that section.

• Coordination and Synthesis; Social Innovation

12
Part I: Administrative Information

1.1. Names: Wallapa van Willenswaard, Co-Manager School

for
1.2 Organization:
1.3 Title of Project:
1.4 Starting Date:
1.5 Duration:
Wellbeing Studies and Research
Jarin Boonmathya, Process Coordinator
Patcharee Chonmamat, Project Coordinator
Hans van Willenswaard, Project Director
Suan Nguen Mee Ma social enterprise, Project
Management on behalf of the School for Wellbeing
Studies and Research
Wellbeing Society Scenario project
15 Septemeber 2010
3 years;
first stage one year (15 Sept. 2010–15 Sept. 2011)

1.6. Coalition

School for Wellbeing coalition of research groups

• Faculty of Political Science, School for Wellbeing Studies and Research,

Chulalongkorn University
• Centre for Ethics of Science and Technology, Chulalongkorn University
(CEST)
• Healthy Public Policy Foundation (HPPF)
• Suan Nguen Mee Ma social enterprise – Project Management, on behalf
of the School for Wellbeing Studies and Research

The Researchers (supervisors) of each group will meet bi-monthly, while Research
Assistants to be appointed will meet one day every two weeks, coordinated by the
Project Management.

Part II: Project Description

13
Coordination and Synthesis; Social Innovation

2.1 Rationale See pages 5-8

2.2 Aim and Objectives

Wellbeing Society scenario development and capacity building by means of

simulation of participatory decision making processes and a multi-media project.

1. Activating a network to construct and assess a Wellbeing Society

scenario and comparing the impacts to neo-liberal and socialist
scenarios.

2. To support development of a Wellbeing Impact Assessment approach,

taking experiences with the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and
capital approach (Decharut Sukkumnoed) as the starting point. With
input from the GNH Index as developed by the Centre for Bhutan
Studies, Bhutan; and towards National Wellbeing Accounting by the
Centre for Wellbeing, New Economics Foundation (nef), U.K. and
other agencies.

3. To guide, coordinate and synthesize in-depth conceptual- and action-

research concerning aspects critical to the Wellbeing Society scenario
to be implemented by research groups of the coalition: Re-thinking
Property and Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide (Regenerative
Agriculture and ICT for Well-being policies).

4. To prepare a multi-media project in which the impacts of the diverse

scenarios will be clarified with academic support (forecasting) and by
means of an intensive process of simulated participatory decision
making. [The multi-media project to be implemented in phase 2 and 3].

5. To evaluate and share the lessons learned from this exercise, in

particular in the perspective of capacity building and transformative
learning. To prepare dissemination in phase 3.

6. To improve public participation in giving direction to the development

of Thailand ~ enabled by articulation of the ‘wellbeing society
scenario’ ~, in the perspective national reform efforts and international
movements to shape sustainable and just development.

2.3 Conceptual Framework Process Development

14
The scenario is developed and tested by simulation. The simulation is presented as a
media event and educational tool. The impact of the media event on public
participation is evaluated and continuous feed-back provides new input in scenario
development and recommendations for policy makers.

Year I Year II Year III

Developing an alternative Exercising informed Sharing experiences;

decision making to test capacity building;
alternatives dissemination

Coordination and Synthesis; Televised Simulation Game Production of Simulation

Social Innovation with academic research Game for educational
backing purpose and public
1. Conceptual Research distribution

Re-thinking Property
Dialogue, Synthesis and Curriculum Development
2. Best practices Advanced Research

Bridging the Urban-Rural

Divide

2.1. Regenerative Organic

Agriculture

2.2. ICT and Wellbeing policy

development

2.4 Activities

15
 Where relevant together with the Researchers, the Coordination Team will
intensify the network build-up as a result of the GNH Movement project, and extend
it with new stakeholder representatives and expertise. In a joint effort the ‘wellbeing
society scenario’ will be given profile in comparison with other scenarios.
Preparations will be made to make the step from exchanges and exploration to
exercising informed decision making by simulation. By undertaking interviews and
organizing an innovation process, participation in seminars and conferences, co-
organizing events and exchanging research results.
Overview of examples:

Name Organization

Patron, Partners and Advisors; School for Wellbeing Studies and Research
resource persons and
participants in GNH Movement
project (see: Appendix)
Universities in Thailand and abroad

Sufficiency Economy network

CSR networks (including Global Compact)
Social Quality network / ISS The Hague
Quality of Life network
Buddhist Economics network
International Network of Engaged Buddhists
(INEB) / Buddhist Economics working group
Interfaith networks working on development,
wellbeing, happiness
World Future Council, Germany

Right Livelihood Award, Sweden

World Social Forum

World Economic Forum

Thai and international experts on scenario writing

(government, business, civil society sectors) and
monitoring
Experts in transformative education, in particular
working with simulation games and role play

16
2.5 Action Plan

• Step 1: Arrangements for Project Management; and Coordination with

researchers; team building and regular exchanges
• Step 2: Co-organize the HIA and capitals methodology experts’
seminar and methodology exchanges among the researchers
• Step 3: Literature review, refining wellbeing society scenario
assumptions; organizing conference on GNH Movement project results and
on Wellbeing Society scenario assumptions and project aspirations
• Step 4: Networking, participation in seminars and conferences,
interviews and workshops with experts and stakeholders
• Step 5: Building multi-media database (for year II and III); ongoing
• Step 6: Preparing simulation game through team process (for year II
and III)
• Step 7: Co-organizing an international conference on Re-thinking
Property
• Step 8: Decoding and synthesizing process; final report in June 2011;
transition to Year II and III
• Step 9 : Organizing concluding conference (will be realized at the start
of Year II)

