Ayala writes*
When I first started to read about Thailand’s “Sufficiency Economy Policy (SEP), I thought they had figured it out. It seems ideal. The SEP addresses a key problem — overconsumption — and emphasizes the importance of finding a middle path of self-reliance. It stands on the principles of moderation, reasonableness, and self-immunity, and does so by interacting with economic and development activities from the individual level to the community and national ones (Piboolsravut, 2004).
More specifically, the SEP encourages grassroot contributions to local, sustainable development (Schaffar, 2018). This for example can be seen from Naipinit et. al.‘s case study of how the SEP was implemented in four Thai villages. According to it, 80% of the villagers surveyed responded that they grow food solely for their own consumption, reflecting the concept of resilience that is integral to the policy. Moreover, by saving money on buying luxury goods, they can invest in protections from different crisis. It was also shown that in these villages’ social networks are strong and that locals work together to benefit their own community, resulting in both high-level products and in increased well-being (Naipinit et. al., 2014).
It is important to note that much of the SEP’s success can be attributed to its alignment with Thai informal institutions that build on Buddhism. The idea of sustainability in Buddhism involves the interconnectedness of the economy, society, and the environment (Song, 2020). This cultural link means that local institutions help support the SEP.
On the other hand, I found some criticism of the SEP. Schaffar suggested that the SEP has recently been used to justify Thailand’s dictatorship. The regime has gained its legitimacy by leading innovative development ideas, including the sufficiency economy and their commitment to the SDGs. They argue that their control stabilizes the economy (Schaffar, 2018). Moreover, it seems that much of the burden of living a sufficient lifestyle is directed towards the poorer populations, which are already living off quite minimal consumption (Elinoff, 2014).
Bottom line: I am no longer convinced that Thailand’s Sufficiency Economy Policy is a success story, but it does represent a step in the right direction.
* Please help my Real Donut Economics** students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂
** Why “Real”? In short, because (a) Raworth’s claims to being a “21st century economist” denies that all of her ideas were presented by others in the 20th century and (b) she presents no viable mechanisms (besides “be nice”) for achieving equality and sustainability. My students are more realistic. In long? Read this.
Hey Ayala, I think that this post is a really interesting analysis of Thailand’s Sufficiency Economy Policy. It’s nice to understand the connection between the core principles of SEP, such as moderation, resilience or self-reliance, and the Buddhism ideology, even though it reveals a certain idealistic aspect of it. The example of the Thai villages is particularly explanatory, showing that localized self-sufficiency can foster social cohesion and economic stability. However, I agree with the criticism, the difference between the praised “Thailand’s Sufficiency Economy Policy” at the state level and the actual reality of poor villagers just being poor reminded me of a point made in class about how top-down development policies and even their results can overlook or not represent the reality on a local level. If I remember correctly this idea was said to be explained by James C. Scott in his book Seeing Like a State (I have not read it).
Hey Felix, thank you for your comment! I will definitely look into the Seeing Like a State book, sounds like it could be very helpful.