1) Western-language publications

“A Brief Introduction to the History of the Communist Party of Thailand (1942 - 1977).” 1978. In Thailand: Roots of Conflict, ed. by Andrew Turton, Jonathan Fast, and Malcolm Caldwell, pp. 158-168. Nottingham: Spokesman.

“A Diplomatic History of Thailand: The Centennial of His Royal Highness Prince Wan Waithayakon Krommun Naradhip Bongsprabandh, Thai Great Diplomat and Scholar, 1991.” 25 August 1991 - 25 August 1992. Ed. by Phaen Wannamethi; translated by Vijavat Isarabhakdi. Bangkok: Office of the National Cultural Commission, August 1991. 47 pp.

A Government in Transition. A Supplement of The Nation, Monday March 11, 1991 14 pp. (on the first Anand Panyarachun government)

A Memoir of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadet of Thailand. 1987. Bangkok: Office of His Majesty’s Principal Private Secretary.

“A Policy Statement by the New Government under Phibun Songkhram in January, 1939.” In Eliezer B. Ayal. 1961. Public Policies in Thailand under the Constitutional Regime. Ph. D. dissertation, Cornell University. (Appendix B, pp. 340-341; org. in Kenneth P. Landon: The Chinese in Thailand.)

A Postman’s Life: Prasit Lulitanond. Bangkok: Post Books, 1999. 127 pp.

หมายเหตุแห่งอดีต: ประสิทธิ์ ลุลิตานนท์. [Bangkok: Post Books,1999.] 203 pp.

Prasit was co-founder of the Bangkok Post newspaper (see also MacDonald 1949). This is his (regrettably) short autobiography. Besides having been the first manager of the Thammasat University’s printing house, he was also a member of the Free Thai organization, and he was closely involved in the coup d’état Pridi Banomyong (whom he calls ‘my supreme guru’) attempted with the help of other Free Thai members and parts of the navy, on 26 February 1949. The purpose of this so-called ‘Grand Palace Coup’, named after the plotters’ chose to start it with capturing the Grand Palace, was to wrestle power from the military and Phibun Songkhram, respectively. However, the coup was poorly executed, crushed by Sarit Thanarat, and Pridi went into exile, first in China and then in France, never to set foot on Thai soil again until he died in 1983.

Prasit himself was almost killed by the the police: “Shots came from the boat. Two bullets hit Khun Tavi [Dr. Tavi Tavedhikul, former Minister of Commerce and manager of the Asia Bank, who had tried to talk Pridi out of the coup]—one in the throat and the other in the chest. Our plan to flee Thailand ended in disaster. The policeman who fired and hit Khun Tavi was Sgt Muan. Also in the boat with him were Pol Capt Tawsak Yomnak, an acquaintance of mine, and several other Special Branch police officers. As soon as the shooting started, my brothers and the others jumped into the klong. I stayed with Khun Tavi, sponging the blood flowing from his throat with my pha kaoma. But then Sgt Muan fired another two rounds into Tavi, and he was dead. Sgt Muan pointed his carbine at my temple. I thought my end had come. But when he pulled the trigger, nothing happened. His cartridge was empty. I could hardly believe I was still alive, saved by a miracle. Sgt Muan reloaded, and took aim again. But at that point, Capt Tawsak ordered him to lower his carbine. So my end had not come after all” (p. 96f.). Instead, he spent almost nine years in prison.

“A Program ‘For the Welfare of the People.’” (put forward by the Ministry of Economic Affairs on September 20, 1933). In Eliezer B. Ayal. 1961. “Public Policies in Thailand under the Constitutional Regime.” Ph. D. dissertation, Cornell University. (Appendix A, pp. 337-339; org. in Kenneth P. Landon: Siam in Transition.)

Abesamis, Regina S. 1999. “A Break in the Cycle: Democratization in Thailand.” In Transitions to Democracy in East and Southeast Asia, ed. by Kristina N. Gaerlan, pp. 185-207. Quezon City: Institute for Popular Democracy.

Abha Bhamorabutr. 1983. The Chakri Dynasty. [Bangkok]: Abha Bhamorabutr. 230 pp.

Abhinya Rathanamongkolmas. 2001. “Thailand: A Moment of Transition.” In Southeast Asian Affairs 2001, pp. xxx-xxx. Singapore: ISEAS.

Acharya, Amitav. 1999. “Southeast Asia’s Democratic Movement.” Asian Survey 39m (3): 418-432.

Ackadej Chaiperm. 1999. “Strukturreform der Kommunalverwaltung in Thailand: Ein Vergleich mit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.” Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Verwaltungswissenschaft (Dr. rer. Publ.) der Deutschen Hochschule für Verwaltungswissenschaften, Speyer. 178 pp.

Acocella, Joan, ed. 2001. Mission to Siam: The Memoirs of Jessie MacKinnon Hartzell. Richmond: Curzon Press. 224 pp.

“Act Concerning Communism, April 2nd, 1933.” In Kenneth P. Landon. 1939. Siam in Transition. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press (Reprint 1968), pp. 251-252. (Adapted version in Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 236-237. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.)

“Act on Election of Members of the House of Representatives (November 4, 1968).” In Clark D. Neher. 1974. “Thailand.” In Southeast Asia. Documents of Political Development and Change, ed. by Roger M. Smith, pp. 58-61. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

“Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999).” In Laws Relating to the Administrative Court of Thailand. [Bangkok]: Office of the Council of State, pp.1-41. พระราชบัญญัติจัดตั้งศาลปกครองและวิธีพิจารณาคดีปกครอง พ.ศ. ๒๕๔๒. ราชกิจจานุเบกษา ฉบับกฤษฎีกา เล่ม ๑๑๖ ตอนที่ ๙๔ ก วันที่ ๑๐ ตุลาคม ๒๕๔๒ หน้า ๑-๔๐.

This booklet also contains the two-page 18^th amendment of the Act on Organization of Ministries, Sub-Ministries and Departments (No. 18), B.E. 2542 (1999) which was made necessary to include stipulations on the offices of the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court.

“Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999).” – “Rule of the General Assembly of Judges of the Supreme Administrative Court on Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2543 (2000).” [Bangkok: Administrative Court, n.d.] 132 pp.

“Act on Establishment of Government Organisations, B.E. 2496 (1953).” Go to the web site of the Office of the Council of State: http: //www.krisdika.go.th/

“Act to Indemnify Promoters of the Coup d'Etat A. D. 1947.” In Clark D. Neher. 1974. “Thailand.” In Southeast Asia. Documents of Political Development and Change, ed. by Roger M. Smith, pp. 29-30. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

“Action Plan on Determining Process of Decentralization to Local Government Organization.” Executive Summary. [Bangkok]: Office of the Decentralization to Local Government Organization Committee, Office of the Permanent Secretary, The Prime Minister’s Office, 22 February 2002. 13 pp.

Adams, David B. J. 1977. “Monarchy and Political Change: Thailand under Chulalongkorn (1868-1885).” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Chicago, Illinois. 225 pp.

Adisai Apornsanang. 1976. “Three Stages toward the Coup.” AMPO No. 3: xxx-xxx.

Adul Adulyapichet, ed. 1986. Official listings: Thailand. Bangkok: Tawanna Holdings. (xxx300.959.3.032 cl)

Adulyasak Soonthornrojana. 1986. “The Rise of United States-Thai Relations, 1945-1975.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Akron. 208 pp.

Ahmat, Sharom. 1971. “Kedah-Siam Relations, 1821-1905.” JSS 59 (1): 97-xxx.

Ake Tangsupvattana. 2001. “Social Causality, Sex Tourism and Environmental Degradation in Thailand: An Application of the Philosophy of the Social Sciences to Relations between the Thai State and the Business of Tourism.” PhD thesis, University of Essek, United Kingdom.

Akin Rabibhadana. 1975. “Clientship and Class Structure in the Early Bangkok Period.” In Change and Persistence in Thai Society, ed. by William Skinner and A. Thomas Kirsch, pp. 93-123. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Akin Rabibhadana. 1979. “The Organization of Thai Society in the Early Bangkok Period, 1782-1873.” In Modern Thai Politics, ed. by Clark D. Neher, pp. 27-41. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Company.

Akin Rabibhadana. 1970. The Organization of Thai Society in the Early Bangkok Period, 1782-1873. Ithaca, N. Y.: Southeast Asia Program, Dept. of Asian Studies, Cornell University. (Interim Reports Series, Cornell University, Thailand Project, 12; Data Paper, Cornell University, Southeast Asia Program, 74) xi+247 pp. (New edition published in 1996, Bangkok: Wisdom of The Land Foundation & Thai Association of Qualitative Researchers. Foreword by Charles Keyes. Introductory Note to the Second Edition by the author.)

Alagappa, Muthia. 1987. The National Security of Developing States: Lessons from Thailand. Dover, Mass.: Auburn House Pub. Co. xiv+274 pp. (Org.: Ph. D. dissertation, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, 1985.)

Albritton, Robert B. 1996. “Political Parties and Elections in Thailand in an Era of Globalization: No Longer a Semi-Democracy.” In Proceedings of the 6^th International Conference on Thai Studies. Theme I - Globalization: Impact on and Coping Strategies in Thai Society. Chiang Mai, Thailand, 14-17 October 1996, pp. 1-17. [Chiang Mai]: [Chiang Mai University].

Albritton obviously wants to start his contribution to the study of Thai politics with a bang. He claims nothing less than to provide a “new paradigm for Thai political analysis” (p. 2). This, perhaps, is even dwarfed by his reinterpretation of Thai society. In his view, Thailand is no longer a developing country: “Thailand is a modern, industrialized nation” (p. 3), i.e. on a par level with the United States or Germany (he refrains, however, from revealing his concept of modernity or from explaining how one can call a country ‘industrialized’ when 60 % of the population still work in agriculture, when there is a sizeable petty-service sector, and when the country has hardly any technological base).

Regarding politics, Thailand, according to Albritton, has seen the advent of “’ideological’ parties” (p. 4; he mentions Phalang Dharma as an example) and political parties with “national constituencies” (p. 5; Chart Thai, Democrats; in a separate section some attention is paid to the often-mentioned problem of regionalism). Moreover, there has been a “dramatic shift in democratic practice” as far as voters and voting is concerned. And this is not being explained by the use of vote canvassers and vote buying but by the rural voters’ “high level of interest and attentiveness” (p. 8), presumably concerning political parties’ policy platforms and their policy-making work at the national level. On polling day, this is translated into a voting based on the “adherence to parties” (p. 9): “Whatever the problems for Thai democracy, the fault lies not with the capacity of Thai citizens for democratic practice” (ibid.). Furthermore, “Clearly, problems for Thai democracy do not lie with the capacity of Thai electoral institutions” (p. 10). All in all, Thai “political institutions (are) fully compatible with the notion of ‘developed’ democracy” (p. 14). Certainly, MP-candidates, their financial backers, the government, and the ECT could save an awful lot of money if they only adopted the author’s perspective. And newspapers as well as publishing houses could save an equally awful quantity of paper if they only managed to reorientiert their authors in a way that would open their eyes for them to see the well-functioning democracy existent in Thailand.

