See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271729043

Participatory community development: Evidence from Thailand

Article  in  Community Development Journal · January 2014

DOI: 10.1093/cdj/bsu002

CITATIONS READS

31 648

3 authors:

Krittinee Nuttavuthisit Pavitra Jindahra

Chulalongkorn University Sasin Graduate Institute of Business Administration
41 PUBLICATIONS   2,113 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   79 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pattarawan Prasarnphanich
Sasin Graduate Institute of Business Administration
21 PUBLICATIONS   1,253 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Enterprise Social Media View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Krittinee Nuttavuthisit on 08 June 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Community Development Journal Advance Access published February 20, 2014

& Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal. 2014

All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
doi:10.1093/cdj/bsu002

Participatory community
development: evidence from
Thailand
Krittinee Nuttavuthisit*, Pavitra Jindahra
and Pattarawan Prasarnphanich

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

Abstract Participation in community development is the key to promoting
efficiency, accountability, and transparency in resource allocations for
community development, resulting in fewer problems of social inequality.
Many ‘participatory’ development projects, however, have not been
successful in arousing participation among community members. In
many such cases, cultural values and social norms are key barriers.
Approaches developed with little understanding of local contexts may
yield no incentive to participate. Nevertheless, the detailed mechanisms
that may operate within certain cultural contexts remain under-
researched to date. This study examines evidence from Thailand, using
examples from communities that have been able to get people’s
participation despite a hindering culture of compliance to superiors.
These examples suggest that the enabling mechanisms include three
important factors: actor (self-esteem), action (engagement of community
members throughout the development process), and alliance (management
of roles, rules, and resolutions). This study contributes to knowledge about
the socio-culturally embedded character of community development
and suggests ways to promote participation based on an understanding
of a specific context.

Introduction
As in other developing countries, community development in Thailand has
shifted from a top-down to a bottom-up approach. However, previous devel-
opment practices, such as simple empowerment (e.g. via monetary support),

* Address for correspondence: email: krittinee.nuttavuthisit@sasin.edu

Community Development Journal Page 1 of 16

Page 2 of 16 Krittinee Nuttavuthisit et al.

have often related to some political agenda, thus proving insufficient. In a

community, participation can help promote improvements in efficiency, ac-
countability and transparency of resource allocation and development
(Fung and Wright, 2001). It is the key to genuine and sustainable poverty al-
leviation, as increased participation can enhance ownership and commit-
ment among the ‘local and poor’ people (Chambers, 1983).
Thailand, however, demonstrates a unique challenge in implementing par-
ticipation because of the hierarchical nature of Thai society and strong patron-
age system (Rigg, 1991). Many cultural values and norms tend to hinder
people’s engagement. Thus, many participatory development projects have
failed to engage the local people. Initiatives developed with little understand-
ing of local contexts may ignore community members’ interests (Plummer,

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

2000), yielding no incentive to participate (Silverman, 2001; Kenny, 2002).
The general assumption upon which prior development efforts have been
based is that people would be willing to participate in bettering their lives and
the community, given facilitated opportunities (Somsup, 1996). Hence, the
methods implemented were focused on community capacity building
(Laverack and Thangphet, 2009) with such projects as village planning work-
shops (Sopchokchai, 1996) and training. Many cases have demonstrated,
however, that villagers’ level of participation has been inadequate. In spite
of available platforms for participation, people still pay little attention to
community-development projects, and the scope of development and collab-
oration with other stakeholders remains limited (Wisartsakul, 2009).
One cause for this lack of popular interest may be found in the development
processes, which have been based mostly on a progressive approach that
tends to discount or ignore local cultural values. Participation processes,
which are wide-ranging, depend greatly on context, particularly in a culture
that traditionally suppresses participation. Yet how this is achieved remains
under-researched in the community-development literature (Kapoor, 2002;
Dorsner, 2004). Our research question is, hence, ‘what are the mechanisms
that can promote participation for successful community development in
Thailand?’
Initiated and sponsored by the National Economic and Social Development
Board (NESDB) of Thailand, this study investigated the successful mechan-
isms that were used to promote participation in three selected communities.
Contextual research, including observation, interviews, and on-site work-
shops, was employed as the best way to obtain the local people’s perspectives.
This approach was undertaken to counteract prior concerns that community-
development strategies have been externally driven by community develo-
pers’ objectives (Silverman, 2001; Kenny, 2002). In emphasizing contextual
understanding, this study first describes the history of community dev-
elopment in Thailand, including the sociocultural contexts and influencing
 Participatory community development Page 3 of 16

political cultures. Next, an interpretive methodology and analysis is illu-

strated through detailed accounts of how the three selected communities
successfully overcame the challenges of promoting participatory community
development. From these findings, the study has uncovered three key
factors that motivate communities to participate: (i) actors with self-esteem,
(ii) action via the engagement of community members throughout the
development process, and (iii) alliances with management of rules, roles,
and resolutions.