Timeline*) (2010-2011: 12 months); year II and III

Procedure
Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Year II III

Literature review and report

Networking, interviews and
workshops with stakeholders
Decoding and synthesizing
process
Conference: Wellbeing Society
in Thailand; October 2010
International conference ‘Re-
thinking Property’ (co-financed)
Multi-media database; website
HIA Methodology; Wellbeing
Impact Assessment
Simulation game development
Project Management and
Content Coordination
*) to be adjusted to delayed start per 15 September 2010

17
2.6 Expected Outputs and Outcomes

Outputs

• Synthesis Report: In this report the results of conceptual and action-research

undertaken by the partners of the research-coalition will be presented and
integrated as a contribution towards the re-formulated wellbeing society
scenario.

• Conferences and Dialogues: at the beginning of the first and second year
conferences will be organized to share results and research questions. If
additional sponsorship can be found an international conference on Re-
thinking Property will be held and a series of dialogues between international
and Thai experts will be organized.

• Multi-media database: the partners will gather and produce materials that will
be systematically stored and made available for the second and third stages of
the project, future research, media productions and capacity building

• Outline for Wellbeing Impact Assessment methodology: starting from the

example of the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) approach steps will be
explored towards development of an inter-disciplinary Wellbeing Impact
Assessment approach

• Outline for Wellbeing Society scenario: a reworked version of the Wellbeing

Society Scenario will be presented including the links to bodies of knowledge
and research groups able to help test the scenario in simulated decision making
and as a tool supporting policy development

• Design for Decision Making Simulation Game; operational team for multi-
media programme (publications, social networking, t.v. series, public
dialogue): based on academic debate and dialogue with stakeholders a
simulation game will be designed enabling testing of the impacts of decisions
based on the various scenarios; a partnership with media-groups and experts
will be forged which can implement the game in year 2 and can produce
educational material for broad dissemination in year 3

Outcomes

• Strengthened network (Thailand, international) of School for Wellbeing

Studies and Research: continuous contribution as an independent think tank
towards reconciliation, social transformation and the shaping of a sustainable
and just society

• New tools for capacity building and participation in public policy

development; strengthening informed decision-making towards wellbeing

18
 society scenario: contributing towards a participatory democracy with
innovations at conceptual, action-research and educational application levels

• Policy recommendations addressing a tri-sector effort to bridging the urban-

rural divide: visionary dialogues and new partnerships for development

19
 • Conceptual research: Re-thinking Property

Part I: Administrative Information

1.1 Name: Surat Horachaikul

1.2 Organization:
1.3 Title of Project:
1.4 Starting Date:
1.5 Estimated Duration:
Faculty of Political Science, School for Wellbeing
Re-thinking Property. Towards a conceptual framework
enabling social transformation
15 September 2010
12 months (15 Sept. 2010–15 Sept. 2011)

2.1 Rationale

Re-thinking Property. Towards a conceptual framework enabling social

transformation.

It is difficult to deny that the nations’ present development follows a similar

direction as the stream emphasizing the economic growth dogma: the ‘neo-liberalism’
8
paradigm. This, in the words of Jan Nederveen Pieterse , is neo-liberal globalization.
From empirical evidence, we can see that the turning point towards neo-liberal
development began in 1970’s when the US faced an economic crisis of stagflation (a
high inflation rate coupled with a high unemployment rate).
The crisis presented the opportunity for economists from the Chicago School
lead by Milton Friedman to attack the mixed-market development idea leaning
towards Keynesianism. Eventually it evolved into a clear-cut neo-liberal development
paradigm.
Currently, neo-liberal development together with globalization or neo-liberal
globalization, for a period of 40 years, has built up the status of an almost universal
development pattern. Privatization, deregulation, and GDP-driven economic
development can be seen all over the world. Neo-liberal globalization is thus both a
process/means and a phenomenon/end of worldwide homogenization.
Neo-liberal development has caused concerns among many groups of
development practitioners and academics alike. This is due to the evidence based on
many pieces of research that under neo-liberal development there are numerous
negative impacts. These include increasing absolute poverty in various places, ever
widening socio-economic disparity, environmental degradation caused by over-
exploitation of natural resources, and epidemics of infectious diseases. At the same
time, prevention and treatment have not been able to forge collective cooperation
amidst, though military conflicts and interstate wars are declining, peoples’ conflicts