An intriguing question is how this very fundamental difference between the author and long-time empirical observers as well as practitioners of Thai electoral politics (academics, politicians, the former PollWatch, or the present ECT) could arise. Is it that those observers are so blinded by their traditional approach that their blatantly contra-factual views are immune to reality, and that only a newcomer was able to break through this wall of ignorance? How come that I have overlooked the strong role of political parties and the strong party-orientation of rural voters in Chachoengsao for so long? When Arghiros (1995: 31) writes, “that communal and particularistic exchange relationships – in other words, reciprocal obligations – would continue to carry most influence over the voting behaviour of the majority of rural dwellers”, is he ignorant of reality? Similarly, something must be seriously wrong with what Callahan/McCargo (1996: 391f.) observed, namely that “money, achievements and personal qualities [of individual MP-candidates] are critical in determining electoral outcomes. [which are] largely divorced from national political issues”. Finally, Anek 1996: 206f.) must have misunderstood something when he states that, “rural voters care very little about the election platform of the candidates, their party affiliation, or their integrity or work as members of the house or of the cabinet.”

Albritton, finally, tries to use rational choice theory (i.e. Downs’ version of 1957) to put vote-buying into a more positive light (at this point, hua khanaen disappear from the analysis). He writes, “If little or no utility is calculated, it is even rational for the voter to receive some compensation in return for the trouble to vote” (p. 13). Utility, one may say, is not calculated because voters do not or not sufficiently (we live in a transitional period) observe national-level politics, and they do not quite understand what voting or MPs are there for. Their local social environment, on the other hand, is very tangible. In RC-terms: decisions are made on the basis of information which is distorted or imperfect to such a degree that it renders the resultant decisions irrational. This result seems inevitable if a local opportunity structure is used by ignoring the national opportunity structure elections and voting are elements of.

The author also states, “that modest vote-buying distorts democracy only to the extent that it coerces voters to take actions that are calculated to have negative utility. This outcome appears to apply in a limited number of cases to Thai election campaigns” (ibid.). The problem here is that vote buying is done mostly on the basis of existing social ties and the lack of information about the political system and the processes elections and voting are parts of. Although voters may not be coerced in a physical sense when hua khanaen and vote-buying are used, but the resulting utility is still negative. In other words, the utility is much less than it would be if voters were integrated, as members of the public and of political parties, into the country-wide political system called ‘democracy’. Under present conditions, though, MPs can, at the national policy-making level, largely do whatever they want. In terms of democracy theory, this appears as a lack of responsiveness as well as of accountability (at Parliament, this takes the form of a small number of laws passed, and a very low intensity of the MPs’ work). And this outcome, one may very well say, is calculated. That is, both local leaders (e.g. as gatekeepers) and MPs maximize their utility at the expense of village-based voters. ‘Admitting’ them to the ‘public’ or to political parties (which are highly exclusionary in Thailand, perhaps, to an extent, except for the Democrats) would drastically reduce their freedom of action, and that means, their utility. And this situation is not given in “a limited number of cases” but rather generally. In RC-terms, the ‘villagers’ voting decision’ is irrational (this goes far beyond the assumption of a ‘bounded rationality’) because voters do not have the information necessary to clearly formulate the available options, calculate the respective utilities, and then make an ‘informed decision’. The power differentials mentioned above play their part.

Albritton actually confirms this outline when he writes, “the exchange of money [this may include patronage, but it excludes policies] represents the only utility they can calculate from the politics of national office” (p. 14). People, in other words, are de facto excluded from the democratic system of government; without allowing them to participate politically, they are merely used to produce an institution deemed necessary in a democracy, that is Parliament. If it “is the essence of individual sovereignty in a democracy” to maximize utility (the author here follows Downs), and if, as has been demonstrated, rural voters cannot and/or are kept from maximizing their utility in the frame of the national political system called ‘democracy’, then, it follows, they lack this (politically speaking) individual sovereignty. And this, one may add, is the overwhelming impression one gets when empirically working on politics in rural Thailand.

Albritton, Robert B. et al. 1996. “Electoral Participation by Southern Thai Buddhists and Muslims.” South East Asia Research 4 (2): 127-156.

Albritton, Robert B., and Sidthinat Prabudhanitisarn. 1997. “Culture, Region, and Thai Political Diversity.” Asian Studies Review 21 (1):61-82.

Albritton, Robert B., and Thawilwadee Bureekul. 2001. “Developing Democracy Under a New Constitution in Thailand: A Pluralist Solution.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 18-22, 2001. 26 pp.

Albritton, Robert B., and Thawilwadee Bureekul. 2001. “Civil Society and the Consolidation of Democracy in Thailand.” Prepared for delivery at the Annual Meting of the Southern Political Science Association, Savannah, GA: November 6-9. 23 pp.

Aldrich, Richard James. 1993. The Key to the South: Britain, the United States, and Thailand during the Approach of the Pacific War, 1929-1942. Kuala Lumpur and Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press. xxii+416 pp. (org. “British Policies towards Thailand, 1929-1942.” Ph. D. dissertation, Cambridge University, 1990. 497 pp.)

Allison, Gordon H. and Auratai Smarnond. 1972. Thailand’s Government (including dictionary-locator). Bangkok: Siam Security Brokers. 155 pp.

Allison, L. 1998. “Sport and Civil Society.” Political Studies 46 (4):709-726. (Georgia, Thailand, South Africa)

Alpern, Stephen I. 1975. “Insurgency in Thailand: An Analysis of the Government Response.” Military Review, LV: 10-77.

Alpern, Stephen I. 1975. “Insurgency in Northeast Thailand: A New Cause for Alarm.” Asian Survey 15 (8): 684-692.

Amara Pongsapich. 1988. “Women’s Political Participation in Thailand.” In Amara Pongsapich: Occasional Papers on Woman in Thailand, pp. 81-99. Bangkok: Woman's Studies Programme, Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute.

Amara Pongsapich. 1993. Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Thailand. Baltimore, Maryland: Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, Institute for Policy Studies, The Johns Hopkins University. (=Working Papers, no. 11) 19 pp.

Amara Pongsapich. 1995. “Nongovernmental Organizations in Thailand.” In Emerging Civil Society in the Asia Pacific Community: Nongovernmental Underpinnings of the Emerging Asia Pacific Regional Community, pp. 245-270. Singapore: ISEAS; Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange.

Amara Pongsapich. 1995. “Philanthropy in Thailand.” In Emerging Civil Society in the Asia Pacific Community: Nongovernmental Underpinnings of the Emerging Asia Pacific Regional Community, pp. 637-661. Singapore: ISEAS; Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange.

Amara Pongsapich. 1995. “Strengthening the Role of NGO’s in Popular Participation.” In Thai NGOs: The Continuing Struggle for Democracy.” ed. by Jaturong Boonyarattanasoontorn and Gawin Chutima, pp. 9-50. Bangkok: Thai NGO Support Project.

Amara Pongsapich et al. 1993. Socio-Cultural Change and Political Development in Central Thailand, 1950-1990. Bangkok: TDRI. xi+111 pp.

“Political development”, though mentioned in the title, is absent from the report.

Amara Pongsapich. 1999. “Politics and Civil Society.” In Southeast Asian Affairs 1998, pp. 325-335. Singapore: ISEAS.

Amara Pongsapich. 1999. “Cultural Diversity, Civil Society and Good Governance in Thailand.” In Regional Pluralism and Good Governance: Problems and Solutions in Asean and EU Countries. Eds. Frank DelMartino, Amara Pongsapich, and Rudolf Hrbek, pp. xxx-xxx. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.

Amara Pongsapich and Nitaya Kataleeradabhan. 1994. Philanthropy, NGO activities and Corporate Funding in Thailand. Bangkok: CUSRI. 146 pp.

Amara Pongsapich and Nitaya Kataleeradabhan. 1997. Thailand Nonprofit Sector and Social Development. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Printing House. 187 pp.

Amara Raksasataya. 1965. Trends and Problems of Thai Politics and the Study of Political Science in Thailand. Bangkok: Institute of Public Administration, Thammasat University. 67 pp. (xxxcheck p. JQ1745.A1A4Ko)

Amara Raksasataya. 1966. “The Study of Political Science in Thailand.” Rathasasnites 3 (1): 30-46. (xxxcheck)

Amara Raksasataya. 1975. “Institutions and Processes for Policy Development in Thailand.” Kuala Lumpur: Asian Center for Development Administration. (xxxcheck)

Amara Raksasataya. 1977. “Cutural Patterns and Democratic Superstructure: An Asian Quest for New Models.” Photocopy. 26 leaves (xxxpaper?)

Amara Raksasataya. [1979]. “Public Administration in Thailand: Philosophy, Policy and Implementation.” s.n. 12 leaves. (xxxpaper?)

Amara Raksasataya. 1983. “Thailand’s Development Ideologies.” Photocopy. 21 leaves. (xxxpaper?)

Amara Raksasataya. 1985. “Administrative Reform in Thailand: Organization and Personnel Aspects.” Thai Journal of Development Administration 25 (Special Number): 141-174 [?].

Amara Raksasataya. 1989. Thailand: An Administrative Profile. Bangkok: NIDA. MS 154 pp. (Published as Thailand. Bad Honnef, Germany: Deutsche Stiftung für Internationale Entwicklung, and Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, 1990, 121 pp.) (xxxcheck)

Amara Raksasataya. 1992. “Bureaucracy vs. Bureaucracy: Anti-Corrupt Practices in Thailand.” In Politics and Administration in Changing Societies, ed. by Ramesh K. Arora, pp. xxx-xxx. New Delhi: Associated Publishing House.

Amara Raksasataya. 1993. “Local Government in Thailand: The Need for Reform.” In Decentralization Towards Democratization and Development, eds. Raul P. De Guzman and Mila A. Reforma, pp. 59-69. Manila: EROPA Secretariat.

Ambassade du Roy de Siam envoyée à l’Excellence du Prince Maurice, arrivée à La Haye le 10 septembre 1608. Leiden, 1608.

American Institutes for Research. 1967. Counter-Insurgency in Thailand: The Impact of Economic, Social, and Political Action Programs. Pittsburgh: American Institutes for Research, Advanced Research Project Division.

Amitar Acharya. 1999. “Southeast Asia’s Democratic Moment.” Asian Survey 39 (3): 418-432. (xxxcheck mit entry Acharya)

Ammar Siamwalla. 1997. “Can A Developing Democracy Manage Its Macroeconomy? The Case of Thailand.” TDRI Quarterly Review 12 (4): 3-10. (Reprinted in Thailand’s Boom and Bust: Collected Papers, pp. 63-75. Bangkok: TDRI, December 1997.)

