Decentralization, Community-Based Planning, and Poverty Reduction in Chiang Mai, Thailand

The existing literature shows little understanding of the relationship between community-based planning and poverty reduction in the concept of decentralization, demonstrated in part by empirical evidence of the mechanism of decentralization at the local level. Proponents of decentralization highlight its three main positive impacts on political, administrative, and economic considerations. Examples of these positive impacts are an increase in people's participation, better allocation of resources to meet people's need due to more knowledge about local conditions, and improvement for transparency and accountability of governance—all of which are prerequisites of poverty reduction. However, opponents of decentralization believe that it creates inefficient governance and ineffective economics (Devas 2004 and Tanzi 2002). Some of these opponents go so far as to say that decentralization increases social inequality (Tanzi 1995). It is these inconsistent perspectives on the impacts of decentralization on poverty reduction that this study investigates. This study investigates the evolution of decentralization policy in Thailand and the process by which decentralization helps reduce poverty at the local level.;This study uses a case study of Pan-Num, a poor Chiang Mai urban community, and conducts a comparative study of two community-based planning efforts which have different modes of participation—Canal Cleaning, a local initiative program, and Baan Man Kong, a governmental initiative program. Data were collected through 49 in-depth interviews, complied with household surveys, six months of field observations, and secondary sources of governmental and international documents.;Since 1932, the year that democracy was established in Thailand, the country has undergone several radical changes in its political administrative structure. There are many factors that have affected changes in the political structure and decentralization in Thailand. Examples of these changes are rapid urbanization, political dynamics such as the 1990s demonstration, and economic changes such as the 1997 economic crisis. Decentralization is suggested as a progressive approach to solving Thailand's existing problems, such as the distressed economy, inadequate service delivery, political instability, and social inequality, all of which contribute to poverty, one of the issues of greatest concern. Scholars and practitioners have tried to understand the process of decentralization that links it with poverty reduction (von Braun and Grote 2000, Rondinelli, Nellis and Cheema 1983, UNDP 2005). Their studies have revealed that the relationship between decentralization and poverty alleviation outcomes are inconsistent. It is this uncertain finding that this study investigates.;This study attempts to analyze how community-based planning efforts help reduce poverty in the concept of decentralization by pushing beyond analyzing decentralization as democratic participation. The findings reveal that the implementation of community-based planning efforts in Pan-Num was able to promote some aspects of poverty reduction. A lack of infrastructure and public services is seen to improve after implementing community-based planning efforts. However, poverty reduction is limited to some groups of residents, and most still faced the problems of poverty. This represented the gap in social equality and the limited accountability of governance and planning.;In addition, the findings reveal that positive outcomes of community-based planning depend upon the level of collaborative work between the government, NGOs, the international agencies, and the community. Both modes of participation create relatively small-scale solutions and have difficulties to maintain their organizations. Several reasons are associated with the limited involvement of an array of relevant organizations. Also, positive outcomes are associated with the level of social capital. Residents who have strong tie to a community tend to work together better within community-based planning efforts. Thus, this study then suggests to building up social capital as well as promoting collaboration between the government, NGOs, the international agencies, and the community as well as more cooperative work between communities.;By its nature, this study's coverage is limited, further research is required. Further research should either use larger pools of randomly sampled residents and communities in Chiang Mai or investigate the study using longitudinal approach. Only this approach would allow a researcher to draw conclusions from case studies to the population of other poor urban communities.