Community development in Thailand

Thailand has incorporated community development as part of its national de-

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

velopment plans for a very long time, transitioning from a top-down to a
bottom-up approach, and finally moving towards self-sustainability.
Thailand was an absolute monarchy for over seven centuries until 1932. It
was believed that a top-down approach could bring about unity, with the king
and his representatives supervising and looking after the citizens. Govern-
mental policy directed communities via a power distribution system and re-
source allocation (Wesarach et al., 1988). This dependency contributed to
power mismanagement and wealth inequalities contingent on one’s relation-
ship with the authorities. When an economic crisis hit the country after World
War I, the top-down approach was blamed for being backward, corrupt, and
ineffective. The 1932 Revolution resulted, moving Thailand towards democ-
racy via a constitutional monarchy.
The country’s movement towards Western modernity (e.g. in politics and
economics) was abrupt and inevitably alien to most people. Thus, community
development during the early phase of democratization relied on the author-
ities because people were assumed to be uneducated and incapable of helping
themselves. The government tried to support the improvement of people’s
lives by providing basic infrastructure and public services. The local people
were not involved in the process because it was believed that the government
could exercise power in the people’s best interests.
It was not until the civil uprisings against oppression in the 1970s that the
government and private sectors began to acknowledge the community’s
resources. This movement gave rise to the so-called ‘bottom-up approach’,
which has been practised through a focus on getting the local people to
define their problems and expected outcomes. Though development projects
were formulated on this approach, local participation was still not regarded as
central, owing to barriers in Thai politics. These ranged from the centralized
and inefficient bureaucracy to the domination of entrenched interest groups
(Rigg, 1991) such as the army, politicians, and civil servants. At the operation-
al level, the demands of bottom-up development policy are incompatible
Page 4 of 16 Krittinee Nuttavuthisit et al.

with the way the Thai bureaucratic system functions. Furthermore, most
efforts were aimed at advancing the country’s economic growth. In spite of
the growth in Thailand’s economy, this approach seemed limited in terms
of human development, particularly at the community level. Nevertheless,
progress continued until the financial collapse in 1997.
As stakeholders came to realize that relying heavily on global changes was
problematic and that the country needed to be self-sustaining, the focus of de-
velopment was redirected towards the local community. Revisions made to
the Constitution in 1997 aimed to promote self-reliance and decision-making
from below (Intaruccomporn, 2003), and the search for sustainable practices
was begun. Given the abundant resources, the local community was seen as
having significant potential but lacking the opportunity to carry out develop-

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

ment programmes themselves. Thus, policies were reshaped to provide
support, such as raising village funds and campaigning to transform indivi-
duals’ assets (e.g. occupied land) into capital. These resources were distribu-
ted via the networks of local administrative units in which community
members were invited to take part, and multiple initiatives were instituted
at the community level with government facilitation and support (Valai-
sathien, 2007). Unfortunately, though the intent was to help empower the
community, such efforts tended to emphasize short-term returns in relation
to certain political agendas. Moreover, only a few influential clans partici-
pated in community development. Thus, more disputes and dissension oc-
curred over concerns regarding the unfair benefits to the haves versus the
have-nots. The gap has also widened between communities as the few
strong ones have excelled dramatically while many of the weak have
struggled with the mismanagement of allocated power, yielding further
chaos and fragmentation (Intaruccomporn, 2003). The results of such
empowerment efforts led to questions about whether the path of community
development in Thailand was going in the right direction.

Methodology
In moving Thailand’s community development plan forward, the NESDB
commissioned an 8-month-long study in 2009. The data collection took
place in Ta Soam (TS) in Trat province, Toong Kwai Kin (TKK) in Rayong Prov-
ince, and Baan Jamroong (BJ) in Rayong Province. The researchers observed,
interviewed, and held on-site workshops with community members as well
as local administrative organisations. In addition, this study incorporated
multiple focus group sessions with experts from various fields such as
culture, sociology, public affairs, and business.
These three communities were chosen because, for more than a decade,
they have proved to be distinguished, self-reliant development cases with
 Participatory community development Page 5 of 16

strong popular participation. Thus, we could study the mechanisms leading

to the success of community-development efforts in these areas. Moreover,
they represent the three major types of communities with different socio-
economic backgrounds in Thailand: agricultural-based (TS), industrial-
based (TKK), and a combination (BJ). The communities embrace a variety
of participatory projects from grassroots to large funding initiatives.