“Amnesty Act A. D. 1951 Granted to Persons in the Course of Reviving the Constitution of A. D. 1932 (December 31, 1951).” In Clark D. Neher. 1974. “Thailand.” In Southeast Asia. Documents of Political Development and Change, ed. by Roger M. Smith, pp. 30 - 31. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Amnesty International. 1997. Kingdom of Thailand: Human Rights in Transition. London: AI, International Secretariat.

Amnesty International. 1999. Thailand: A Human Rights Review Based on the International Convenent on Civil and Political Rights. London: AI, International Secretariat.

Amnuay Suwanakijboriharn. 1976. “Current Political Conflicts in Thailand.” In Trends in Thailand II, ed. by Somporn Sangchai and Lim Joo-Jock, pp. 31 - 37. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

“An Interview Given by the Spokesman of the Communist Party of Thailand on the Menace and Threats Posed by Vietnamese Invasion Into Kampuchea.” 1980. Journal of Contemporary Asia 10 (3): 351-353.

Anand in Review. A Special Publication of the Bangkok Post, March 13, 1992. 18 pp.

Anand Panyarachun. [1992]. Management, Reform and Vision. A Selection of Speeches by Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun. 3 Vol. [Bangkok]: Secretariat of the Prime Minister. (vol. 1: April to Nov. 1991; vol. 2: Dec. 1991 to March 1992; vol. 3: July to Sept. 1992)

Anand Panyarachun. 1994. “Implications of rapid economic growth for Thailand’s political structure.” South East Asia Research 2 (1): 5-11.

Ananda Rajah. 1987. “Thailand in 1986: Change and Continuity, Yet Again.” In Southeast Asian Affairs 1987, pp. 307-326. Singapore: ISEAS.

Ananya Bhuchongkul. 1992. “Thailand 1991: The Return of the Military.” In Southeast Asian Affairs 1992, pp. 313-333. Singapore: ISEAS.

Ananya Buchongkul. 1985. “From chaonaa to khonngaan: the growing divide in a Central Thai village.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of London. 434 pp.

Ananya Buchongkul. 1992. “Vote-buying - more than a ‘sale’: complex social reasons lie behind misunderstood, condemned practice.” Bangkok Post (A Post Enquiry), 23 February 1992, p. 8.

Anchanin Buddhimongkol. 1988. L’évolution politique intérieure du Siam de 1933 jusqu’au début de 1942: perceptions britanniques et françaises. Paris: Université de Paris VII. (=U. E. R. de Géographie et Sciences de la Société) 464 pp. (org. Doctorat de 3e cycle en histoire)

Andaya, Barbara. 1971. “Statecraft in the Reign of Lithai of Sukhothai.” Cornell Journal of Social Relations (Special Issue on Southeast Asian Studies) 6 (1): 61-68. (xxxcheck Lu Tai and Sukodaya?) (xxxchecken: also in?? Religion and Legitimation of Power in Thailand, Laos and Burma, ed. by Bardwell L. Smith, pp. 34-51. Chambesburgh P. A.: Anima Books.)

Andaya, Barbara Watson. 1986. “The Making of a Tributary State: Siam and Terengganu in the Eighteenth Century.” In Anuson Walter Vella, ed. Ronald D. Renard, pp. 156-192. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Walter F. Vella Fund, Payap University; Honolulu, Hawaii: Southeast Asia Papers, Center for Asian and Pacific Studies, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Andaya, Leonhard Y. 1999. “Ayutthaya and the Persian and Indian Muslim Connection.” In From Japan to Arabia: Ayutthaya’s Maritime Relations with Asia, ed. By Kennon Breazeale, pp. 119-136. Bangkok: The Foundation for the Promotion of Social Sciences and Humanities Textbooks Project.

Anderson, Ben. 1977. “Withdrawal Symptoms: Social and Cultural Aspects of the October 6 Coup.” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 9 (3): 13-30. (Reprinted as ‘Withdrawal Symptoms’ in Benedict Anderson. 1998. The Specter of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia and the World. London: Verso, pp. 139-173.) เบนเนดิก แอนเดอร์สัน. 2541. "บ้านเมืองของเราลงแดง: แง่มุมทางสังคมและวัฒนธรรมของรัฐประหาร 6 ตุลาคม." ใน จาก 14 ถึง 6 ตุลา. ชาญวิทย์ เกษตรศิริ และ ธำรงศักดิ์ เพชรเลิศอนันต์. บรรณาธิการ, หน้า 97-162. กรุงเทพฯ: มูลนิธิโครงการ ตำราสังคมศาสตร์และมนุษยศาสตร์.

Anderson, Benedict R. O’G. 1978. “Studies of the Thai State: The State of Thai Studies.” In The Study of Thailand, ed. by Eliezer B. Ayal, pp. 193-247. Athens, Ohio: Ohio Center for International Studies, Southeast Asia Program. (Comments by Sulak Sivaraksa, pp. 248-252, and Clark Neher, pp. 253 - 257) (= Southeast Asia Series No. 54) pp. 193-233 has been translated as เบนเนดิค แอนเดอร์สัน. 2529. “การศึกษาเรื่องรัฐไทย: สถานภาพของไทยคดีศึกษา” ใน บทวิพากษ์ ผลงานศึกษาสังคมการเมือง - การบริหารราชการไทย. การเมือง - การบริหารราชการไทย: รวมบทความ นักวิชาการชาวต่างประเทศ. ภาคหก, สุกิจ เจริญรัตนกุล บรรณาธิการ, สุกิจ เจริญรัตนกุล เรียบเรียง, หน้า 41-77. กรุงเทพมหานคร: สำนักพิมพ์โอเดียนสโตร์.

Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised edition. London and New York: Verso. (Eleventh impression 2002)

Anderson, Benedict. 1990. “Murder and Progress in Modern Siam.” New Left Review 181: 33-48. (Reprinted in Benedict Anderson. 1998. The Specter of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia and the World. London: Verso, pp. 174-191.)

Anderson, Benedict. 1993. “Radicalism after Communism in Thailand and Indonesia.” New Left Review No. 202: 3-xxx. (Reprinted as ‘Radicalism after Communism’ in Benedict Anderson. 1998. The Specter of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia and the World. London: Verso, pp. 285-298.)

Anderson, Benedict R. 1996. “Elections and Participation in Three Southeast Asian Countries.” In The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia, ed. by R. H. Taylor, pp. 12-33. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted as ‘Elections in Southeast Asia’ in Benedict Anderson. 1998. The Specter of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia and the World. London: Verso, pp. 265-284.)

The less than six pages on ‘Siam’ (the other countries dealt with are The Philippines and Indonesia) give an overview of political development between 1930 and 1992; they are based on Anderson (1977) and (1990). The author’s position is that democracy started as a “struggle for political hegemony” by the “Thai bourgeoisie” trying to protect their interests. With the stabilization of “bourgeois electoralism”, however, the range of policies may be expanded to include more and more social policies as well. “In this sense, electoral democracy holds out some genuine prospects in the longer run.” Basically, this represents the wide-spread view that the social state, and even more so the welfare state, are results of political inclusion, mainly by the expansion of the audience (individual level: politicization) that exercises its voting rights according to its observations of both the political parties and the government, both of which, in turn, observe the observations of the audience. Hence the adjustment of policies. The view that the uprising in May 1992 “was led by cellular-telephone-wielding capitalists and parliamentary politicians” does not seem to correspond to reality. See also the contributions of Suchit and Anek in the same volume

Anderson, Benedict R. O’G. and Ruchira Mendiones, editors and translators. 1991. In the Mirror: Literature and Politics in Siam in the American Era. Bangkok: Editions Duang Kamol. (2nd edition; first: 1985) 303 pp.

Anderson, John. 1890. English Intercourse with Siam in the Seventeenth Century. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner. 503 pp. (xxxcheck) (Reprint Bangkok: Fine Arts Department, 1981.)

Anek Laothamatas. 1988. “Business and Politics in Thailand: New Patterns of Influence.” Asian Survey 28: 451-470.

Anek Laothamatas. 1992. Business Associations and the New Political Economy of Thailand: From Bureaucratic Polity to Liberal Corporatism. Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford: Westview Press and Singapore: ISEAS. 202 pp. (Org.: “No longer a Bureaucratic Polity: Business Associations and the New Political Economy of Thailand.” Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1989.) เอนก เหล่าธรรมทัศน์. 2539. มองเศรษฐกิจการเมืองไทย ผ่านการเคลื่อนไหวของสมาคมธุรกิจ. สายทีพย์ สุคติพันธ์ เรียบเรียงเป็นไทย. กรุงเทพฯ: คบไฟ. 279 pp.

Anek Laothamatas. 1992. “The Politics of Structural Adjustment in Thailand: A Political Explanation of Economic Success.” In The Dynamics of Economic Policy Reform in South-east Asia and South-west Pacific, eds. Andrew J. MacIntyre and Kanishka Jayasuriya, pp. xxx-xxx. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Anek Laothamatas. 1993. “Sleeping Giant Awakens? The Middle Class in Thai Politics.” Asian Review 7: 78-125.

Anek Laothamatas. 1994. “From Clientelism to Partnership: Business-Government Relationships in Thailand.” In Business and Government in Industrialising Asia, ed. Andrew MacIntyre, pp. 195-215. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. (xxxpp.? London?)

Anek Laothamatas. 1996. “A Tale of Two Democracies: Conflicting Perceptions of Elections and Democracy in Thailand.” In The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia, ed. by R. H. Taylor, pp. 201-223. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University Press.

Similar to Suchit’s contribution in the same volume, Anek views the current state of Thailand’s political system as being characterized by a strong difference between urban or middle class voters and those who live in the countryside. This represents the dominant view held by most Thai and foreign observers (for an empirical illustration see LoGerfo 1996). It is said that both groups follow different conceptions of democracy. Whereas the middle class stresses political princples, policies, and the national interest, rural voters aim “to bring greater benefits and official attention to themselves and their villages” (202). This makes the middle class angry because they perceive the resulting government as “corrupt and unqualified” (203).

The body of the article, then, consists of two descriptions regarding, first, the logic of voting behaviour in rural areas (summarily and inaccurately attributed to “the poor”) and, second, the middle-class view of democracy (with a special perspective on middle class-military relations since Chartchai). Both conceptions are said to be incompatible. More than that, they are said to be of equal value: “The rural interpretation is as legitimate and rational as that of the urban middle class” (222). Consequently, the middle class must not try to “remake” rural voters via their “favorite solution”, namely educational projects. Instead, the middle class should accept the rural dwellers’ goal of improving their lives but make them “change the means villagers employ to achieve it” (223). They “are to be convinced that principle- or policy-oriented voting brings them greater benefit than what they may get from local patrons” (ibid.). Also, efforts must be directed towards rural development in order to turn poor farmers into “middle class farmers or well-paid workers” (ibid.).