8
Development Theory. Deconstructions/Reconstructions, Jan Nederveen Pieterse, London 2001.

20
are growing. Access to and possession of weapons of mass destruction become easier.
9
All these actions are amounting to what Ulrich Beck calls the “Risk Society” .
These negative impacts have prompted people to look for a way out or an
alternative to neo-liberal development. The motivating alternative is a balance
between capitalism and extreme socialism, or a transformation to a society where an
alternative is to be implemented. A new balance or alternative can only be achieved
when the understanding of the concept of property is clear. Because within either
extreme capitalism, radical socialism, a balance between the two ideologies, or an
alternative, the property regime is obviously the indication of the guiding
development principle. For example in neo-liberal development, possession of
property by private entities is seen as righteous. Therefore it is not surprising that
emphasis on private property not only leads to a push for turning almost everything
into private properties, but it also creates a fierce competition for property rights.
Public property is emphasized in socialist regimes. While ‘common property’
10
has nearly lost its meaning .
Consequently the heart of development rests at the concept of property.
Because various approaches to possession, to property rights, are indicators of
development regimes. Without understanding property, the search for the harmony of
living together happily will not lead to completion.
In the politico-economic situation of neo-liberal globalization, the study of
property is crucial since properties in the present day have wider boundaries than in
the past. It therefore should be called the new property regime which also includes
intellectual property rights.
The new property regime thus covers both the ‘old’ properties familiar to most
people and the ‘new’ properties as intellectual property, not only unfamiliar to many
but also posing threats to humanity, directly and indirectly. Obvious examples of this
are agriculture products, including ‘designer seeds’ and a new regime called
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s).
The new property regime inevitably relates to global politics. Numerous
pieces of empirical evidence point to the USA as the creator and supporter of this
regime. Those studies also reveal that this property regime connects profoundly to the
profits of transnational corporations which are considered directly benefitting the
USA. Therefore studies about property regimes have to look into the dimension of
international political economy, and principles of unilateralism, bilateralism, and
multilateralism applied to scrutiny through various international agencies.
It is undeniable that throughout the global economic evolution which supports
the neo-liberal development, there still are societies and communities striving to hold
on to the traditional development or create new development alternatives as a way out
of neo-liberal development. These societies are trying to find a balance between
development extremes and create a contextualized development towards
sustainability.
It is as a result important to understand what property regimes these societies
and communities have because this understanding will bring about realization of the
attitudes and cultures in management of economy valuing sharing and not stressing
only GDP growth rates. However before making efforts to understand alternative

9
Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Ulrich Beck, London 1992:
10
Earth Democracy. Justice, Sustainability, and Peace, Vandana Shiva, 2005.

21
property regimes, it is absolutely necessary to grasp the details of the neoliberal
property regime. These details should cover

(1.) History of property regimes from liberalism to neo-liberalism

(2.)The differences between old and new property regimes
(3.) The process of gaining recognition of the new property regime
(4.) The impacts of the new property regime on human wellbeing

The understanding of the new property regime or the neo-liberal property

regime is necessary since it makes us appreciate the ideas and the challenges of
alternative societies and communities challenged by a neo-liberal context. The
comprehension of conceptual and practical models of these communities will present
a concrete pathway to development that is sustainable, fair to people and nature, lower
in-justice, and supportive to sharing towards a wellbeing society.

2.2 Objectives

• To clarify how neo-liberalism emerged from liberalism and how neo-

liberal globalization influences current property regimes
• To analyze the conceptual foundations of the neo-liberal property regime;
recognition of alternative concepts
• To explore pathways to the development of alternative property regimes,
essential for a possible wellbeing society scenario, and the impacts on
human wellbeing

2.3 Scope of Research

A number of scholars and practitioners (some from abroad) and some

emerging groups are asked to write papers, share their experiences and perspectives
on how to define and re-think property: what changes in property regimes will be
needed to support transformation towards sustainable and just development. Examples
are given in the list below:

Name Perspective

Human Rights approach

Philosophy of Law; diversity of legal systems and
International Law
The Neo-liberal paradigm; corporate law in USA
Co-operative Movement; its emergence and
present status
The ‘commons’ movement
Community forestry movement in Thailand
Common property in Bhutan

The Land Reform Movement in India

Evolution of property regimes in China

22
 Intellectual property and ICT: the creative
commons
Property of living nature (seeds, species, genes):
ethical considerations
Property regimes and corresponding world views,
including perceptions of wellbeing and happiness.

2.4 Action Plan

• Step 1: Literature review; methodology sharing seminar

• Step 2: Data collection: in depth interviews with experts and series of
papers
• Step 3: Decoding and synthesizing process; conceptual synthesis paper
• Step 4: International conference ‘Re-thinking Property’
• Step 5: Building multi-media database (for year II and III); ongoing
• Step 6: Preparing simulation game through team process (for year II
and III)

Timeline*) (2010-2011: 12 months); year II and III

Procedure
Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Year II III
Literature review and
conceptual paper
In depth interviews with experts
and papers
International conference
Decoding and synthesizing
process
Multi-media database

Methodology development
Simulation game development
*) to be adjusted to delayed start per 15 September 2010

2.5 Expected Outputs and Outcomes

Outputs
• Collection of papers and Synthesis Paper: “Re-thinking Property”.(Book
publication as part of multi-media project in year II)
• International conference: co-sponsored
• Multi-media database: material for multi-media project in year II and III

23
 • Decision making simulation game: contribution to design process from the
perspective of producing educational material and new ICT-supported inter-
active learning approaches for political science studies at various levels

Outcomes
• New perspectives on common, private and public property as foundation for
development towards a ‘wellbeing society’ scenario
• Overview of academic views and governance practices regarding property
regimes and the way these influence wellbeing

• Action-research: Bridging the Urban Rural Divide

Rationale for selection of ‘Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide’ as a

major theme of the Wellbeing Society Scenario project

• The urban-industrial complex is characterized by application of materialist

science and reductionism, and technology enabling mass production which has
pushed the rural-based, human-scale economies and culture to a minority
position, even though at least still half of the population in Thailand is living
in rural settings, despite growing migration to the mega-cities.
• Even the agriculture sector is now almost completely defined by industrial
applications, as well as by the neo-liberal property regime (land ownership,
seeds, fertility, technology, specialized knowledge and intellectual property).
• An attempt will be made to produce a ‘balance sheet’ of urban and rural
contributions to the Wellbeing Society scenario, applying the Wellbeing
Impact Assessment approach (to be developed) as a tool.

