The Sufficiency Economy and Community Sustainability in Rural Northeastern Thailand

Thailand is promoting a sufficiency economy (SE) emphasizing community solidarity, mixed farming and sustainable agriculture. We analyze to what extent the SE philosophy is part of the daily lives of communities in Isan, NE Thailand. We interviewed rural household representatives and community leaders on education, employment, community dynamics, aspirations, concerns and social-sufficiency. The majority observed that community values and interaction were essential and were satisfied with living standards and community. However, most want their children to proceed to university meaning many may not return to agriculture limiting the ability of SE values to be transferred to the next generation.


Introduction
Changes in economic relations inevitably impact on relations within communities and on self sufficiency and life-satisfaction (Parnwell, 2007). Such challenges are now currently being faced by Thai farmers who increasingly need to earn cash incomes to support modern lifestyles and this means producing food for a global market rather than for their own consumption. As well as this pressure to produce crops for cash, Thailand's rapid industrialization over the last 2 or 3 decades has converted large amounts of land to industrial production. Water and other natural resources have to be shared between these two activities thus increasing competition within communities and with outsiders (Phlainoi & Sirikwanchai, 2008). In Northeastern Thailand (Isan) these various modernizing forces are intersecting with a rich tradition of cooperative village life and a long lived aspiration to emerge from chronic poverty and benefit from the national economic growth. Accordingly, Isan villagers are being pulled in different directions and their complex situation needs to be understood and accommodated by regional rural development programs.
Until recently this process of industrialisation of agriculture and the economy more generally has been actively supported by Thai government policy makers in the interests of overall economic development and food security. Government bodies subsidized modern agriculture and encouraged farmers to produce mono-culture crops for the market. In more recent times the ecological, financial and social costs to rural communities of this mode of development has come to be recognised in Thailand and many other developing nations (Poapongsakorn, Ruhs, & Tangjitwisuth, 1998;Rigg, 1995). Conventional agricultural development which had been seen as producing economic growth was seen instead as threatening the very basis of that growth; the environment and rural communities. The new focus of Thai development policy from the mid 1990s was to discourage excessive pesticide use, promote organic agriculture and food safety and encourage crop diversification (Kasem & Thapa, 2010).
For over a decade now, Thailand has modified its approach to development in order to boost beneficial traditions and lessen negative impacts for farmers and communities. Supported by most government agencies, Thais now promote a "Sufficiency Economy" (SE) which aims to encourage people to develop self discipline in  Vol. 5, No. 2;2013 In 2002 a large scale study conducted by Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University and funded by the Thai National Research Council was begun on various aspects of life in rural communities in Isan. This is an area of Thailand strongly influenced by poverty, tradition and modernization and subject to repeated cycles of flood and drought with poor soil conditions and salinity. The aim of the overall study was to assess to what extent the enduring values of Isan communities are receptive to the SE philosophy espoused by the Thai development policy makers. Figure 1 shows the framework used by this study, outlining the various factors which contribute to the self-sufficiency of communities. Here we report on the social interactions and social capital relationships and how they relate to self-sufficiency within these communities. We also assess whether this community development model is able to sustain itself socially between generations.
We conducted this study in Isan as it is the country's poorest and most rural region. It is also the region which has the highest proportion of small hold farmers and the lowest proportion of commercial/industrial farms. This means traditional community values are still more relevant to Isan farmers lives than those in other regions (Thongyuu, 2005). Indeed the ability of the SE to solve or resolve the tensions between tradition and modernity should be most evident in Isan.

Sample Selection
Within Isan we chose one province from each of the Southern, Central and Northern sub-regions. The chosen provinces were Nong Khai, Khon Kaen and Srisaket each of which had an approximately equal level of economic development and average incomes. We then chose two villages from within each province from which to draw our sample population. One more economically developed and one less developed were chosen. These economic assessments were based on data from the government's Community Development Department. Within villages we used simple random sampling to choose households to study. Final sampling included a total of 771 households who participated in the whole study. All households responded to questions on demographic and socio-economic characteristics and a random subset of 250 of them were selected to respond to the social-sufficiency questions. The other 521 households not included in the social-sufficiency study were part of other studies on environmental and technological sufficiency (not reported here). In addition we conducted focus group discussions (FGD) involving a total of 250 individuals drawn from amongst community leaders including village heads and community volunteer health worker leaders.