Rather than viewing rural voters as proponents of an alternative model of democracy, as Anek seems to suggest, one may see their behavior as a reaction on a specific element of the middle-class concept of democracy, i.e. elections. Elections open up new opportunities for rural people without them having to understand or adopt the entire model. Accordingly, there does not seem to be one alternative or competing model developed by Thailand’s rural population, but rather a myriad of separately localized reactions on the original model. Villagers integrate this new opportunity into their existing local structures. As Anek puts it, “Rural people do not regard their voting as separate from other sociocultural obligations” (221). In other words, they are acting outside the society’s political system the function of which is to generate collectively binding decisions. The decisions are binding for them as well, but rural people have hardly any part in determining them since they do not join the system’s ‘public’ nor it’s ‘politics’ (political parties).

In fact, Anek himself does not take his relativism too seriously, i.e. he does not propose that the middle class should adopt or at least tolerate the villagers ‘model’, or that the middle class should give rural people an opportunity to participate in developing a model of democracy suitable for both groups. Instead, there is no doubt that the middle-class concept of democracy (which is the name for a functionally differentiated political system comparable to other such systems, e.g. the economy, law, medicine, education) has to be expanded to be operational in the entire territory of Thailand. To achieve this aim, rural voters must be shown that their rational voting decisions are actually irrational because they are based on seriously incomplete information. Had they only known how democracy at the national level works to bring benefits to the citizens, they would have created and selected this option as the one promising the highest return. And if this strategy does not work to convince villagers to change their means, then (or probably at the same time), Anek suggests, let us use rural development to ‘remake’ those villagers into members of the middle class who would more or less automatically adhere to the same model of democracy as the established middle class at the center already does.

Anek, a former dean of the Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University, was an advisor to former Interior Minister Sanan Kachornprasat (Democrat Party; now banned from politics for five years because of a wrong asset declaration). He is now a party-list MP for the Democrats.

Anek Laothamatas. 1997. “Development and Democratization: A Theoretical Introduction with Reference to the Southeast Asian and East Asian Cases.” In Democratization in Southeast and East Asia, ed. by Anek Laothamatas, pp. 1-20. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books and Singapore: ISEAS.

Annandale, Nelson. 1900. “The Siamese Malay States.” The Scottish Geographical Magazine 16: 505-523.

“Announcement of the Office of the Prime Minister on State-ism (No. 5). Re: The Thais should try to use consumer goods which originate or are produced in Thailand [1^st November 1939].” In Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 248-249. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.

“Announcement of the Office of the Prime Minister on State-ism (No. 6). Re: The tune and the words of the national anthem [10^th December 1939].” In Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 249-250. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.

“Announcement of the Office of the Prime Minister on State-ism (No. 7). Re: All the Thais should join hands to help build the nation [21^st March 1940].” In Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 250-251. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.

“Announcement of the Office of the Prime Minister on State-ism (No. 8). Re: The anthem of His Majesty the King [26^th April 1940].” In Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 251. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.

“Announcement of the Office of the Prime Minister on State-ism (No. 9). Re: The Thai language and alphabet and civic duties of good citizens [24^th June 1940].” In Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 251-252. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.

“Announcement of the Office of the Prime Minister on State-ism (No. 10). Re: The dress code of the Thai people [15^th January 1941].” In Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 252-253. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.

“Announcement of the Office of the Prime Minister on State-ism (No. 11). Re: Daily Activities of the Thais [8^th September 1941].” In Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 253-254. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.

“Announcement of the Office of the Prime Minister on State-ism (No. 12). Re: Aid and protection given to the young, the old and the infirm [28^th January 1942].” In Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 254. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.

“Announcement of the Office of the Prime Minister on State-ism (Nr. 2). Re: The prevention of dangers which will occur to the nation [3^rd July, 1939, signed: Phibunsongkhram].” In Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 245-246. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.

“Announcement of the Office of the Prime Minister on State-ism (Nr. 3). Re: The appellation of the Thai people [2^nd August, 1939, signed: Phibunsongkhram].” In Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 246-247. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.

“Announcement of the Office of the Prime Minister on State-ism. Re: The appellation of the country, the people, and nationality [24^th June, 1939, signed: Phibunsongkhram].” In Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 245. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.

“Announcement of the Office of the Prime Minister on the State Preference (Nr. 4). Re: Respect for the national flag, the national anthem and the anthem for His Majesty the King [8^th September, 1939].” In Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 858-880. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.

“Announcement of the People’s Party [June 24, 1932].” In Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 4-7. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.

Anonymous. 1690. A Full and True Relation of the Great and Wonderful Revolution that Happened Lately in the Kingdom of Siam in the East Indies. London: Randall Taylor. (xxxother title: Full and True Relation of the Great and Wonderful Revolution in Siam: being the substance of letters written in October 1688 and February 1689.)

“Anti-Communist Activities Act A. D. 1952 (November 13, 1952).” In Clark D. Neher. 1974. “Thailand.” In Southeast Asia. Documents of Political Development and Change, ed. by Roger M. Smith, pp. 34-35. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. (Also in Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957, ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 819-821. Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978.)

Anuar Nik Mahmud. 1988. “Anglo-Thai Relations, 1945-1954.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Hull. vi+484 pp.

Anuchat Poungsomilee et al. 1999. “Civil Society Movements in Thailand: The Making of Thai Citizens.” Paper presented in the 7^th International Conference on Thai Studies “Thailand: A Civil Society?”, 4-8 July 1999, Amsterdam, Netherlands. (see Kritaya Archavanitkul et al. 1999.) (xxxcheck)

Anuj Arbhibhirama. 1987. “Observations on Bureaucratic Democracy in Thailand.” Asian Review 1: 45-57.

Anuson Chinvanno. 1988. “Thailand’s Policies Towards the People’s Republic of China, 1949-1957.” Ph. D. dissertation, Oxford University.

Anuson Chinvanno. 1991. Brief Encounter: Sino-Thai Rapproachment after Bandung, 1955-1957. Bangkok: International Studies Center, Institute of Foreign Affairs. 58 pp.

Anusorn Limmanee. 1984. “State Expenditure Determination in a Developing Capitalist Society: Thailand’s Economic Spending, 1951-1981.” Ph. D. dissertation, Northwestern University. 155 pp.

Anusorn Limmanee. 1995. Political Business Cycle in Thailand, 1979-1992: General Election and Currency in Circulation. Bangkok: Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University. 82 pp. Published in December 1999 under the same title in Bangkok: Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University. (=IAS Monographs No. 054) 99 pp. + appendix

Anusorn Limmanee. 1998. “Thailand.” In Political Party Systems and Democratic Development in East and Southeast Asia. Volume I: Southeast Asia, eds. Wolfgang Sachsenröder and Ulrike E. Frings in association with Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung, pp. 403-448. Aldershot: Ashgate.

For readers who start being interested in Thai political parties, the author provides some basic descriptive information on the party system and its problems although no attempt is made to theoretically link this to democratic development. The sections on legal provisions as well as on the election system and administration have been made obsolete by the new constitution (put into effect in October 1997) and the organic laws on political parties, elections of MPs, and the election commission. McCargo’s works on Chamlong Srimuang/Phalang Dharma Party are as ignored as is the important book by Murashima/Nakharin/Somkiat on The Making of Modern Thai Political Parties. However, the author points to some recent Thai-language MA-theses on political parties submitted to the Department of Government, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University. One may want to check whether they contribute something to our understanding of the subject.

Apichai Pantasen. 1994. “Decentralization, the tambon council and community forest management.” TEI Quarterly Environment Journal 2 (2): 38-50.

Apichai Puntasen. 1997. “Tambon Councils and Community Forest Management.” In Seeing Forests for Trees: Environment and Environmentalism in Thailand, ed. by Philip Hirsch, pp. 72-88. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.

Centralization is said to result in inefficiency because of a long line of command and a lack of local involvement. Decentralization is seen as solution to this problem, and it is also good for democracy. The argument that has traditionally been used to support bureaucratic dominance, i.e. that people are ignorant, is turned around to argue that people who are given opportunities will be motivated to participate. TCs and TAOs are considered (contrary to what many NGOs believe) as people’s organizations, although they are formalized; TAOs are “a full-fledged form of local government.” Policy action by TAOs cannot be based on a “sense of belonging to the same community” as this is directed towards the village. At the tambon level, economic and political conflicts abound. Action, therefore, can only be based on mutual benefits. In this respect, informal people’s organizations have advantages in community forest conservation since their identity is based on this purpose. Still, TAOs could do a good job if there was “strong leadership with vision and wisdom”. The author does not say, however, where this is supposed to come from. He also poses the related question whether TAOs are actually both capable and willing to manage community forests (a question that can be applied to any policy area). However, there is no answer in terms of the political-administrative as well as motivational and staff-related conditions of local-level policy formulation and implementation. Instead, the existence of mutual benefits is again mentioned, and it is demanded to provide secure land titles so that people would be interested to care for adjacent forests.

Apichai Puntasen, Somboon Siripachai, Chaiyuth Punyasavatsut. 1992. “Political Economy of Eucalyptus: Business, Bureaucracy and the Thai Government.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 22 (2): 187-206.

Apichart Chinwanno. 1985. “Thailand’s Search for Protection: The Making of the Alliance with the United States, 1947-1954.” Ph. D. dissertation, Oxford University.

Archaimbault, Charles. xxxx. “Les annales de l’ancien royaume de S’ieng Khwang.” Bulletin de l'École Francaise d'Extrême-Orient. Tome LIII, Fasc. 2, pp. 557 - 673

Archer, Ray. 1991. An Outline and a Bibliography on Local Government Property Tax Reform in Thailand. Bangkok: Human Settlements Division, AIT. (=HSD Reference Paper no. 18)

Archer, Ray W. 2001. “Decentralisation of Town Planning to Local Government: Recommendations on Structure, Content, Planning Process and Procedures. Final Report” Bangkok: Urban Planning and Management Project (Decentralisation of Physical and Urban Development Planning); Ministry of Interior, Department of Local Administration, GTZ. 85 pp.

Archer, William J. 1885. The Siamese Laws on Debts. Bangkok: S. J. Smith’s Office.

Archer, William J. 1889. “Journey in the Vice-Consular District of Chiengmai.” Scottish Geographical Magazine 5 (January): 12-18.

Area Handbook on Thailand. 1956. Ithaca: Cornell University. (=HRAF Subcontractor’s Monograph)

Arghiros, Daniel. 1992. “Local-level Electoral Politics and Rural Change in Thailand.” Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the Association of South-East Asien Studies, SOAS, 8-10 April 1992.

