Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2024
The authors argue that the depletion of the open land frontier in Thailand has not led to the development of a strong central state, even though it has led to demands for innovations in the formal-legal order governing access to land. Institutional factors preventing the state from providing formal rule enforcement for the population combined with the lack of a landed aristocracy have maintained the discrepancy between legal rules and customary practices that prevailed when an open land frontier allowed people to avoid conflict by moving away. Since the mid-1980s, when the Royal Forestry Department drafted a new policy to promote commercial tree plantations, conflicts over forest reserves have increased, centering on the commercial tree plantations, on squatters who refuse to leave the reserves, and on the preservation and management of so-called community forests.
1 Gunner Myrdal used the term soft state in reference to this sort of political order. Hirschman's “neo-laissez-faire” society is a reference to the social and ecological bases of the soft state.
2 The Torrens system involves conducting comprehensive land surveys and issuing ownership documents for all surveyed lands. It also requires the maintenance of land ownership records.
3 The World Bank considered N.S. 4, 3, and 3K titled land throughout this study.
4 Lohmann (1993) provides an eloquent discourse on contestation, though informed by a rather misplaced notion of “the commons” in the Thai political economy.
5 Party secretaries generals control the campaign funds.
6 For a discussion of 22 of these institutions, see Social Research Institute 1991.