Selection of ‘organic agriculture movement’ and ICT ‘creative

commons’ as strategic impulses towards innovating ‘urban-rural
bridges’ and towards social transformation

• Both within the agriculture and industrial sectors, strategic initiatives and best
practices are identified that carry a promise towards bridging the urban-rural
divide (conflict of interest can be transcended by common purpose and
adjustments of lifestyle) and therefore to the articulation and realization of the
wellbeing scenario.
• The assumption is that within the agriculture sector ‘regenerative agriculture’
or the ‘organic agriculture movement’ contributes most to the realization of
the ‘Wellbeing Society scenario’. This assumption will be tested by providing
evidence based on comparison of various seed technologies, using the ‘HIA-
and capital-approach’ as evaluation tool. This process of gathering evidence
also will serve as an exercise to develop a ‘Wellbeing Impact Assessment’-
approach applicable to the Wellbeing Society scenario as a whole and
comparison with other scenarios.
• More in depth information on ICT ‘creative commons’ and related urban

24
 movements will be gathered by interviews and workshops with independent
persons, groups and networks that operate along these lines.
• It will be explored how these initiatives can be brought together in platforms
like the Thai Green Market Network in order to formulate common interest in
realizing the vision of a Wellbeing Society. And how (agriculture and ICT)
services and products can be catered to the real needs of urban and rural
populations in pilot models of an economy of sharing.
• During Year II in particular by means of a series of sessions of a simulation
game, it will be experimented how these groups can influence decision making
while interacting with a broader group of actors representing the three basic
stakeholder categories: governments, business sector and civil society.

Action-research: Bridging the Urban Rural Divide

Sub-Proposal (1)

Organic Farmers as Social Entrepreneurs. Sustainable Agriculture:

a Trend towards Community Interest Companies?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part I: Administrative Information

1.1 Researchers: Buddhina Nuntavorakarn

1.2 Project’s Advisor:
1.2 Organization:
1.4 Title of Project:
1.5 Starting Date:
1.6 Duration:
Duangjai Rungrojcharoenkit
Decharut Sukkumnoed
Healthy Public Policy Foundation (HPPF)
Sustainable Agriculture: a Trend towards Community
Interest Companies?”
15 September 2010
12 months (15 September 2010– August 2011)

Part II Project Description

Rationale

The Green Revolution after the World War II has changed the production pattern,
market system and consumption behaviours world wide including Thailand. Increased
productivity in the agricultural sector helped us initially towards better achievements
on food security. But these achievements have to be traded off with the deterioration
of natural resources and the environment as well as higher social (and cultural) costs.
Farmers could not harvest the benefit of increased yields as expected while they are
pushed into the debt-cycle leading to poverty and poor health. Consumers are
confronted with the higher risks of chemical contamination in their food. These
factors together put into question whether food security is guaranteed in the long term.

25
In the late 1970’s, the movement of sustainable and organic agriculture was formed in
Thai society by NGOs with the belief that it would be a solution helping farmers from
the vicious cycle of chemical agriculture. With obvious evidence on adverse impacts
of chemical agriculture such as poor health, degradation of ecosystem and less self
reliance, sustainable agricultural practices have gradually been accepted by some
farmers and civil servants as alternative to unhealthy modes of production. However,
the sustainable agriculture movement is not (yet) strong enough to re-direct
mainstream agricultural development at both farm and policy levels.

According to the research titled “CEO of the Field: Health impact assessment of the
transition to sustainable agriculture” by Duangjai Rungrojcharoenkit and Buddhina
Nuntavorakarn, farmers have limited capital (defined in a multi-dimensional
perpective) due to socio-economic pressures. Therefore providing them with organic
agriculture skills is not enough to support them adequately. What is needed, according
to the research, are the skills of managing capitals for health ~ including human
11
capital, nature capital, physical capital, financial capital and social capital . The
skills of assessing, and mobilizing these capitals helps the farmers pass through
socio-economic difficulties during the transition period towards organic agriculture
production and marketing. This finding addresses the challenge that the role of
farmers has to be regenerated not only as the producer but also as the entrepreneur
who highly pays attention to risk management, cost effective investment in tackling
their own constraints, and in the ‘green marketing’ of their products.

Attention will be given to the use of ICT-applications in ‘green marketing’ efforts.

Although, health capital management is an essential skill encouraging farmer to step

out from the debt cycle and to move into the organic world, it seemed that few
farmers could successfully manage their capitals towards a balance of socio-
economic, and environment development. Recently, there are several efforts to
support farmers in reaching that goal and the development of Community Interest
Companies (CIC) as proposed by the researchers is one of such efforts. The “CIC-
approach” aspires to be a key mechanism towards bridging producers and consumers
interests through ‘mindful market’ efforts. The aim of the proposed “CIC-approach”
is to encourage small scale farmers to take up the role as social entrepreneurs who can
manage the complexity of health (in the broad sense of well-being) capitals in
productive and effective ways. At the same time, CIC’s are working closely with
market and consumers leading to the expansion of environmentally and socially
responsible consumers-networks. Therefore, the emergence of the “CIC-approach”
may become a factor of hope in strengthening the sustainable agriculture movement.