Arghiros, Daniel. 1993. “Links Between Political and Economic Power at the District Level. The Case of the Brick Manufacturers' Association.” Paper presented to the Fifth International Conference on Thai Studies, London, 5-10 July 1993.

Arghiros, Daniel. 1993. “Rural Transformation and Local Politics in a Central Thai District.” Ph. D. thesis, University of Hull. 240 pp.

Arghiros, Daniel. 1995. Political Structures and Strategies: a Study of Electoral Politics in Contemporary Rural Thailand. Hull: The University of Hull, Centre for South-East Asian Studies. (=Occasional Paper No. 31) 92 pp.

Arghiros, Daniel. 1999. “Political Reform and Civil Society at the Local Level: the Potential and Limits of Thailand’s Local Government Reform.” Paper presented to the 7^th International Conference on Thai Studies: Thailand: a Civil Society, 4-8 July 1999, Amsterdam.

Can local government reform lead to “democratic decentralization”? Arghiros approaches this question by analyzing two forms of local authorities, i.e. the Subdistrict/Tambon Administrative Organization (SAO/TAO) and the Provincial Administrative Organization (PAO). Concerning the SAOs, the author identifies four obstacles on the way to reach the desired aim. (1) Thailand’s highly centralized bureaucracy does not support local empowerment; rather, it tries to make local bodies function along established bureaucratic lines. Local participatory patterns cannot develop because the bureaucracy promotes its oen “hierarchical and nonparticipatory institutional culture.” (2) Elected positions are dominated by the local economic elite. Moreover, the democratic mechanisms of responsiveness and accountability cannot function because elections are distorted by vote-buying. (3) Women are almost excluded from local office which precludes the development of policy and project ideas other than male preferences for the construction of roads, etc. Arghiros regrets that attempts at legislating measures of “positive discrimination” were unsuccessful. (4) SAO-members lack in administrative capacity. Existing training courses are non-participatory and cannot reach the aim of enabling local politicians to manage their authorities’ affairs well.

As for PAOs, they are dominated by provincial businessmen, mainly from the construction sector. Similar to SAOs, elections are largely meaningless. Furthermore, PAOs do not have any influence on the central government’s representatives working in the separate provincial administration (sala klang). Arghiros correctly predicts that the introduction of smaller and single-member constituencies by the 1997 Constitution will probably lead to more provincial councilors becoming MPs by using their established district-level voter base.

General problems hampering the development of local government are the dearth of “civic advocacy organization” and the lack of a “sustained, critical interest” of local residents in the work of their local authority. For all these reasons, the author warns us not to expect too much from efforts directed at strengthening local government. In particular, democratic decentralization may take fifteen or more years to succeed.

Although Arghiros shortly mentions social factors of electoral success, but he does not provide a balanced analysis and instead opts for emphasizing monetary rewards (vote-buying). Provincial politics seems to be a field of individual political actors pursuing their material interests. No collective element enters into the author’s description. One could get the contra-factual impression that local political groups or cliques or phak phuak do not exist. This neglect is similar to what we find in King/LoGerfo (1996), Ockey (1996), and Robertson (1996), but unlike the publications of Sombat Chantornwong (Kanmuang ruang kanluaktang of 1987 and Luakktang wikrit of 1993). Finally, contrasting bureaucracy with community participation may work with the small SAOs. However, much bigger entities such as PAOs, municipalities, and district-level local governments (interestingly, Arghiros suggests that consideration should be given to set up such authorities) can hardly live without proper administrative procedures (although they can certainly live without the present Thai-style bureaucracy).

Arghiros, Daniel. 1999. “The Temple, Money and the Polling Station: Rural Monks and Thai Electoral Politics.” Paper, 7^th International Conference on Thai Studies, Amsterdam, 4-8 July 1999. 22 pp.

Arghiros, Daniel. 2000. “The Local Dynamics of the ‘New Political Economy’: A District Business Association and Its Role in Electoral Politics.” In Money and Power in Provincial Thailand, ed. by Ruth McVey, pp. 123-153. Singapore: ISEAS; Chiang Mai: Silkworm.

Daniel Arghiros asks whether Anek Laothamatat’s “new political economy” has replaced the hegemonic “bureaucratic polity” (Riggs) at the district level. Are there business associations in provincial Thailand that have enough internal coherence and economic-political clout as to enable them to lobby and influence the district and provincial administrations? Can we see these associations “as representatives of a new force of liberal civil society”? In dealing with these questions Arghiros presents a detailed description and analysis of the Brick Manufacturers’ Association (BMA) in one district of Ayutthaya province. The author’s data were collected mainly during the years 1989-1990 and 1995-1997 (his dissertation was completed in 1993; a book based on this research appeared in 2001 under the title Democracy, Development and Decentralization in Provincial Thailand. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon).

The BMA is, according to Arghiros, a collective entity with a strong identity, symbolized in the members wearing its uniform on official occasions. The association lobbies the bureaucracy (and donates to its causes), bribes the police to overlook overloaded lorries, and provides information and loans to its members. However, this does not mean that members do not have business conflicts with each other. There are also political conflicts. It is said that “the leadership” wanted to increase the bargaining power of the association by supporting members who wanted to run for local office, be it that of kamnan (in 1997, four of the district’s 17 kamnan belonged to the BMA) or that of provincial councilor. In the latter case, members’ loyalties were divided, i.e. some members had pre-existing loyalties with competing candidates from a different occupational group, namely Sino-Thai merchant-contractors. Perhaps, in this context the concept of phuak as an informal political-economic collective structure could have been introduced and discussed in comparison to the formal interest-group BMA. In general, it does not always seem to be easy to distinguish between informal personal ties and ties that occur as an outcome of formal organization. Moreover, election campaigns obviously depended only in relatively small part on the BMA’s support, and the decision to run for office was made individually and not as an outcome of collective decision-making in the BMA. Candidates only sought the BMA’s support as part of their overall election campaigns.

This does not mean that an increase in office-holding members was not welcomed by the BMA. Much to the contrary. The provincial and district bureaucracies are still pre-dominant, and thus the BMA cannot function by being a business organization alone, but must have members holding political office in order “to gain standing in the eyes of the bureaucracy”. In this sense, “Anek’s ‘new political economy’ has failed to emerge at the district level.” Nevertheless, groups such as the BMA can be seen as the “arrival of business-based civil society in the provinces”, indicating “the dilution of state hegemony”, although this is restricted to local economic decision-making. Finally, it must not be overlooked that this change does not reflect a broader popular participation in political processes at the district level. Rather, it is accompanied by “the partial disenfranchisement of the majority” because they do not have the financial and political-structural means of getting access to the political decision-making process (moreover, they are also subject to the influence of hua khanaen and to vote-buying). This last observation reminds us that corporatist arrangements may open up channels for special interest groups to gain preferential access to political-administrative decision-makers (thus the increased importance of what Scharpf has called “negotiation systems”). However, they certainly do not serve as means to democratize local (or national) politics by expanding opportunities for public participation.

Arghiros, Daniel. 2001. Democracy, Development and Decentralization in Provincial Thailand. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press. (=Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, Democracy in Asia series, no. 8) ix+308 pp.

Arghiros, Daniel. 2002. “Political Reform and Civil Society at the Local Level: Thailand’s Local Government Reforms.” In Reforming Thai Politics, ed. Duncan McCargo, pp. 223-246. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS).

Arghiros, Daniel and Wathana Wongsekiarttirat. 1996. “Development in Thailand’s extended metropolitan region: The socio-economic and political implications of rapid change in an Ayutthaya District, central Thailand.” In Uneven Development in Thailand, ed. Michael J. G. Parnwell, pp. 125-145. Aldershot et al.: Avebury.

Armstrong, Gregory Alan. 1981. “Some Aspects of Policy Formulation, Implementation and Decentralization in the Thai Nonformal Education Development Project.” 2 volumes. Ed. D. thesis, University of Toronto. xxx pp.

Armstrong, Gregory. 1984. “Implementing Educational Policy: Decentralization of Nonformal Education in Thailand.” Comparative Education Review 28 (3): 454-466.

Arong Suthasasna. 2000. “Muslim Minority in the Context of Thai Politics.” Journal of Social Sciences (Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University) 31 (2):70-107.

Aroonrut Wichienkeeo. 1997. “Lanna Relations with Myanmar.” In Comparative Studies on Literature and History of Thailand and Myanmar, pp. 53-61. Bangkok: Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University; Universities’ Historical Research Centre, Yangon.

Aroonrut Wichienkeeo and Gehan Wijeyewardene, translators and editors. 1986. The Laws of King Mangrai (Mangrayathammasart). The Wat Chang Kham, Nan Manuscript from the Richard Davis Collection. Transcribed in modern Thai by Aroonrut Wichienkeeo. Canberra: A Publication of The Richard Davis Fund and An Occasional Paper of The Department of Anthropology, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University. (English and Thai) 169 pp.

Arsa Meksawan. 1961. “The Role of the Provincial Governor in Thailand.” Ph. D. dissertation, Indiana University. 395 pp. (xxxcheck Bangkok: Institute of Public Administration, Thammasat University, 1962)

Arun Ractham. 1978. “The Nai Amphoe as the development linker and his role in the Thai bureaucracy in terms of organization development as a new approach.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 470 pp.

Asadakorn Eksaenggsri. 1980. “Foreign Policy-Making in Thailand: ASEAN Policy, 1967-1972.” Ph. D. dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton. 417 pp.

Asian Development Bank. 1999. Governance in Thailand: Challenges, Issues and Prospects. Manila: ADB. 69 pp.

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development. 1999. Creating Asia: Rice and Roti, Rights and Freedoms. 1998 Human Rights Report. Bangkok: Forum-Asia. 72 pp.

“Assembly of the Poor: Non-violent and here to stay.” Thai Development Newsletter No. 37, July-December 1999, pp. 15-45, 48-57.

Atkins, William. 2001. The Politics of Southeast Asia’s New Media. Richmond: Curzon Press. (xxxThailand?)

Aubin, Jean. 1980. “Les Persans au Siam sous le règne de Naraï (1656-1688).” Mare Luso-Ondicum 4:95-126.

Ayal, Eliezer Ben-zvi. 1961. “Public Policies in Thailand under the Constitutional Regime: A Case Study of an Underdeveloped Country.” Ph. D. dissertation, Cornell University. 355 pp.

Ayer, Kenneth Robert. 1980. “Changing Patterns of Patronage in Northern Thailand.” Ph. D. dissertation, Stanford University. 271 pp.

Aylwen, Axel. 1988. The Falcon of Siam. London: Methuen. (Phaulkon)

Aymonier, Etienne. 1900-4. Le Cambodge. II. Les provinces siamoise. Paris: Leroux.

Back to Square One. Bangkok Post. 1992 xxx pp.