Research Tools
We interviewed community leaders in chosen villages and household heads or representatives of households. The standard social-sufficiency household interviews (n=250) used a 7-page pre-tested questionnaire (including open and closed ended questions) administered by trained interviewers. They collected data on a range of issues including education level, employment, length of residence in village, views regarding having children, relations with extended family and elders, role of women in the family, importance of communal village work, food sources, ability to be sufficient on food produced, relations with neighbours and the sharing of work and resources, public spaces in the village, use of public health services, conflict solving in the village, participation in community activities, life satisfaction, income and debt levels. FGDs, in groups of 7-9 people, were conducted after the household survey and followed a standard agenda covering life satisfaction, community interaction, well being and aspirations. We were assisted by local experts as moderators in FGDs.

Data Analysis
Responses to the standard questionnaire were digitized and analysed using SPSS and tables prepared to describe the demographic and social capital attributes of the respondents and their households. For quantitative variables we calculated relative frequencies, arithmetic means, and standard deviations and we conducted bi-variate analyses for relationships. The qualitative narrative data generated by the FGDs were recorded, transcribed and then analyzed to detect recurring themes, paradigms and informative experiences and opinions.

Results
Overall, we interviewed 771 household representatives. Among all household members, 49% were male and 51 % female. The average household comprised 5 people (higher than the national average of 4 (NESDP 2539)). 21% were aged less than 15 years, 72% between 15 and 64 and 7% 65 and older. 83% of household heads or representatives had only primary schooling with less than 1% having university degrees (Table 1). Agriculture was the main occupation for 84% of our sample with 33% working for day wages. In households with at least one member working outside the home 56% worked within the village, 20% in Bangkok, 10% in other areas of their province or region, and 2% overseas. The importance of interaction with other members of the community was highlighted by most respondents with reliance on extended and immediate family reported by 98% and reliance on neighbours reported by 91% of all respondents (Table 2). Nearly 73% were satisfied with their standard of living noting the importance of sufficient food, a home and family (Table 3). Analysis revealed a powerful and statistically significant association between adequate income on life satisfaction (Table 4). Manageable debt and sufficient rice production had important but not statistically significant associations with life satisfaction.  The average length of time households had been established in the village was 35 years, with 65% of household representatives having been born in the place of residence. Of those who moved to the village, 25% married someone from the village and then moved there, 15% moved to be close to family and 11% moved because of good quality land being available. The average size of landholding was 18 rai or around 7 acres.
The need to have children was prominent in responses to interview questions regarding family relations, with 98% of respondents considering it important. The reasons given included children as a form of insurance; someone to care for the parents in their old age and to ensure parents aren't lonely when older. As well as this children were seen as a form of labour for family enterprises. The ideal number of children was seen as being 2 (43%) or 3 (42%). The majority of respondents also agreed that they should have their elders live with them both to help with caring for grandchildren and so they can care for them.
Around 50% of respondents paid for labour on their land when needed with 44% preferring to invite neighbours to perform communal labour. When asked about the advantages and disadvantages of these two systems responses were that communal labour was more fun and it was also a way of passing on skills and traditions. Community members of all ages could come and help and the children learn from the older members. The disadvantage was that the work sometimes took longer and that the host had to feed and entertain the workers. There was attraction to the idea of retaining the communal system but maybe formalizing it and making it more of a labour exchange system.
Overall, 90% of households grew rice for their own consumption with 72% having enough to last them throughout most years. This rice sufficiency was strongly associated with higher incomes and life satisfaction. Sharing food within the community was still prominent with 78% of households reporting this as common. The inability to survive in the village without cooperation with neighbours was reported by 91% of respondents.
Overall satisfaction with quality of life was reported by 73% of respondents. Of those who were unsatisfied the lack of sufficient cash was the main complaint with debt also being a problem. Those with higher incomes were more likely to report being satisfied with life.
The average annual income of the households surveyed was 33,573 baht (approximately $US1000) with three quarters receiving between 10,000 and 50,000 baht. Most however felt that an income of at least 77,000 baht is needed to be truly sufficient. While around 30% of households had money saved 66% thought it wasn't enough to keep them going if a crisis arose. Debt was also prominent among households surveyed with 77% having debt and the average level being around 50,000 baht. Those with higher debt tended to report lower life satisfaction.
Most respondents had limited formal education with the vast majority of household heads having only completed primary school or less. In the Focus Group Discussions, when asked about desirable levels of schooling to help them support themselves better the majority view was at least 3 years of high school would have been ideal. When asked however what education level they aimed for for their children and grandchildren the ideal was a university education. Parents were also asked their views on what schools could provide to help children and communities. Responses included the serving of school lunches, having gardens and raising animals at schools to help children learn skills which will help in future occupations and to help improve nutrition. These were especially important for poorer members of the community as it would help the families and community be more sufficient. Children should also be taught more life skills and ethical and moral education which would help them progress in life and live more harmoniously in their community. Lastly the issue of further education or adult education was raised with respondents reporting that further vocational skills education would be most useful but that educational institutions were located too far from the villages and that if this problem was solved it would help them in their lives.
On a hierarchy of needs, physiological requirements were reported to be the most important by our respondents, followed by physical and resource security and morality and generosity. Self esteem was judged to be least important. Thus the Isan version of Maslow's hierarchy is displayed in Figure 2.