This research project aims to decode the concept and experiences of CIC’s taking up a
significant role in bridging farmers and consumers interests through various
approaches to innovative marketing and capital management such as strategies in
mobilizing capitals, resource allocation etc. This research will explore how the “CIC-
approach” can encourage farmers and consumers in tackling their constraints which

11
Birley, M.H. "A review of trends in health impact assessment and the nature of the evidence used."
Journal of Environmental Management and Health, 2002. Martin Birley was one of the authors of the
Report of the World Commission on Dams Dams and Development a new framework for decision
making, 2000.

26
then will lead to healthy supply chains as a consequence. In addition, the survival in
terms of self finance will be synthesized. This will lead to the assessment and
consequent recommendations for the practical realization of the “CIC-approach” in
Thai society.

When such a concrete movement in sustainable agriculture at operation level will

emerge, this may induce changes at the policy level. The development path of
sustainable agriculture at present is given less confidence due to the concerns on food
security in a short term perspective, the adaptation in the severe environment like
global warming and the productive sector boosting economic growth. Comparisons
between sustainable agriculture and ‘agrobusiness’ technologies such as conventional
farming, hybrid and GMOs usually do not fully take into account ‘externalities’ (costs
not directly visible) and inherent value unveiled by the ‘multiple capital’ approach as
in HIA.

Therefore, this research will conduct Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of a variety of
seeding technologies such as conventional, hybrid, GMO’s and farm-saved seeds with
the aims to address the positive and negative consequences of applying each
technology. The results of this assessment will be applied as important input for
decision makers in formulating healthy agriculture policies. And well-being policies
in general, including the aim of bridging the urban-rural divide.

The findings from the decoding of “CIC” best practices and HIA of Seed
Technologies will be an input for the research team in designing the model of
property regime which liberate the society from the dominance of neo liberalism. The
expected outcome of new concept of property regime is recognized as critical
mechanism to move toward well-being economy.

Objectives

1. To decode the capital management of Community Interest Company (CIC)

recognized as a key mechanism accelerating the transition from chemical
to sustainable agriculture and the expansion of socially and
environmentally responsible consumers-networks

2. To assess whether sustainable agriculture is the best option under the

socio- economic and environmental challenges through applying Health
Impact Assessment of Seed Technologies as case study

3. To adapt the perspective of Health Impact Assessment towards the

initiative of Well-being Impact Assessment in relation to efforts to
bridging the urban-rural divide

4. To synthesize findings as critical input for a new model of property regime

moving toward well-being society

27
Conceptual Framework
Challenges at policy level
• Environmental challenges
like global warming
• Socio-economic pressures
under intensified capitalism
Concerns
• Food security (well-being of
consumers)
• The survival of small scale
farmers
Challenges
Challenges at operational level
• Socio-economic pressure on
small-scale farmers
• The weakness of socially and
environmentally responsible
consumers
Concerns
• Is sustainable agriculture a
practical option under the
socio-economic pressures
and dynamics?
HIA of Rice Seed Technologies
• Conventional, Hybrid, GMO’s and
Farm saved seeds
Impact Assessment
• Economic security in terms of
productivity
• Social security in terms of social
structure
• Environmental security in terms of
efficient use of resources
Mechanism
‘CIC-approach’ bridging
consumers and small scale farmers
• 12 Case Studies
Decoding Issues
• Social goal and mission of CIC’s
• Multi-capital management achieving
the social goal and the survival of
independent CIC’s
• Outcome of CIC in the supply chain:
empowered farmers and socially and
environmentally responsible
consumers (+role of ICT)
28
Output
• Evidence as critical input
for the direction of
agriculture policies,
resulting in increased food
security and better
livelihood of small-scale
farmers
Input for the model
of property regime
and bridging the
Goal urban-rural divide
toward the Well-
Being Society
Output
• The missing link in the
supply chain supporting
sustainable agriculture
movement
• The catalysts promoting
CIC in Thai society
especially CIC in the
sustainable agriculture
movement.
Action Plan

• Step 1: Literature review

• Step 2: Data collection: in depth interviews and HIA field work
• Step 3: Decoding and synthesizing process
• Step 4: Database preparation
• Step 5: Input for Game Simulation through expert dialogues

Timeline (Sep. 2010- Aug 2011: 12 months)

Procedures
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Apr Jun Aug

Literature review

HIA Training
Data collection: In depth
interview and HIA field work
Decoding and synthesizing
process
Database Preparation

Input for Game Simulation

Key Informants assumed to represent best practices of the “CIC approach”

CIC developed from NGO’s

1. Vitoon Panyakul Green Net, Bangkok
2. Wallapa van Willenswaard Suan Nguen Mee Ma, Bangkok: Green Market
Network
3. Chomchuan Boonrahong ISAC, Chiangmai

CIC developed from the private sector

4. Yuthakarn Makpun Khamsad Resort, Kanjanaburi
5. Waritsorn Rakpun Chumporn Cabana, Chumporn

CIC developed from peoples organizations

6. Klaew Boonrod Phon Yang Kham Coooperatives, Sakhonnakorn
7. Thamrong Saengsuriyachan Organic Farming Network of Thailand, Santi
Asoke, Bangkok