The case of TS
TS, located along the east coast of Thailand, is blessed with abundant natural
resources. The community’s livelihood is based largely on agriculture, from
farming to fisheries. Though these occupations can support most families

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

well, the belief became popular that the better-educated young generation
should move from the labour-intensive agricultural sector to other sectors
in order to become jao-khon-nai-khon (superiors who rule the others) or else
move to the upper class. Thus, those with a high potential for community in-
volvement went away, leaving mostly older people who did not think they
should or could participate in community development. Therefore, most
tasks were left in the hands of some selected authorities.
Nevertheless, the community is quite cohesive because of interconnected
family trees and because the people still adhere to their traditions. On auspi-
cious days, they come together at the temple to perform various religious
ceremonies that may also include some small, occasional developmental
tasks, such as temple cleaning and maintenance. However, large-scale,
ongoing development projects or collaborative efforts with other stake-
holders have been rare. Therefore, when facing difficulties from the changing
environment, specifically threats from an external party (such as a middle-
man taking advantage of crop pricing), the community was ill-prepared to
take action.
Realizing the problem, the venerable abbot of TS temple foresaw the need
for participatory community development. He began the effort by telling the
story about the time when King Taksin (1734 –1782) gathered the people to
regain the nation’s independence from Myanmar, and TS people joined the
battle with no hesitation. Highlighting past achievements can strongly
build pride while rousing people to take part in working towards a
common cause (Foster and Mathie, 2001). Furthermore, the abbot referred
to the conventional practice of using the temple for community gatherings.
In addition to hosting various organized activities occasionally (e.g. cultural
events, sports, and musical performances) and thus engaging people in com-
munity development, the temple has also provided space for more regular
participation, accommodating a public library, youth centre, and museum.
Participatory community development has thus expanded from simple
Page 6 of 16 Krittinee Nuttavuthisit et al.

initiatives to include more substantial projects, such as building the local in-
frastructure.
Because of the increasingly sophisticated work requirements, the educated
younger generation, at least to some extent, has also joined forces to make the
community more self-reliant. One banker who decided to return home told
how she struggled in the beginning because some people viewed her as a
loser until the abbot endorsed her decision as a role model for change. Even-
tually, she was able to set new perspectives in the community. She explained
her involvement in running a small community fund, called trust-based
savings, which collected savings from the members and provided loans for
working, as well as a type of medical savings to cover hospital expenses. Bene-
fiting from the communal rules of agreement and the face-saving norm, this

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

fund was able to achieve zero non-performing loans and eventually to grow
into a community bank with its computer system supported by a national
bank. This success has created stronger commitment among members and
has led to further collaboration with alliances. Since 2001, the community
has developed a 5-year plan with project expenses supported by the social in-
vestment fund. This fund comprises collective contributions from the govern-
ment, the UNDP, AusAID, and a minimum of 10 percent from the local
community fund.

The case of TKK

TKK was an agricultural-based community until the industrial estate zone
was established nearby and people gave up farming to become factory
workers. Such work did not allow them to think beyond their individual
everyday lives. The declining sense of community fostered a focus on self-
interest, and development tasks were managed by the local authorities who
represented only a few clans. Unfortunately, when power changed hands,
the new power-holders preferred to begin their own projects, yielding
many fragmented, discontinuous developments in the community.
This was the situation until 1994, when a young female activist decided to
return home after graduating from college. With her firm intention to foster a
strong community with active citizenship, she initially tried to advocate a
culture of rights among the people. During one local election, she called for
action in acquiring a public space where the candidates could share their
visions and exchange opinions with the community members. That idea
received resistance from the local politicians, and the locals felt awkward
about participating because they were unsure about being able to contribute
and felt kreng-jai, a respectful fear of not wanting to cause anyone inconveni-
ence, specifically because of the superior–inferior relationship. Bowing to the
culture’s preference for compromise over confrontation, the young woman
 Participatory community development Page 7 of 16

changed her approach and opened a small bookstore, named nam-jai (kind-
heartedness), where people could buy or rent books or simply hang out.
She recalled, ‘I figured I could not fight for this alone. The whole community
had to stand up for themselves. But they first had to realize the need to partici-
pate and envision the community’s future’. A bookstore was a friendly option
for cultivating the learning process. When customers (mostly children initial-
ly) dropped by, she would take that opportunity to generate conversations
and sometimes recommend something good to read. Developments at the be-
ginning included children’s initiatives, such as promoting local wisdom via
the traditional secrets of kite making, which could later draw immense
support and involvement from their families and the larger community.
TS community development has now grown to include larger issues, such