Badgley, John H. 1969. “Two Styles of Military Rule: Thailand and Burma.” Government and Opposition xx (4): 100-117. (xxxor volume?)

Baffie, Jean. 2001. “La politique en Thaïlande depuis la seconde guerre mondiale.” In Thaïlande Contemporaine, ed. by Stéphane Dovert, pp. 83-142. Paris: L’Harmattan; Bangkok: IRASEC.

Baker, Chris. 1999. “Assembly of the Poor: The New Drama of Village, City and State.” Thai Development Newsletter No. 37, July-December 1999, pp. 15-21.

Baker, Chris. 2000. “Thailand’s Assembly of the Poor: Background, Drama, Reaction.” South East Asia Research 8 (1): 5-30.

Baker, John M. 1995. “Formation, Maintenance, and Operation of Environmental NGOs in Thailand.” PhD thesis, Northern Illinois University.

Baldwin, W. Lee and David W. Maxwell, eds. 1975. The Role of Foreign Financial Assistance to Thailand in the 1980s. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

Bamber, Scott. 1997. “The Thai medical profession and political activism.” In Political Change in Thailand: Democracy and Participation, ed. by Kevin Hewison, pp. 233-250. London and New York: Routledge.

Bangkok Post. 1992. Catalyst for Change. Uprising in May. Bangkok: The Post Publishing Co. Ltd. 120 pp.

Bantoeng Srichandrabhand. 1968. “The District Officer: His Role in the Administration of Thailand.” Ph. D. dissertation, Indiana University. xiii+315 pp.

Bantorn Ondam. 1971. “The Prae Rebellion: A Structural Analysis.” Cornell Journal of Social Relations 6 (Spring): 84-97.

Bantorn Ondam et al., eds. 1994. Alliance of Hope: Towards the 21st Century. A compilation of Declarations, Statements, Intentions of the People presented at the second gathering of the People’s Plan for the 21st Century (PP21), Thailand, December 1992. Bangkok: The Organising Committee People’s Plan for the 21st Century. 180 pp.

Barmé, Scot. 1993. Luang Wichit Wathakan and the Creation of a Thai Identity. Singapore: ISEAS. 201 pp.

Barmé, Scot. 1997. “Towards a Social History of Bangkok: Gender, Class and Popular Culture in the Siamese Capital, 1905-1940. Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra.

Barmé, Scot. 1999. “Proto-Feminist Discourses in Early Twentieth-Century Siam.” In Genders and Sexualities in Modern Thailand, ed. By Peter A. Jackson and Nerida M. Cook, pp. 135-153. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.

Barrigan, Darrell. 1956. “Thailand: Pibul Tries Prachathipatai.” Reporter 14 (No. 12, June 14): 30-34.

Barrington, Brook, ed. 1997. Empires, Imperialism and Southeast Asia. Clayton: Monash Asia Institute. (xxxThailand?)

Bartak, Elinor. 1993. The Student Movement in Thailand 1970-1976. Clayton, Victoria, Australia: Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University. (=Working Paper 82) 35 pp.

Basham, Richard. 1989. “’False Consciousness’ and the Problem of Merit and Power in Thailand.” Mankind 19 (2): 126-137.

Basham, Richard. 1992. Political Authority in Thailand. Sydney: Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific. (=Occasional Paper No. 20)

Basham, Richard. 1993. “Democracy Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry: Notions of Freedom and Fairness in Thai Attitudes Towards Democracy.” In The May 1992 Crisis in Thailand: Background and Aftermath. Selected Papers from the Thailand Update Conference, University of Sydney, 16 October 1992, ed. by Peter A. Jackson, pp. 11-20. Canberra: National Thai Studies Centre, Australian National University.

Bassett, D. K. 1961. “English Relations with Siam in the Seventeenth Century.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Malay Branch) 34 (2): 90-105.

Bassett, D. K. 1989. “British ‘Country’ Trade and Local Trade Networks in the Thai and Malay States, c. 1680-1770.” Modern Asian Studies 23 (4): 625-643.

Basting, Bernd. 1992. Prätorianismus in Südostasien - Der Fall Thailand: Ursachen, Erscheinungsformen und Konsequenzen militärischer Intervention in die Politik. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. xxx pp.

Superficial German Ph. D. dissertation on the military in Thailand. The work is based on secondary material without reference to Thai-language sources. Conceptualizing politics as a separate sphere in which the military then “intervenes” seems to start the analysis from the wrong end as we are actually dealing with a differentiating out of the political system, a process that also includes integrating the military into a democratic model of political behavior in which soldiers have equal political rights in their capacity as citizens and in which they assume a subordinate role as members of the institution “miltary” vis-à-vis the leading political institutions, i.e. parliament and government.

Batson, Benjamin A., comp. 1974. Siam’s Political Future: Documents From the End of the Absolute Monarchy. Ithaca, N. Y.: Southeast Asia Program, Department of Asian Studies, Cornell University. (= Data Paper, no. 96) x+102 pp. (xxxcheck: 1977, 110 pp.: 354.593.Bs and 321.609593: B334S main lib.)

Batson, Benjamin A. 1974. “The Fall of the Phibun Government, 1944.” JSS 62 (2): 89-120.

Batson, Benjamin A. 1975. “Sources in Thai History: The Papers of Prince Damrong.” JSS 63 (2): 334-343.

Batson, Benjamin A. 1976. “American Diplomats in Southeast Asia in the Nineteenth Century: The Case of Siam.” JSS 64 (2): 39-111. (An abridged version appeared as “The First American Diplomats in Siam” in Thai-American Relations in Contemporary Affairs, ed. by Hans H. Indorf, pp. 5-26. Singapore: Executive Publications, 1982.)

Batson, Benjamin. 1980. “Siam and Japan: The Perils of Independence.” In Southeast Asia Under the Japanese Occupation, ed. By Alfred W. McCoy, pp. 267-302. New Haven: xxx.

Batson, Benjamin. 1984. The End of the Absolute Monarchy in Siam. Singapore: Oxford University Press. (=Southeast Asia Publications Series; 10) xviii+348 pp. (Org.: Ph. D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1977, 376 pp.) เบนจามิน เอ. บัทสัน. 2543. อวสาน สมบูรญาสิธิราชย์ในสยาม. บรรณาธิการแปล กาญจนี ละอองศรี ยุพา ชุมจันทร์ คณะแปล พรรณงาม เง่าธรรสาร สดใส ขันติวรพงศ์ ศศิธร รั๙นี ณ อยุธยา. กรุงเทพฯ: มูลนิธิโครงการตำราสังคมศาสตร์และมนุษยศาสตร์. (32)+468 pp.

Batson, Benjamin. 1996. “Phra Sarasas: Rebel with Many Causes.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 27 (1): 150-xxx. (1932)

Batt, H. William. 1974. “Obligation and Decision in Thai Administration: From Patrimonial to Rational-Legal Bureaucracy.” Ph. D. dissertation, State University of New York at Albany. 342 pp.

Battersby, P. 1998. “Border Politics and the Broader Politics of Thailand’s International Relations in the 1990s: From Communism to Capitalism.” Pacific Affairs 71 (4):473-xxx.

Battersby, P. 2000. “An Uneasy Peace: Britain, the United States and Australia’s Pursuit of War Reparations from Thailand, 1945-1952.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 54 (1):15-32.

Battye, Noel Alfred. 1974. “The Military, Government and Society in Siam, 1868-1910: Politics and Military Reform During the Reign of King Chulalongkorn.” Ph. D. dissertation, Cornell University. xiv+576 pp. (xxxbibl TH 959.303.5.B336M)

Baumann, Michael. 1983. “Die Entwicklung der Gewerkschaftsbewegung in Thailand.” Asien, Heft 6, pp. 50-66.

Beaupré, Charles Paul. 1995. “Political socialization of ethnic minorities in Thailand and Taiwan.” Ph. D. dissertation, McGill University (Canada). 224 pp.

Beer, Lawrence W., ed. 1992. Constitutional Systems in Late Twentieth Century Asia. Washington D.C.: University of Washington Press. (xxxcheck author of Thai chapter)

Beer, Patrice de. 1978. “History and Policy of the Communist Party of Thailand.” In Thailand: Roots of Conflict, ed. by Andrew Turton, Jonathan Fast, and Malcolm Caldwell, pp. 143-157. Nottingham: Spokesman.

Bell, Peter F. and Maxwell Brem. 1975. “Imperialism and the Contradictions of Development in Thailand.” Paper given at the Conference on Marxist Approaches to History, New School for Social Research, New York, April 1975.

Bell, Peter F. and Maxwell Brem. 1975. “The Role of Imperialism and the State in the Development of Capitalism in Thailand.” Revised paper given at a Conference of Union for Radical Political Economics, New School for Social Research, New York, April 5, 1975.

Bell, Peter. 1969. “Thailand’s Northeast: Regional Underdevelopment, ‘Insurgency’, and Official Response.” Pacific Affairs 42 (1): 47-54.

Bell, Peter F. 1978. “’Cycles’ of Class Struggle in Thailand.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 8: 51-79. (Also in Thailand: Roots of Conflict, ed. by Andrew Turton, Jonathan Fast, and Malcolm Caldwell, pp. 51-79. Nottingham: Spokesman, 1978.)

Bell, Peter F. 1983. “Class Relations and Thai Development.” In Thai Culture. Report on the Second Thai-European Research Seminar 1982, ed. by Ernest E. Boesch, pp. 107-127. Saarbruecken: Socio-Psychological Research Centre on Development Planning, University of the Saar.

Bell, Peter F. 1970. The Historical Determinants of Underdevelopment in Thailand. New Haven: Yale University, Economic Growth Centre. (= Centre Discussion Paper No. 84)

Bell, Peter F. 1976. “The Role of Imperialism and Social Class in the Development of Capitalism in Thailand.” Paper presented at the 30th International Congress on Human Sciences in Asia and North Africa, Mexico City, August 1976.

Bell, Peter F. 1985. “The Thai State, the Development of Capitalism, and the Rural Areas in Thailand.” Paper presented to the Third Thai-European Seminar on "Village and State Formation", Hua Hin, 9-12 April 1985, Organized by The Thai Khadi Research Institute, Thammasat University 32 pp.

Benett, Sara and Viroj Tangcharoensathien. 1994. “A Shrinking State? Politics, Economics and Private Health Care in Thailand.” Public Administration and Development 14 (1):1–17.

Berner, Erhard and Rüdiger Korff. 1991. “Dynamik der Bürokratie und Konservatismus der Unternehmer: Strategische Gruppen in Thailand und den Philippinen.” Inter-nationales Asienforum 22 (3-4): 287–305.

Bertrand, Jacques. 1998. “Growth and Democracy in Southeast Asia.” Comparative Politics 30 (3): 355-375.

