RESULTS OF COMPARATIVE STUDY
6.1 Comparative Analysis of Agenda Setting
6.1.1 Comparison of Problem Stream
The comparison included event and crises, as well as the feedback of Thailand’s OTOP policy and Japan’s OVOP policy.
6.1.1.1 Problem Stream and the OTOP Policy
The problem stream under the event and crises which led to the proposal of OTOP policy was the economic crisis in 1997. Consideration is needed in the capitalism economic development, which was the result for Thailand’s decreasing control from the government in the economic system under the trend of Neoliberalism.
The new trend also came with the new controlling paradigm such as Liberalization, De- regulation, and Privatization.
One of the most influential liberization was the financial liberalization, which affected the influx of capital into Thailand. The lack of financial discipline created the economic bubble. And due to the Neoliberalization financial policy which reduced the state’s control, the Hedge Fund could use huge amount of capital to attack the Baht currency. As a result, Bank of Thailand lose almost all of its reserved capital and then the financial crisis in 1997 erupted. Afterwards, Thailand lose the ownership of assets to foreigners in many business under the legislative amendments of 11 laws.
Moreover, there was the problem of excessive agricultural product due to the regional economic regression.
The indicator and feedback were considered as the empirical evidence in the Multiple Streams Model that clarify the condition of the situation within the problem streams, and the indicator of consiquences of the economic crisis in 1997 could be described as following. In 1998, the Thai economic growth rate was negative, or - 10%. And during the first 3 years of the 8th National Development Plan (1997-1999), the Thai economic growth rate was still negative, at -2.6%. GDP per capita per year also decreased considerably comparing to the period prior the economic crisis. In 1997 GDP per capita per year of Thailand was 75,991 baht, but in 1999 it decreased to 73,771. The poverty problem also increased after the economic crisis, as 11.4% of population or 6.8 million people were considered poor in 1996, but the number increased to 15.9% or 9.9 million people in 1999, or additional 3.1 million people during 1996-1999. Meanwhile, the national income distribution became worst, as the share of income from the lowest 20% percentile decreased from 4.2% to 3.8%, while the top 20% percentile increased from 56.5 to 58.5. The household income also decreased substantially, as the comparative analysis of income during the first half of 1999 and 1998 found that 41.4% of household had less income, 52.4% of household had the same level of income, while only 6.2% had more income. And the rate of employment increased to almost 1.4 million people after the economic crisis (Sukhothai Thammatirat Open University, 2015).
As a result, the labors in the industrial sector, financial sector, service sector, and other business sectors influxed back to the rural area, to live with the local
community and their family where the lands were available for working. The families and communities could share and care among each other well. In other words, the local communities in Thailand could absorb the excess labours from capitalism system efficiently.
6.1.1.2 Problem Stream and the OVOP Policy
The problem stream under the event and crises which led to the proposal of OVOP policy was the problem of sluggishness and economic regression in Oita prefecture, where the labors influxed to work in the major cities due to the policy of relocating the industrial development project towards the new industrial cities in 1962, under the Comprehensive National Development Plan. The industrial development led Japan to become a powerful economy. And the government encouraged people to enter the industrial economic system even more, in order to maintain the continuous economic growth. Nevertheless, the stimulation of industrial sector as well as infrastructure construction projects did not connect to the local economic activities and the local industrial sector. For example, the Kyoshu region had Fukuoka prefecture as the economic and industrial center. Therefore, the income of Fukuoka was higher than other prefectuers in Kyoshu. The new generation of people then headed towards working in the city and enter the industrial economic system in the major cities under the development. When the labors from Oita prefecture moved to work in the major cities such as Tokyo, Nagoya, or Osaka, then the rural area became neglected.
Regarding the indicator and feedback which reflect the sluggishness problem of Oita prefecture, the number of population of Oita prefecture provided the obvious evidence as following. In 1955, the number of population was 1,277,000 people. But in 1960, the number of population decreaed to 1,187,000 people and just 1,155,000 people in 1970 (Oita, 2016, p. 2). Meanwhile, Takai (2012, p. 8) provided information which indicated that the cities which underwent industrial development according to the capitalism economic development such as Tokyo and Osaka saw the increased number of population, while other rural area’s number of population decreased.
Regarding the per capita prefectural income, the prefectures with top income in Japan in 1970 were Tokyo, Osaka, and Aichi. The per capita prefectural income was 872,000 yen in Tokyo, 757,000 yen in Osaka, and 685,000 yen in Aichi.
Meanwhile, the prefectures with lowest income in Japan were Kochi, Tottori, and Oita.
The per capita prefectural income was 472,000 yen in Kochi, 370,000 yen in Tottori, and 309,000 yen in Oita (Takai, 2012, p. 8).
As mentioned above, it was obvious that in 1970, Oita was the prefecture with lowest per capita prefectural income at 309,000 yen per year per person.
Comparing to the prefectures with highest income in Japan, it was found that the income of Oita was almost two times lower than Tokyo and Osaka, and over two times lower than Aichi. And among the prefectures with lowest income, Kochi and Tottori’s per capita prefectural income differed from those of the prefectures with top income almost one time and over one time.
6.1.1.3 Comparative Analysis of Problem Stream
From the comparative analysis of the problem stream which led to the OTOP policy formulation in Thailand and OVOP policy formulation in Japan, the researcher found that the problem streams of both policies were related to economic consequences from the liberal capitalism development. But the difference lies in the origins of problem. The origin of Thailand’s problem was the economic crisis in 1997 due to the Neo-Liberalization trend that became the international economic trend. When the Thai government responded by loosen its financial control, the baht currency was attacked by the Hedge Fund. However, the sluggishness and economic regression in Oita prefecture originated form the economic development policy called the Comprehensive National Development Plan, which focus only with the major cities that the labors from Oita prefecture relocated to the developed industrial city. When consider in detail, the difference of problem stream would be obvious, as the economic crisis in Thailand did not originate due to the demand of the state, while the sluggishness and economic regression in Oita prefecture was the result from the national development plan, or the national policy which affected the prefectural level.
Furthermore, there were the differences in situation and level of consequence, as the economic crisis in Thailand affected the whole country that some Thai deemed the 1997 economic crisis as damaging as the 3rd lost of Thai capital, according to the indicator and feedback such as the negative economic growth rate, the decline in GDP, and the increasing poverty and unemployment problem. Meanwhile, the sluggishness problem of Oita prefecture only affected the prefectural level, as
shown by the indicator and feedback such as the decline of population number in Oita prefecture and the increase of population number in other developed prefectures, or the per capita prefectural income of Oita which was much lower than those of the developed prefectures.
Regarding the relocation of population or labour in both cases, it was found that the economic crisis in Thailand drove the financial, industrial, service, and other business sectors which were concentrated in major cities to shut down, resulted in the relocation of labor back to their hometown. On the contrary, the industrial development policy in Japan’s major cities led the labors to relocate from Oita prefecture into those industrial cities.
In conclusion, the consequences of event and crises in the problem stream were at different level, as Thailand’s economic crisis in 1997 was the national-level problem with broad consequence and various indicators and feedback, whiel the sluggishness and economic regression in Oita prefecture was the prefectural-level problem, with the indicator and feedback in the form of people’s relocation and different income between Oita prefecture and other industrial cities.