CIC developed from community networks

8. Raweewan Srithong
9. Phoonpithak Luengsriorn
10. Amphorn Thanikrut
11. Somboon Srisubut
12. Vijit Boonsoong
CSA, Suphanburi
Sanamchaiket, Chachoengsao
Community Network on Agro-tourism,
Chumporn
Organic Farmer Network, Chumporn
Fair Trade Organic Rice Network, Yasothorn

29
Case studies (HIA of Seed Technologies)

Conventional Seed Rice Department and Farmers in Pathumthani

Hybrid Seed Farmers in Khampangpetch
Farm Saved Seed Kao Kwan Foundation, Suphanburi
GMO Seed Rice Department

2.6 Expected Outputs and Outcomes

Outputs
• Paper on “Health Impact Assessment of Rice Seed Technologies”
• Paper on “Community Interest Company: Decoding capital management to
strengthen sustainable agriculture movement
Outcomes
• Strengthen Community Interest Company as critical mechanism in sustainable
agriculture movement.
• The policy proposal advocating healthy agricultural policy
• The approach applying HIA in the initiative of Well-being Impact Assessment

30
Action-research: Bridging the Urban Rural Divide

Sub-Proposal (2)
ICT and Wellbeing Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part I: Administrative Information

• Names: Soraj Hongladarom

• Organization:
• Title of Project:
• Starting Date:
• Duration:
Parkpume Vanichaka, Research Assistant
Center for Ethics of Science and Technology,
Chulalongkorn University (CEST)
ICT and Wellbeing Policy
15 September 2010
12 months (15 Sept. 2010–15 Sept. 2011)

Part II Project Description

2.1 Rationale

This section of the proposal on the Well-Being Society scenario project

focuses on the role played by information and communication technologies (ICT’s)
for development, especially as they are concerned with what is known as ‘sustainable’
development as well as the philosophies behind His Majesty the King of Thailand’s
“Sufficiency Economic Principles” and Bhutan’s “Gross National Happiness”
programs.
It is undeniable that ICT’s are playing very important roles in our lives
nowadays. The question is how to harness the power of the technologies for real and
lasting benefits to the world’s population. Most policy proposals regarding ICT’s and
development tend to subscribe to technological determinism, which argues that the
direction of development is a function of technological infusion and development
within the area where the development is to take place. In other words, the
technological determinists believe that providing technologies is sufficient in causing
economic development. A recent study by the World Bank, which argues that there
will be as much as 1.3 percent increase in economic growth rate if broadband internet
12
technologies are introduced to a country, is a case in point . The thinking behind this
is that technology determines development. However, many studies have shown that
it is far too simple to maintain that technological infusion alone will result in
economic development. Many factors are always involved which are difficult to
predict and fully control. For example, the level of education, awareness and
acceptance of technology by the population is also very important. What would
happen if, for example, broadband technology is introduced to Thailand but the
population in general are not exactly ready for it? Simply giving the people a mobile
phone connected to the Internet or notebook computers would not magically create an
12
Telecommunications and Economic Growth Qiang, Christine Zhen-Wei, 2009 (World Bank,
unpublished paper)

31
advanced, mature economy. There needs then to be a study that investigates these
contextual factors so that the path from technology to development is a workable one.
Furthermore, the issue of development itself is also contentious. The ideas
behind the alternative development concepts of Thailand and Bhutan are that simply
accumulation of wealth and material gain by themselves should not be taken as the
goal of development. For there are many more dimensions of “development” than just
wealth accumulation. The economist Amartya Sen is of the same idea when he
introduces the notion of the “capabilities approach” which measures economic growth
and well-being in terms of realization of human potentials, what a human being could
be in accordance with his or her vision of what humans could indeed become in a
situation of perfect freedom. Capabilities are construed in terms of the freedoms
people have reason to value limited by the choices they can make in reality. Certainly
material wealth and its limited access is one factor in that vision, but it is clearly not
wealth alone. In order to create a more well-rounded perspective of development, a
re-think and dialogue are necessary. Hence the main question for the project here is:
Given the power and ubiquity of information and communication technologies in
today’s world, what can the technologies do in order to effect the kind of more well
rounded development of human society and individuals, one that promotes their “well
being” rather than mere accumulation of wealth?
The project proposes to answer this question through a research program and a
series of activities described below. More specifically, the proposed project here aims
at providing policy recommendations that will bridge the existing gap between the
rural and urban areas in Thailand. It will identify the factors that are involved in
creating the gap and suggest ways to combat them. In other words, even though
technological infusion alone is not enough, the project will identify other factors
which when added to the technology will result in information and communication
technologies become sufficient for the desired development.

2.2 Objectives

• To engage in research designed to answer the question of how best

information and communication technologies could foster visions of
alternative development in Thailand and Bhutan aiming at goals that go
beyond mere economic growth
• To become a part in the overall project of the School for Wellbeing Studies
and Research and contribute to positioning it as an independent think tank
• Exploring the possibilities (with the support of information and
communication technologies applied by groups who pioneer ‘social
networking’ and ‘open sourcing’) of developing a multi-media project
recording a decision making simulation game that clarifies the impact of
choices for well-being driven policy alternatives
• To provide workable and effective policy recommendations to stakeholders
including local and national authorities on ICT policy and policy development
in related areas