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

as human rights and environmental conservation. The bookstore has evolved
into a successful casual meeting point, engaging people in the community-
development process, and eventually transforming into a learning centre.
This process of knowledge sharing from local wisdom to new developments
in partnership with local schools succeeded in enhancing the self-esteem,
pride, and bonding of the local people while motivating them to take part
in advancing themselves and the community.
This collaborative learning approach has built a strong foundation of co-
operation. As one interesting example, a farmer fell sick after long years of ap-
plying chemical fertilizers. Consequently, he began to take an interest in
organic farming. He gathered a group of people with whom he started a
pilot study, with the support of the university, on how to do organic
farming. By reading and joining multiple workshops, they tried several
methods before at last finding a technique suitable for their setting. Because
one large firm in Bangkok initiated a campaign to collect joint orders for
organic fruit from its employees, their produce began to reach a wider
market. Another company joined hands with the locals to bring their commu-
nity products to the national market. At one point, however, the collaboration
almost fell apart because the community had trouble matching its supply
with the company’s demand. To avoid conflict, it is natural at such junctures
for most communities simply to quit. Being proactive, though, TKK commu-
nicated their objective of selling mainly their surplus because they did not
want to be pressured into large-scale production. Their knowledge of their
own circumstances thus empowered them to make decisions. One business
executive working with TKK expressed that initially he felt frustrated
because he was used to being the one who gave suggestions for communities
to follow. He learned later that this new approach could encourage sustain-
ability and that, if the company were more open, it could learn a great deal
from the community. The recognized success of participatory community
Page 8 of 16 Krittinee Nuttavuthisit et al.

development in TKK finally helped achieve a balance between the newly

growing industrial development and their agriculture-based way of life.

The case of BJ
BJ is a medium-sized community with a troubled past because its people were
forced to relocate from the coast to find a new homeland. Although this shared
history has kept them united within the community, the families were, for a
long while, too busy rebuilding their lives to pay attention to community de-
velopment. Many people thought that helping themselves was already chal-
lenging enough and wondered how they would be capable of helping the
community.

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

Twenty years ago, one young native gentleman was elected as the village
head. It should be noted that in spite of the official election process, most
villagers generally appear to have already chosen their leaders based on
their observed contributions and embedded kinship networks. With his
down-to-earth and outspoken characteristics, he has since been influential
in motivating people to participate in communal tasks. Key success factors
include a focus on simplicity and the belief that nobody is perfect which
acknowledges someone’s mistakes and flaws. This opens up opportunities
for different people to try and learn by doing without the fear of losing face.
When patron –client ties were loosened, more people became eager to join
in. Currently there are more than twenty groups of people working on
various issues, ranging from the senior group’s trying to address the
problem of lost traditions to the children’s volunteering to pick up trash.
Previously, the initiatives were mostly scattered and fragmented as people
tended to be lenient with the developed projects. Thus, a community council
was formed from various groups to represent diverse interests and the
council meets every month to review different groups’ performances and to
identify future movement. This council has provided the opportunity for
community members to propose ideas, exchange viewpoints, and solicit
votes for decision-making.
By degrees, BJ’s community development has expanded from doing
regular communal work to sharing in local businesses. The expansion has
been demonstrated in organic vegetable growing, which started with house-
hold consumption and expanded to being offered in the community restaur-
ant, which now attracts visitors from all over. Organic farms have become a
unique attraction for ecotourism and the homestay business. Besides gener-
ating additional income for community members, this opportunity promotes
commitment among the different households to maintaining their sanitation
and community landscape, encouraging better links between the hosts and
the visitors.
 Participatory community development Page 9 of 16

The same approach applies to other kinds of products. A co-op shop has
been organized to sell products (e.g. organic vegetables) from and to commu-
nity members. Then it expanded to buy some discounted grocery items in
bulk from outside to sell to the locals and to distribute the local products to
the outside community. It was stressed that in sustaining the collaboration,
clear roles and rules must be identified, especially in financial management.
In this case, the annual profit is divided into three parts: the community de-
velopment fund, the shareholders, and the buyers.