Bèze, Claude de. See Drans, Jean and Henri Bernard, S.J. 1691; Hutchinson, E. W. 1968/1990.

Bhansoon Ladavalya, M. L. 1980. “Thailand’s Foreign Policy Under Kukrit Pramoj: A Study in Decision-Making.” Ph. D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University. ix+392 pp.

Bidhya Bowornwathana. 1980. “Multiple Superiors in the Thai Bureaucracy.” Ph. D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University. 315 pp.

Bidhya Bowornwathana. 1984. Public Health Bureaucrats in Rural Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University. (xxxthesis?)

Bidhya Bowornwathana. 1989. “Transfers of Bureaucratic Elites by Political Bosses: The Question of Political Versus Bureaucratic Accountability.” Sangkhomsat (Journal of Social Science) 26 (1): 86-109.

Bidhya Bowornwathana. 1994. “Administrative Reform and Regime Shifts: Reflections on the Thai Polity.” Asian Journal of Public Administration 16 (2): 152-164.

Bidhya Bowornwathana. 1996. “The Phenomenon of New Ministries and the Politicians-Bureaucrat Perspective: The Case of Thailand.” Asian Review of Public Administration 8 (2): 23-32. (xxxyear?)

Bidhya Bowornwathana. 1996 “Thailand: The Politics of Reform of the Secretariat of the Prime Minister.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 55 (4): 55-63.

Bidhya Bowornwathana. 1996. “Democratic Reform Visions and the Reinvention of Thai Public Officials.” Asian Review of Public Administration 8 (1): 40-48.

Bidhaya Bowornwathana. 1999. “Administrative Reform and the Politician-Bureaucrat Perspective: Visions, Processes, and Support for Reform.” In Handbook of Comparative Public Administration in the Asia-Pacific Basin, eds. Hoi-kwok Wong and Hon S. Chan, pp. 69-77. New York and Basel: Marcel Dekker.

Bidhya Bowornwathana. 2000. “Thailand in 1999: A Royal Jubilee, Economic Recovery, and Political Reform.” Asian Survey 40 (1): 87-97.

Bidhya Bowornwathana. Forthcoming. ”The Politics of Governance Reform in Thailand.” In Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration, 2^nd edition, ed. by Ali Farazmand, pp. xxx-xxx. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Bidhya Bowornwathana. Forthcoming. “Governance Reform in Thailand: Questionable Assumptions, Uncertain Outcomes.” Governance xx (x): xxx-xxx.

Bienen, Henry and David Morell. 1974. “Transition from Military Rule: Thailand’s Experience.” In Political-Military Systems. Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Catherine McArdle Kelleher, pp. 3-26. Beverly Hills and London: Sage.

Blanc Szanton, Maria Cristina. 1982. “People in Movement: Mobility and Leadership in a Central Thai Town.” Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University. 591 pp. (Sri Racha, Chonburi)

Blanchard, Wendell et al. 1957. Thailand: Its People, Its Society, Its Culture. New Haven: Human Relations Area Files Press. (xxxcheck years and pp on pol.: TH 915.93.B639T)

Blankwaardt, W. 1921. “De Factorij der Oostindische Compagnie te Ayuthia.” Neerlandia 25.

Blankwaardt, W. 1926-27. “Notes upon Relations between Holland and Siam.” JSS 20:241-258.

Blaufarb, D. S. 1977. The Counterinsurgency Era: U. S. Doctrine and Performance 1950 to the Present. New York: Free Press. (xxxThailand?)

Blofeld, John. 1972. King Maha Mongkut of Siam. Singapore: Asia-Pacific Press. (Second edition Bangkok: The Siam Society, 1987. x+97 pp.)

Blum, Henri. 1977. “Thailands Generale nahmen dem Volk die Wahl ab - Ein Bericht aus Bangkok.” Internationales Asienforum 8 (1-2): 146-164.

Boeles, J. J. 1964. “The King of Sri Dvaravati and his Regalia.” JSS 52 (1): 99-xxx.

Boeles, J. J. 1968. “Note on an Eye-Witness Account in Dutch of the Destruction of Ayudhya in 1767.” JSS 56 (1): 101-xxx.

Boesch, Ernst E. 1970. Zwiespältige Eliten: Eine sozialpsychologische Untersuchung über administrative Eliten in Thailand. Stuttgart and Wien: Huber. xxx pp.

Boonrak Boonyaketmala. 1982. “Thailand.” In Newspapers in Asia: Contemporary Trends and Problems, ed. by John A. Lent, pp. 334-367. Hong Kong: Heinemann Asia.

Boonsanong Punyodyana. 1971. “Thai selective social change: a study with comparative reference to Japan.” Ph. D. dissertation, Cornell University. xiv+397 pp. (xxxcontent on politics?>TH 309.159.3.B724T ml)

Boonsanong Punyodyana. 1975. “The Revolutionary Situation in Thailand.” In Southeast Asian Affairs 1975, pp. 187-195. Singapore: ISEAS; FEP International Ltd.

Boonsri Mewongukote. 1986. “Wahlrecht in Thailand, unter Berücksichtigung der Wahlrechtsgrundsätze im deutschen Verfassungsrecht.” Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Juristischen Fakultät der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg. 258 pp.

Boonton Dockthaisong. 1983. The Administrative Problems: The Thai Local Self Government and its Future. Bangkok: NIDA Research Center.

Boonton Dockthaisong. 2001. “On Empowering Women: A Senator’s Perspective on Policies in Thailand.” Health Care for Women International 22 (3):201-106.

Borvorn Praprutidee. 1987. “The Military and Modernization in Thailand, 1960-1984.” Ph. D. dissertation, Miami University. 74 pp.

Borwornsak Uwanno. 2001. “Depoliticising Key Institutions for Combatting Corruption: The New Thai Constitution” In Corruption and Anti-Corruption, ed by Peter Larmour and Nick Wolanin, pp. xxx-xxx. Canberra: Asia Pacific Press.

Borwornsak Uwanno and Wayne D. Burns. 1998. “The Thai Constitution of 1997: Sources and Process.” University of British Columbia Law Review 32 (2): 227-247.

Boureau-Deslandes, André-François. 1756. Histoire de M. Constance, Premier Ministre du roi de Siam. Amsterdam: Duchesne.

Bowie, Katherine A. 1988. “Peasant Perspectives on the Political Economy of the Northern Thai Kingdom of Chiang Mai in the Nineteenth Century: Implications for the Understanding of Peasant Political Expression.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Chicago. xiii+448 pp.

Bowie, Katherine. 1996. “The State, Capitalism and the Struggle for Agrarian Democracy: A Local Election in Northern Thailand.” Paper presented at the 6^th International Conference on Thai Studies, Chiang Mai, 1996. 23 pp.

This is the description of a kamnan election in Chiang Mai in April 1995. The three candidates are said to have spent 60,000, 100,000, and 400,000 Baht (the winner) in their campaigns. To varying degrees, MPs and some provincial councilors as well as villagers lended financial support. Patronage and vote buying were prominent campaign methods used by the winning candidate. Equally important was an 8: 4 split among the 12 village headmen in favor of that candidate. Besides actively supporting him, the eight PYB were successful in blocking the other camp from campaigning for votes in their villages. This was achieved in collusion with district officials and leads the author to the question, ‘Is there no guaranteed freedom of assembly?’ Even the intervention by the pollwatch committee could not bring about a fair election. Consequently, although the major opponent managed to get about 90% of his fellow villagers’ votes, he lost because he could not make any significant inroads into the winner’s camp villages. All this led to a strong polarization in the tambon and to an equally strong resentment on the part of the defeated candidate’s supporters. Bowie criticizes the vagueness of laws governing local elections and the absence of formalized appeal procedures. There also seems to be an interpretation of the law that contradicts its actual stipulations, e.g. regarding the “neutrality” of village headmen.

Bowie, Katherine A. 1996. “Slavery in Nineteenth-Century Northern Thailand: Archival Anectodes and Village Voices.” In State Power and Culture in Thailand, ed. by E. Paul Durrenberger, pp. 100-138. New Haven, Conn.: Southeast Asia Studies, Yale University Press.

Bowie, Katherine A. 1997. Rituals of National Loyalty: An Anthropology of the State and the Village Scout Movement in Thailand. New York: Columbia University Press. xx+393 pp.

Bowring, John. 1969. The Kingdom and People of Siam. 2 vols. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. (Reprint; org. The Kingdom and People of Siam, with a Narrative of the Mission to That Country in 1855, 2 vols. London: John W. Parker & Son, 1857.)

Boyle, John Alexander. 1993. “Socio-cultural and political influences on the implementation of environmental assessment in Southeast Asia: Insights from Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Toronto. 276 pp.

Bradley, Dan Beach. 1936. Abstract of the Journal of Rev. Dan Beach Bradley, M. D.: Medical Missionary in Siam 1835-1873. Ed. by Rev. George Haws Feltus. Cleveland: Dan F. Bradley. 305 pp.

Bradley, William L. 1969. “The Acession of King Mongkut.” JSS 57 (1): 149-xxx.

Bradley, William et al. 1978. Thailand - Domino by Default? The 1976 Coup and Implications for United States Policy with an Epilogue on the October 1977 Coup. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University, Southeast Asia Program, Center for International Studies. (=Papers in International Studies, Southeast Asian Series No. 46) viii+62 pp. (Thai translation)

Brailey, Nigel J. 1968. “The Origins of the Siamese Forward Movement in Western Laos, 1859-1892.” Ph. D. thesis, University of London. xxx pp.

Brailey, Nigel J. 1974. “Chiangmai and the Inception of an Administrative Centralization Policy in Siam.” Southeast Asian Studies 2 (4): xxx-xxx.

Brailey, Nigel J. 1986. Thailand and the Fall of Singapore: A Frustrated Asian Revolution. Boulder, Col. and London: Westview Press. xvi+288 pp.

Brailey, Nigel J. 1989. Two Views of Siam on the Eve of the Chakri Reformation. Whiting Bay, Arran, Scotland: Kiscadale Publications. xxx pp.

Brailey, Nigel. 1999. “The Scramble for Concessions in 1880s Siam.” Modern Asian Studies 33 (3): 513-549.

Breazeale, Kennon. 1971. “A Transition in Historical Writing: The Works of Prince Damrong Rachanuphap.” JSS 59 (2):25-49.

Breazeale, Kennon. 1975. “The Integration of the Lao States into the Thai Kingdom.” Ph. D. thesis, Oxford University.

Breazeale, Kennon. 1999. “Thai Maritime Trade and the Ministry Responsible.” In From Japan to Arabia: Ayutthaya’s Maritime Relations with Asia, ed. By Kennon Breazeale, pp. 1-54. Bangkok: The Foundation for the Promotion of Social Sciences and Humanities Textbooks Project.