2.3 Best practices

32
 A number of successful social entrepreneurs and civil networks as well as
some emerging groups in the ICT and media sector (including some foreign groups)
are resource persons sharing their experiences and the perspectives on how to manage
ethical and participatory ICT as well as common intellectual property practices, in
achieving the benefit of wellbeing driven development. Some examples:

Name Organization

Soraj Hongladarom Center for Ethics of Science and Technology,

Pattarasinee Bhattarakosol
Michel Bauwens
Chulalongkorn University
Thai PBS/Thailand Change
Thailand Creative Commons
P2P Foundation
Suan Nguen Mee Ma publishers
Social Venture Network

Budika Non Violent Peace network

Paul Hawken (author of Blessed Unrest) initiated
database and website

New Economics Foundation (nef)

Roger Torrenti Sigma Oriones (France), Paradiso project

Wikiprogress of OECD

2.4 Action Plan

33
 • Step 1: Literature review; methodology sharing seminar
• Step 2: Data collection: in depth interviews, meetings and e-networking
• Step 3: Decoding and synthesizing process; paper
• Step 4: Building multi-media database (for year II and III); ongoing
• Step 5: Preparing simulation game through team process (for year II and III)

Timeline *) (2010-2011: 12 months); year II and III

Procedure
Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Year II III

Literature review and report

Data collection: In depth
interviews
Decoding and synthesizing
process
Multi-media database

HIA Methodology development

Simulation game development
*) to be adjusted to delayed start per 15 September 2010

2.5 Expected Outputs and Outcomes

Outputs
1. Report: “ICT and media supporting participatory Well-Being policy
development”
2. Multi-media database: material for multi-media project in year II and III
3. Simulation game approach: draft of working procedures and pooling of
expertise to involve

Outcomes
1. Strengthen the movement of ‘creative commons’ as a leading factor of a
‘Well-Being Society’ scenario
2. Policy recommendations on how best to utilize ICT for economic and well
being development
3. Initiating and guiding a development process towards a simulation ‘decision
making’ game in which the impact of scenarios can be compared, focused on
the Well-Being society scenario

34
The ‘School for Wellbeing’ is an independent think-tank being shaped by
an international network of dedicated academics from diverse
disciplines, practitioners and policy makers, primarily inspired by the
concept of Gross National Happiness. By common effort the School for
Wellbeing offers a creative learning space for a diversity of stakeholders
inducing cross-cultural studies in happiness, wellbeing and quality of life.

The School for Wellbeing nurtures an evidence-based research-platform

guided by ‘critical holism’ in order to explore alternative development
paradigms. It enables (young) researchers to undertake related action-
research initiatives.

The focus of the School for Wellbeing is on empowering people who are
engaged in a much needed shift towards wellbeing-driven public policy
development.

Patron

• H.E. Jigmi Y. Thinley, Hon’ble Prime Minister of Bhutan

Executive Committee

• Dasho Karma Ura, President, Centre for Bhutan Studies, Bhutan

• Dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
• President, Sathirakoses Nagapradipa Foundation, Thailand

Advisors (Bhutan)

• Dasho Kinley Dorji, Secretary, Ministry of Information and Communication

• Karma Tshiteem, Secretary, Gross National Happiness Commission
• Lam Gembo Dorji, Dratshang Lhentshog, Central Monastic Body
• Daw Penjo, Foreign Secretary of Bhutan, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Aum Sangay Zangmo, Secretary, Ministry of Education
• Phuntsho Wangdi, Editor, Kuensel Corporation

Advisors (Thailand)

• Sulak Sivaraksa, Founder, Sathirakoses Nagapradipa Foundation

35
 • H.E. Surapong Jayanama, former Ambassador; Director Saranrom
Institute for Foreign Affairs (SIFA)
• Phra Paisal Visalo, Abbot Wat Pa Sukkhato
• Dr. Uthai Dulyakasem, Rector, Silapakorn University
• Ven. Dhammananda Bhikkuni, Buddhasavika Foundation, former
Professor, Thammasat University
• Prida Tiasuwan, Chairman Pranda Group; Advisor Social Venture Network
Asia (Thailand)
• Assoc. Professor Surichai Wung’aeo, Director Centre for Peace and Conflict
Studies, Chulalongkorn University

Advisors (International)

• Vandana Shiva, Navdanya and Bija Vidyapeeth, India

• Peter Hershock, East-West Centre, Hawaii, USA
• Ronald Colman, Genuine Progress Index for Atlantic Canada (GPIAtlantic),
Canada
• Satish Kumar, Schumacher College and Resurgence, U.K./India
• Susan Andrews, Instituto Visao Futuro, Brazil/USA
• Benedikt Haerlin, Foundation on Future Farming, Germany
• Helena Norberg Hodge, ISEC and Global Ecovillage Network,
Australia/Ladakh/Sweden
• Shen Hao, 21st Century News Group, P.R. China
• Judith Simmer-Brown, Naropa University, USA
• Harsha Navaratne, Sewalanka Foundation and International Network of
Engaged Buddhists (INEB), Sri Lanka
• Cheah Vannath, independent development expert, Cambodia
• Sombath Somphone, PADETC, Laos
• Habib Chirzin, Islamic Forum on Peace and Human Security, Indonesia
• Ross MacDonald, University of Auckland, New Zealand
• Nic Marks, Centre for Wellbeing, New Economics Foundation (nef), U.K.
• Jean Timsit, lawyer/photographer, France
• Takayoshi Kusago, Kansai University, Japan
• Jan Nederveen Pieterse, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA/the
Netherlands
• Robert Biswas-Diener, Positive Psychology Services, LLC, USA
• Darwis Khudori, Universite Le Havre; Centre Lebret; Bandung 55,
France/Indonesia