Discussion
These three cases illustrate that successful participatory community develop-

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

ment in Thailand is driven by engaging the local people throughout the
process and a willingness to collaborate with supporting networks. Using
an interpretive approach in analysing context and identifying the common
patterns or themes in these cases, we derived three key mechanisms that
enhance participatory community development: Actor, Action, and Alliance.
The resulting mechanisms are consistent with those found in previous
studies (e.g. Tosun, 2000; Green and Haines, 2007). Remarkably, in the
context of Thailand, the success of these mechanisms was not inevitable. It
required overcoming certain challenges, particularly those arising from the
hierarchical structure and the patron –client relationship, as well as the hin-
drance of the cultural norms and values derived from Thailand’s submissive
societal system. The problems of passive community members, fragmented
and discontinuous actions, and deficiency of collaborations were tackled in
the past using largely ineffective methods. These include capacity building
for the ‘actors’ to perform ‘actions’ with some expert guidance on assembling
an all-encompassing plan and the gathering of ‘alliance’ networks to expand
the development. Such approaches are useless to community members who
do not believe they could or should participate and who still rely on others
rather than being engaged in the action process while avoiding total engage-
ment with the external stakeholders. As summarized in Table 1, this study
proposes mechanisms to promote participatory community development
with some adjustment of attitudes and corresponding behaviours.

Actor: cultivating self-esteem

Meaningful participation requires that community members, the main actors
in the development process, become participants in their own right, while the
community leader plays an important role in stimulating interest in partici-
pating (Eversole, 2012). However, the findings revealed that many passive
community members did not feel the need to take part in any initiatives,
nor did they think they could contribute to the tasks. This attitude may
Page 10 of 16 Krittinee Nuttavuthisit et al.

Table 1 The 3 As: factors to promote participatory community development in Thailand

3 As Problems Prior Hindering cultural Proposed mechanisms

factors resolutions norms and values
Actor Passive people with Capacity Hierarchical society Cultivating self-esteem
belief in building yielding the lack of
constrained confidence and
capabilities self-respect
Action Fragmented and Expert Dependence on the Engaging community
discontinuous assistance in authorities yielding the members throughout
activities assembling the lack of engagement the development
grand plan from community process of visioning,
members planning, implementing,
and evaluating
Alliance Deficiency of Network Conflict avoidance Managing of roles, rules,

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

collaborations building resulting in imbalanced and resolutions
and confused
relationships

stem from the deeply rooted hierarchical structure in Thailand, embedding a

belief of deference to superiors and constrained capabilities. Significantly,
‘We are only small people. We cannot do anything much’ is a typical
comment made by local people. The notion of inequality with regard to
human capability seems to be largely acceptable. In response to such
claims, past resolutions have been directed mainly towards capacity building
and creating platforms for participation. However, the real cause illustrated in
this study is the people’s values. The study of all three cases suggests cultiva-
tion of self-esteem as the solution for the enslavement view. Because of the
long-established culture of submission, the local people in Thailand generally
have low self-confidence and low self-respect (Wichiarajote, 1973), which
may lead to self-exclusion behaviours for community members (Cornwall,
2008).
To boost their self-esteem, they need to appreciate diversity, realizing that
everyone, though different, has unique strengths. Such beliefs are crucial in
bringing pride and dignity to people, ultimately leading to a keen desire to
uphold self- and community respect. For instance, the initiatives at TKK
created a realization of the power of children to effect change while BJ en-
couraged the elders to share their wisdom by means of a self-organized
local radio channel. Both cases represent an acknowledgement of minority
groups that helps reinforce the notion that anyone can contribute in his or
her own way. Moreover, the emphasis on the historic pride of the TS people
who fought to protect the country could boost their self-esteem and motivate
their participation.
 Participatory community development Page 11 of 16

Action: engaging community members throughout the development process

Because of the low self-esteem among many community members, they typ-
ically depend on authorities to give orders or guidelines before they act. Many
times, however, the authorities do not possess a deep understanding of the
contexts. Furthermore, when power shifts from one group to another, initia-
tives are usually switched, too, resulting in the fragmented and discontinu-
ous projects evident in several communities.
Similar to Eversole’s (2012) proposal, prior solutions consisted of having
some experts help put together a grand plan because of the belief that local
people might have limited views of total development. Unfortunately, this
approach only yields another form of binding patronage, as witnessed in
many developing countries where communities are largely viewed as recipi-

