1. Purpose of the Report
This report presents preliminary findings from the first year of a two-year project analyzing Thailand’s Central–Local government relationships, based on the first nationwide quantitative survey of Local Administrative Organizations (LAOs).
The survey targeted all ~7,800 LAOs in Thailand (excluding Bangkok and Pattaya), with data collected in 2006 and cleaned in 2007.
⸻
2. Background: Decentralization in Thailand
• Since the 1990s, Thailand pursued decentralization as part of democratization.
• The 1997 Constitution accelerated reforms:
• Expanded local autonomy
• Increased fiscal and administrative responsibilities for LAOs
• A major shift occurred when direct elections for local executives were introduced—creating stronger local political leaders.
However, before this project, no empirical national survey existed to measure the impact of these reforms.
⸻
3. Central–Local Relationship Structure
Thailand operates a dual system:
• Central administrative control (Ministry of Interior, provincial governors)
• Local autonomy system (Municipalities, Tambon Administrative Organizations)
Key tensions:
• Overlap between central supervision and local autonomy
• Uneven distribution of resources across regions
• Varied administrative capacity among LAOs
⸻
4. Decentralization Process & Effects
The report reviews:
• Changes in budget allocation
• Growth in local responsibilities
• Increased political participation through direct elections
• Gradual empowerment of LAOs, especially in urban areas
But challenges remain:
• Central ministries still dominate many functions
• Rural LAOs often lack staff and technical expertise
• Resource distribution remains unequal
⸻
5. About the National LAO Survey
Survey Focus
• Administrative structure
• Budgeting
• Leadership styles
• Central–local interactions
• Local public service capacity
• Perception toward decentralization reforms
Aims
• Provide baseline data on LAO capability
• Measure actual progress of decentralization
• Identify regional differences in political and administrative change
⸻
6. Key Preliminary Findings
6.1 Urban–Rural Differences
• Urban LAOs have far greater resources, budgets, and technical staff.
• Rural LAOs depend more heavily on central government support.
6.2 Central–Local Relationship
• Despite decentralization, the central government still wields strong influence through:
• Approval processes
• Budget allocation mechanisms
• Oversight by provincial authorities
6.3 Signs of Change
• Direct elections increased:
• Local accountability
• Competition in local politics
• Public attention to LAO performance
• Some LAOs show improved:
• Responsiveness
• Service delivery
• Administrative innovation
⸻
7.Overall Summary
The study provides the first systematic, nationwide evidence on decentralization in Thailand. Key conclusions:
• Decentralization has transformed local politics, especially through direct elections.
• But central control remains strong, creating a mixed model of “decentralization under supervision.”
• LAO capability and resources differ significantly across regions.
• Early signs suggest emerging local political dynamism, though full decentralization is far from complete.