Management Committee

• Surat Horachaikul – Director; Assistant Professor, Faculty of Political

Science, Department of International Relations, Chulalongkorn University
• Vira Somboon, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Political Science,
Chulalongkorn University
• Wallapa van Willenswaard-Kuntiranont – Co-Manager; Managing Director,
Suan Nguen Mee Ma social enterprise (Garden of Fruition); Council
Member, Sathirakoses Nagapradipa Foundation
• Somboon Chungprampree – Co-Manager; Director, Sathirakoses
Nagapradipa Foundation; Spirit in Education Movement
• Dorji Penjore – Co-Manager; Senior Researcher, Centre for Bhutan Studies
• Sangay Thinley – Researcher, Centre for Bhutan Studies

36
 • Jarin Boonmathya – Process Coordinator
• Patcharee Chonmanat – Project Coordinator
• Hans van Willenswaard – Project Director, Well-Being Society scenario
project

SCHOOL FOR WELLBEING STUDIES AND RESEARCH

www.schoolforwellbeing.org

THAILAND

Academic Centre
Faculty of Political Science
Chulalongkorn University
Henri-Dunant Road
Bangkok 10330
Contact: Surat Horachaikul
E-mail: surat247@hotmail.com
Mobile: (66) 81-613 1414
* During the reconstruction of the Faculty 2010-2013 please
contact the Secretariat

School for Wellbeing Secretariat

Garden of Fruition social enterprise and publishers
77-79 Fuang Nakorn Road
Opposite Wat Rajabopit
Bangkok 10200
Tel: (66-2) 622 0955, 6220966
Fax: (66-2) 622 3228
Contact:
Wallapa van Willenswaard-Kuntiranont
E-mail: wallapa.van@gmail.com
Mobile: (66) 81-406 2260
Patcharee Chonmanat
E-mail: patcharee@schoolforwellbeing.org
Mobile: (66) 82-331 1305
Hans van Willenswaard
E-mail: hans@schoolforwellbeing.org

Development Office
Sathirakoses Nagapradipa Foundation
666 Charoen Nakorn, Klongsarn,
Bangkok 10600
Tel: (66-2) 438 9331-2, 860 1277
Fax: (66-2) 860 1278
Contact: Somboon Chungprampree (Co-Manager, Finance)
E-mail: c_somboon@hotmail.com
Mobile: (66) 81-667 3366
Ratawit Ouaprachanon
E-mail: ratawit@schoolforwellbeing.org
Mobile: (66) 81-560 4587

BHUTAN

37
The Centre for Bhutan Studies
Post Box 1111
Thimphu
Bhutan
Tel: (975-2) 321 005, 321 111
Fax: (975-2) 321 001
Contact: Dasho Karma Ura, President
E-mail: dasho.k.ura@gmail.com
Dorji Penjore
E-mail: dorpen71@yahoo.com
Sangay Thinley
E-mail: sthinley@gmail.com

Websites: www.bhutanstudies.org.bt
www.grossnationalhappiness.com

38
 Summary past, present and future activities

• Third International Conference on Gross National Happiness, Nongkhai

and Bangkok, Thailand – November 2007

The third GNH conference (“GNH3”) followed the first International Conference on
Gross National Happiness in Thimphu, Bhutan, February 2004; and the second
conference in Nova Scotia, Canada, June 2005. GNH3 was preceded by and
International Seminar in the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), September 2004;
and a Mekong region conference in 2006, followed by meetings in Vientiane, Laos;
Phom Phen, Cambodia; and Hanoi, Vietnam.

• GNH Movement project

The follow-up project to the GNH3 conference was titled GNH Movement project. It
was a research-development project of 18 months including workshops, training,
public speeches, papers, international exchanges and publications.

Visiting foreign teachers: Ven. Mattieu Ricard, Dasho Karma Ura, Ronald
Colman, Roger Torrenti, John Hall and others.

Major sponsors: Thailand Research Fund (TRF) and ThaiHealth/TGLIP

• Well-Being Society scenario project

The present project resulted from the GNH Movement project and will have a
duration of 3 years.

Sponsor of activities in Thailand: TRF

• ThaiWellbeing project (Suan Nguen Mee Ma publishers)

Translation of the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission Report into Thai language

(executive and popular versions) and subsequent World Café dialogues on ‘genuine
progress’ in Thailand

Major sponsor: ThaiHealth

• SIFA Public Dialogue series, June 2009 – September 2010

The first groundbreaking public speech and dialogue was held in August 2009 with
Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz and a panel of leading Thai
economists.

39
In 2010 a series of dialogues successfully took place with Dr. Robert Biswas-Diener,
Dr. Vandana Shiva – with launching of the Thai edition of her book Earth
Democracy – and Helena Norberg Hodge.

Organized by the School for Wellbeing Studies and Research

Major sponsor: SIFA

• Readings in International Relations, June – September 2010; November

2010 – March 2011 and ongoing

Module (in English) on Happiness and Wellbeing at the Faculty of Political Science,
Department of International Relations, Chulalongkorn University developed and
conducted by Surat Horachaikul

Major sponsor: Chulalongkorn University

Chart from final report GNH movement project:

Proposed Communication Strategy:

Tri
40