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

ents of capacity-building assistance. The issue here is not about capability
shortages per se but about the dependent attitude ingrained in the patron –
client system and people’s lack of engagement in the development.
Hence, this study proposes mechanisms to promote self-reliance by en-
gaging people’s participation throughout the process of visioning, planning,
implementing, and evaluating (Green and Haines, 2007). As proposed by
Tosun (2000), the more engagement there is in the process, the more self-
reliance/less dependence on others. ‘Visioning’ is a process of helping
people create and decide on their mutual future by focusing on their commu-
nity assets via the values of residents and their pride in their heritage and
identity (Tosun, 2000). The community must be aware of their existing
assets (e.g. wisdom, way of life, and environment) and full potential, and
ways they can exercise these for the common good (Kretzmann and
McKnight, 1993). Then members are expected to engage in dialogue to
foster analysis, knowledge sharing, and exchange of perspectives to reach a
consensus about the future of the community (Green and Haines, 2007).
This approach is a challenge for Thais, whose face-saving culture inhibits rea-
soning publicly. Studying the three cases has identified a need to create a
public space where people can relax and conveniently spend time together
in an open, informal, and unorganized way. Such an approach can facilitate
continuing dialogue because people may feel free to express themselves
without fear of objections or not being listened to (Cornwall, 2008). The
small bookstore adopted by TKK was apparently successful as an effective
casual meeting point, whereas a formal space with the obvious purpose of
idea expression (i.e. public debate) was not well received.
After envisioning the future, the local people should be engaged in the
‘planning’, including setting objectives, identifying approaches, and propos-
ing activities and required resources. Here, the plan should focus on practical
aspects and be simple enough so that members can understand it and partici-
pate. In the case of BJ, they named such a technique the ‘one-layered plan’.
Page 12 of 16 Krittinee Nuttavuthisit et al.

Recently, the community-development plan has been encouraged by both the

government and the NGOs, who provide support based on a systematic ap-
proach that can demonstrate local people’s engagement to initiate, proceed
with, and complete the development. Additionally, such a plan should take
into account any local wisdom that has proved suitable practices for local
contexts.
For ‘implementing’, most communities have to go through a trial and error
process. Given the long-standing Thai norm of mistake avoidance, it is crucial
to overcome such fear by beginning with activities centred on common cul-
tural values (Borrup, 2003). For instance, charitable deeds or religious
events can easily promote a sense of belonging in Thai society. As demon-
strated in TS, the venerable abbot has leveraged this cultural capital to help

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

reconnect people and foster positive engagement, thus leading to further
expansion of development projects.
Finally, the process ends with ‘evaluating’ both results and relationships.
The latter is highlighted because motivation value among Thais is frequently
related to social relations (Komin, 1991), which can sometimes become an obs-
tacle to the formal evaluation. Thus, informal assessment is encouraged to
raise the level of careful consideration during the process and the commu-
nity’s own sets of criteria can be incorporated, promoting full engagement
throughout. It should be noted that these processes are not restricted to any
linear system; rather, they allow interactive relations, which is crucial to com-
munity development.

Alliance: managing of roles, rules, and resolutions

After the project becomes established, it may lead to processes of expansion
such as increasing capital, intensifying local participation, and seeking
allies for cooperation at the community, national, and international levels.
However, such progress is not easily achieved in Thailand, not because of
limited networks but because of norms of conflict avoidance, which results
in an imbalance of power and confused relationships among different stake-
holders. Conflicts of interest are common when different parties have to work
together. Learning how to manage these conflicts can yield the greater good of
collaboration. Unfortunately, such collaboration is difficult to practise in
Thailand owing to the norm of avoiding direct confrontation and the domin-
ant value of kreng-jai. The manifestation includes reluctance to make com-
ments, assert rights, or express disagreements; compliance with others’
requests; and concealing negative feelings. Everyone avoids making others
lose face or feel uncomfortable, serving the goal of smoothing relationships.
However, such suppression may not promote further collaboration, particu-
larly among stakeholders with different interests. Some findings from the
three cases suggest a way to foster alliances despite these cultural constraints.
 Participatory community development Page 13 of 16