Discussion
The majority of villagers surveyed in this study are self sufficient in food to provide for their families and were satisfied with their lives and incomes, particularly in households with low levels of debt. Although satisfied with their lives and incomes they would have liked the ability to be educated to at least grade 9 and aspire for their children to reach university. However educational facilities to enable even grade 9 education are generally not locally available and whatever is available is often of poor quality compared to urban counterparts. The majority also still practice traditions of food sharing within the community. Around half maintain collective work traditions. outside agencies and institutions. Sufficiency economy principles will then work best where there is a synergy between the network and institutions of the government and the social capital of communities in order to develop more opportunities at the local level than are currently available. Participatory development using the communities social capital and the resources of the state may be most effective (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). This has the potential to prove effective in Thailand due to the high level support for sufficiency economy principles at the National Economic and Social Development Board, the nation's peak planning body.
Our research reveals a somewhat challenging development situation. Isan farmers are satisfied with their lives, have supportive communities and are practicing agriculture which provides enough for them to eat and is ecologically sustainable -but they don't want this life for their children. Thus their self-sufficiency does not appear to include succession to the next generation. More opportunity will need to be created at the local level for people to be able to become educated to a higher degree than previously, whether in academic or vocational fields. Also, there must be more diverse economic opportunities at the local level so these individuals will be able to use their education and aspiration to work within and help improve their own communities. An important factor to consider also is the way that our respondents rank the things which are needed most in life. Self esteem or confidence in oneself was ranked as being least important. What may be needed most in the Isan setting is a sense of self confidence and pride in rural communities and connecting this to realistic succession plans incorporating the next generation. If this was achieved the situation of Isan parents wanting their children to leave the community and search for opportunities elsewhere may be less prominent. A truly participatory grassroots development strategy may help to achieve both these aims, increasing opportunity at the local level and improving self-confidence and local pride. Although as we have discussed the SE ideals to some extent reflect rural community values, the SE may still be seen as a central government policy rather than something rural communities are calling for themselves. A real effort needs to be made by central policy makers to address rural peoples' own perceived needs, in this case education and local opportunity.
There are many examples in Thailand of SE principles being employed to help create communities which are more economically successful. This is being achieved through crop diversification, employing more sustainable agricultural practices and developing community rice mills and cooperatives in order to cut out commodity brokers and improve profits. However a new way of thinking about rural economies that is not purely focused on agricultural activities may be necessary as agriculture alone, at least in the eyes of the farmers themselves, is not going to provide a sustainable future for their children. Such a future can still be achieved within an SE philosophy provided the concept begins to operate at the regional and national levels to create a network of opportunities for the children of Isan farmers. Until that happens we note an Isan conundrum whereby SE is sustaining the current generation of fulfilled adults but they do not intend to pass it on to the next generation.