First, ‘roles and responsibilities’ must be identified and communicated,

but doing so may be unfamiliar to many Thais who are used to collectively
jumbled efforts in the ‘loosely structured’ societal system (Embree, 1950).
Major stakeholders include the community members, who can be deemed
the ‘owners’ of the local resources for development; the community admin-
istrative unit, known as the ‘operator’; and a number of supporting groups,
namely ‘co-sponsors’, such as government agencies, private companies,
educational institutions, and non-governmental organisations. Though
this type of partnership management should not be confined by strict
formality, given that the interpersonal relationships in the community
are usually open, fluid, and built on mutual trust, clear roles and responsi-
bilities can help manage expectations, promote better understanding of

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

relationships, and reduce possible conflicts. An example can be seen in
the case of TKK when they faced frictions in bringing their crops to the
national market. The community clarified their notion of their roles and
responsibilities as well as what they expected from the companies by way
of support.
Next, ‘rules’ should be set, though in practice many people would not
follow the rules very strictly because, culturally speaking, Thais prefer a sabai-
sabai (take-it-easy) and flexible approach. In general, Thais are responsive and
adaptive to environments and situations while valuing persons and situa-
tions over principles and systems. Nevertheless, having rules could help to
minimize confrontation in the event of problems, resulting in more reason-
able compromising solutions. A community example comprises the influen-
tial family groups who have perhaps inherited respect over time and who are
naturally accepted as leaders in the community. Rules that specify the organ-
izational structure of the community administrative unit as a civil society
network (Tandon, 2008) could help prevent the local elites from monopoliz-
ing the benefits (Katz and Sara, 1997) while still avoiding direct conflict
among people in the community.
Finally, when disagreements cannot be avoided, the findings from the three
cases suggest that it is better to postpone a decision. Pushing for immediate
‘resolution’ will only engender further disputes because it is possible that
people will take the matter personally. This technique corresponds with the
Thai diplomatic skills of ‘delay and double-talk’, which are believed to
have helped save the country from colonization (Embree, 1950). Moreover,
this technique suits the Thai’s ‘social smoothing’ values such as jai-yen
(taking a slow, calm, and careful step) (Komin, 1991). Once the issue is
relaxed, further negotiation can take place.
Page 14 of 16 Krittinee Nuttavuthisit et al.

Conclusion
Participatory community development helps promote greater efficiency,
accountability, and transparency while reducing conflicts arising from
social inequality. Stimulating local participation has long been challenging,
though, and an understanding of the detailed mechanisms within local cul-
tural contexts to date remains under-researched. This study represents learn-
ing from three communities that succeeded in promoting participatory
community development in Thailand. The findings demonstrate that the
government-initiated previous practices did not ultimately benefit the com-
munity but actually caused them to rely on outsiders as the most important
resource. Furthermore, emphasis on local administrative organizations

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

does not always represent power decentralization. With a limited under-
standing of the inherent values leading to an inability to arouse participation
among community members (i.e. actors), these organizations may simply act
as another version of an authoritarian government, only with more fragmen-
ted units and more opportunities for corruption. Additionally, the capacity-
building efforts among the local people did not naturally result in people’s
participation owing to the lack of motives ingrained by societal and cultural
values. Even when people were motivated to take part, they frequently
depended on others’ guidance, resulting in a lack of engagement throughout
the development process and in fragmented actions as well. Moreover, when
advancing to the next stage, which requires collaborating with alliances, they
often chose to remain idle and detached, particularly when facing conflicts.
This research explains that the problems are largely rooted in hindering cul-
tural norms and proposes mechanisms for promoting participatory commu-
nity development via three important factors: actors with self-esteem, action
via the engagement of community members throughout the development
process, and alliance with roles –rules –resolutions management. Such
mechanisms indicate the need to cultivate an in-depth understanding of
the sociocultural context. These techniques may not be the most efficient
according to general assumptions, but they may be the most effective in
certain cultural circumstances.
Finally, this study not only contributes to an under-researched topic but
also carries important implications for related agencies in Thailand in
terms of promoting participatory community development. Though policies
and practices may depend greatly on the context (e.g. culture, norms, and
social values), knowledge about the underlying mechanisms should also con-
tribute to an understanding of community development concepts overall.
 Participatory community development Page 15 of 16

Acknowledgements
This study was initiated and sponsored by the National Economic and Social
Development Board of Thailand (NESDB). The authors thank the NESDB for
their invaluable insights and continual support.

Funding
This study was supported by the National Economic and Social Development
Board of Thailand.

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

Krittinee Nuttavuthisit, Ph.D, is an Assistant Professor, Marketing Department, Sasin, Chula-
longkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.

Pavitra Jindahra, Ph.D, works for the Marketing Department, Sasin, Chulalongkorn University,
Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.

Pattarawan Prasarnphanich, Ph.D, works for the Management Department, Sasin, Chulalong-
korn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand

References

Borrup, T. C. (2003) Toward Asset-Based Community Cultural Development: A Journey through

the Disparate Worlds of Community Building, Community Arts Network, North Carolina,
United States, accessed at: http://wayback.archive-it.org/2077/20100903220152/
http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2003/04/toward_
assetbas.php (3 March 2013).
Chambers, R. (1983) Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Longman, London.
Cornwall, A. (2008) Unpacking ‘participation’: models, meanings and practices,
Community Development Journal, 43 (3), 269– 283.
Dorsner, C. (2004) Social exclusion and participation in community development
projects: evidence from Senegal, Social Policy & Administration, 38, 366 – 382.
Embree, J. F. (1950) Thailand—a loosely structured social system, American
Anthropologist, 52, 181 – 193.
Eversole, R. (2012) Remarking participation: challenges for community development
practice, Community Development Journal, 47 (1), 29 – 41.
Foster, M. and Mathie, A. (2001) Situating Asset-Based Community Development in the
International Development Context, Coady International Institute, St. Francis Xavier
University, Nova Scotia, Canada, accessed at: http://coady2.stfx.ca/tinroom/assets/
file/resources/publications/4_From_Clients_to_Citizens.pdf (3 March 2013).
Fung, A. and Wright, E. O. (2001) Deepening democracy: innovations in empowered
participatory governance, Politics and Society, 19 (1), 5 – 41.
 Page 16 of 16 Krittinee Nuttavuthisit et al.

Green, G. P. and Haines, A. (2007) Asset Building & Community Development, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Intaruccomporn, W. (2003) Rural development in Thailand: from past to present, in
Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Chiangmai University Publishing,
Chiangmai, Thailand.
Kapoor, I. (2002) The devil’s in the theory: a critical assessment of Robert Chambers’ work
on participatory development, Third World Quarterly, 23, 1.
Katz, T. and Sara, J. (1997) Making Rural Water Supply Sustainable: Recommendations from a
Global Study, UNDP – World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Washington, DC.
Kenny, S. (2002) Tensions and dilemmas in community development: new discourse,
new Trojan?, Community Development Journal, 37, 284 –299.
Komin, S. (1991) Psychology of the Thai People: Values and Behavioural Patterns, National
Institute of Development Administration, Bangkok.

Downloaded from http://cdj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on March 15, 2014

Kretzmann, J. P. and McKnight, J. L. (1993) Building Communities from the Inside Out: A
Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets, ACTA Publications,
Chicago.
Laverack, G. and Thangphet, S. (2009) Building community capacity for locally managed
ecotourism in Northern Thailand, Community Development Journal, 44 (2), 172 – 185.
Plummer, J. (2000) Municipalities and Community Participation: A Sourcebook for Capacity
Building, Earthscan, London.
Rigg, J. (1991) Grass-roots development in rural Thailand: a lost cause?, World
Development, 19 (2/3), 199 – 211.
Silverman, R. M. (2001) Neighbourhood characteristics, community development
corporation and the community development industry system: a case study of the
American deep south, Community Development Journal, 36, 234 – 245.
Somsup, C. (1996) Popular Participation in Rural Development, Sukhothai Thammathirat
University Publishing, Bangkok, Thailand.
Sopchokchai, O. (1996) People’s participation in community development, TDRI
Quarterly Review, 11 (3), 19– 25.
Tandon, R. (2008) Participation, citizenship and democracy: reflections on 25 years’ of
PRIA, Community Development Journal, 43 (3), 284 – 296.
Tosun, C. (2000) Limits to community participation in the tourism development process
in developing countries, Tourism Management, 21, 613 – 633.
Valaisathien, P. (2007), ‘Dynamic of concepts and practices of community development’,
Proceedings of the 1st National’s Conference on Community Development, Pattaya,
Thailand.
Wesarach, P., Sujinda, P., Nilpanich, C. et al. (1988) Problems of Rural Development in
Thailand, Sukhothai Thammathirat University Publishing, Bangkok, Thailand.
Wichiarajote, W. (1973) The Theory of Affiliative Society, Mimeograph, Bangkok.
Wisartsakul, W. (2009) From the development of community to the community of
development, Local Development Journal, 4 (1), 82 –103.

View publication stats