Breazeale, Kennon, ed. 1999. From Japan to Arabia: Ayutthaya’s Maritime Relations with Asia. Bangkok: The Foundation for the Promotion of Social Sciences and Humanities Textbooks Project. 250 pp. (For the individual articles please see the entries under Charnvit, Wyatt, Nagazumi, Sunait, Andaya, Lapian, and Yumio/Takako.)

Brenner, Verena et al. 1999. ”Thailand’s Community Forest Bill: U-turn or Roundabout in Forest Policy?” Freiburg: University of Freiburg. (=SEFUT Working Papers, 3) 53 pp.

Bressan, Luigi. 1998. King Chulalongkorn and Pope Leo XIII: Siam and the Vatican in the 19^th Century. Bangkok: The Catholic Mission of Bangkok. 174 pp.

Brimmel, J. H. 1959. Communism in Southeast Asia. New York: Oxford University Press. (xxxLondon?)

Brooke, Micool. 1996. “The Military in Thailand.” Strategic Digest 9: 1398-1404. (xxxcheck)

Brown, Andrew. 1997. “Locating working-class power.” In Political Change in Thailand: Democracy and Participation, ed. by Kevin Hewison, pp. 163-178. London and New York: Routledge.

Brown, Andrew and Stephen Frenkel. 1993. “Union Unevenness and Insecurity in Thailand.” In Stephen Frenkel, ed. Organized Labour in the Asia–Pacific Region: A Comparative Study of Trade Unionism in Nine Countries, pp. xxx-xxx. Ithaca, NY. Xxxcheck.

Brown, Andrew and Kevin Hewison. 1997. “Capitalist Revolution and Labour Control in Thailand.” In Globalisation and Emerging Labour Movements in Asia, ed. by R. Lambert, pp. xxx-xxx. xxx: xxx.

Brown, Andrew, Bundit Thonachaisetavut, and Kevin Hewison. 2002. “Labour Relations and Regulation in Thailand: Theory and Practice.” Hong Kong: Southeast Asia Research Centre, City University of Hong Kong. (SEARC Working Paper Series No. 27) 36 pp. http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc.)

Brown, David. 1994. The State and Ethnic Politics in Southeast Asia. London and New York: Routledge. (pp. 158-205: Internal Colonialism and Ethnic Rebellion in Thailand)

Brown, Ian. 1978. “British Financial Advisers in Siam in the Reign of King Chulalongkorn.” Modern Asian Studies 12: 193-215.

Brown, Ian. 1980. “Government Initiative and Peasant Response in the Siamese Silk Industry, 1901 - 1913.” JSS 68 (2): 34-47.

Brown, Ian. 1975. “The Ministry of Finance and the early development of modern financial administration in Siam, 1885-1910.” Ph. D. thesis, University of London. (partly published in 1992 as The Creation of the Modern Ministry of Finance in Siam, 1885 - 1910. London: Macmillan. 146 pp.)

Brown, Ian. 1988. The Élite and the Economy in Siam, c. 1890-1920. Singapore: Oxford University Press. 196 pp.

Brszynski, Leszek. 1982. “Thailand: The Erosion of a Balanced Foreign Policy.” Asian Survey 22 (11): 1037-1055.

Brummelhuis, Han ten. 1983. ”Control of Land and Control of People: The Case of Thai ‘Feudalism’.” Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, Antropologisch-Sociologisch Centrum. (=Working Paper No. 27)

Brummelhuis, Han ten. 1987. Merchant, Courtier and Diplomat: A History of the Contacts Between The Netherlands and Thailand. Lochem-Gent: Uitgeversmaatschappij de Tijdstroom. 116 pp.

Bruneau, Michel. 1984. “Class Formation in the Northern Thai Peasantry, 1966-1976.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 14 (3): 343-359.

Buergin, Reiner, and Christl Kessler. 1999. “Das Janusgesicht der Zivilgesellschaft: Demokratisierung und Widerstand im thailändischen Umweltdiskurs.” Freiburg [German]: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Working Group Socio-Economics of Forest Use in the Tropics and Subtropics. (SEFUT Working Paper No. 6) 47 pp. http://www2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de/gradwald/pdf/WP_6.pdf.

Buls, Charles. 1994. Siamese Sketches. Translated, illustrated and annotated, and with an introduction by Walter E. J. Tips. Bangkok and Cheney: White Lotus. (Originally published as Croquis Siamois, 1901, by Georges Balat, Brussels.) (pp. 45-60: The Palace. The Monarchy - The Government; pp. 61-68: The System of Justice. The Prisons)

Bunchana Attakor. 1987. Bunchana’s Memoirs: Life and Dreams. Transl. by Jotika Savanananda. [Bangkok]: Foundation dor Education and Research. 83 pp.

Bünte, Marco. 2000. Probleme der demokratischen Konsolidierung in Thailand. Hamburg: Institut für Asienkunde. (=Mitteilungen des Instituts für Asienkunde Nr. 324) 129 pp.

Bünte, Marco. 2002. “Consolidating Thai Democracy.” In Thailand’s New Politics: KPI Yearbook 2001, ed. Michael H. Nelson, pp. 177-218. Nonthaburi and Bangkok: King Prajadhipok’s Institute and White Lotus Press.

There has been a lot of talk about Thai democracy and its development, especially regarding the question of how stable Thai democracy has grown. Yet, it is not easy to transform this talk into a viable research agenda. In international democracy research, models of democratic consolidation are one tool used to determine a country’s degree of democratization. Bünte introduces one such model or conceptualization, i.e. the one proposed by Wolfgang Merkel (based on his MA thesis listed above). Merkel’s multi-level model of democratic consolidation includes four aspects, namely (1) institutional consolidation (the development of central political institutions and their legitimacy, both in terms of an “elite settlement” in their favor and the popular perception that this order is a good one); (2) representative consolidation (this concerns interest groups and political parties; the latter should not be fragmented, and there should not be anti-democratic parties); (3) behavioral consolidation (i.e. the elimination of veto-actors, especially the military and business); (4) civic culture and civil society (this regards the reduction of conflicts, tensions and cleavages which takes pressure off young democracies). Bünte describes the model and then uses the literature on Thai politics to illustrate it.

Burney, H. (Envoy to the Court of Siam). 1910-1914. The Burney Papers. 5 volumes. Bangkok: Vajiranana National Library. (documents and letters, United Kingdom-Siam 1825-1850, Siamese-Malay War 1838)

Busakorn Lailert. 1972. “The Ban Phlu Luang Dynasty 1688-1767: A Study of the Thai Monarchy During the Closing Years of the Ayuthya Period.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of London.

Butt, J. W. 1978. “Thai Kingship and Religious Reform (18th-19th Centuries).” In Religion and Legitimation of Power in Thailand, Laos and Burma, ed. by Bardwell L. Smith, pp. 34-51. Chambesburgh P. A.: Anima Books.

Butwell, Richard. 1969. “Thailand after Vietnam.” Current History 57: 339-343.

Cady, J. F. 1966. Thailand, Burma, Laos and Cambodia: The Modernization of Nations in Historical Perspective. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. (xxxcheck)

Calavan, Kay Mitchell. 1980. “Princes and Commoners in Rural Northern Thailand. The Case of Cao Mahawong.” In Royalty and Commoners, ed. by Constance M. Wilson, Chrystal Stillings Smith and George Vinal Smith, pp. 73-89. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Calavan, Sharon Kay Mitchell. 1974. “Aristocrats and Commoners in Rural Northern Thailand.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 446 pp.

Caldwell, J. Alexander. 1972. Communist Insurgency in Thailand. Bangkok: Royal Thai Government, Communist Suppression Operations Command.

Caldwell, J. Alexander. 1974. American Economic Aid to Thailand. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath. (Org. “American Economic Assistance to Thailand: A Case Study in Bilateral Foreign Aid.” Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 1973, 676 pp.)

Caldwell, Malcolm. 1978. “Thailand and Imperialist Strategy in the 1980s.” In Thailand. Roots of Conflict, ed. by Andrew Turton, Jonathan Fast and Malcolm Caldwell, pp. 5-20. Nottingham: Spokesman.

Caldwell, Malcolm. 1976. “Thailand: Towards the Revolution.” Race and Class 18 (2): 129-153. Reprinted (1976) as Race and Class Pamphlet No. 3 as a joint publication by Race & Class and the Ad Hoc Group for Democracy in Thailand. 27 pp.

Callahan, William. 1993. “The discourse of democracy in Thailand.” Asian Review 7: 126-170.

It is reconfirmed that knowledge is not independent of social location. This is illustrated by the differences of thinking and communicating about ‘democracy’ that we can observe in different social categories, i.e., the military, NGOs…The relevance of this article could have been increased if Thai-language primary and secondary sources had been included into the analysis.

Callahan, William A. 1994. “Astrology, video, and the democratic spirit: Reading the symbolic politics of Thailand.” Sojourn 9 (1): 102-134.

Callahan, William A. 1994. “Imagining the demos in the Demos: Mob Discourse in Thai Politics.” Alternatives 19 (3): 339-370.

Callahan, William. 1995. “Black May, NGOs and Post-State Politics.” Journal of Social Sciences (Bangkok) 29 (2): 82-89.

Callahan, William A. 1995. “Non-governmental Organizations, Non-violent Action and Post-modern Politics in Thailand.” Sojourn 10 (1): 1-27.

Callahan, William A. 1996. “Rescripting East/West Relations, Rethinking Asian Democracy.” Pacifica Review 8 (1): 1-25.

Callahan, William A. 1998. Imagining Democracy: Reading ‘The Events of May’ in Thailand. Singapore and London: ISEAS. xviii+198 pp.

Callahan’s book on the May events consists of previously published material (Callahan 1994a+b and 1995a+b), except for Chapter 4. It is not the author’s aim to provide readers with “the truth” about what happened. Since meaning is not a simple reflection of the “facts” but socially constructed, it is important to throw light on the events from different perspectives (”discourses”). Although Callahan writes about democracy, he wants to avoid using the term “democratization.” He feels that this concept is too teleological and that the “checklists” that usually follow from this approach are too sterile given the military-caused bloodshed. Moreover, the author somehow associates “democratization” with forbidden concepts such as modernization or Westernization. He also does not want to reproduce the occident/orient dichotomy (authors in this line of thinking often imagine the existence of Said’s “Orientalism in “Western” social science on foreign countries and are scared of falling into the imagined trap of becoming tools in the hands of neo-colonialists and neo-racists bent on subjugating defenseless Third World countries). Rather, the events of May 1992 are seen as providing an occasion for a cultural analysis of how different groups imagine democracy. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to determine the author’s intentions or thoughts since they are at times obscured by an unclear writing style.

Callahan’s first chapter deals mainly with something Thais are very fond of: astrology. According to the author, astrological predictions explain why military leaders did not back away when faced with massive demonstrations and why they, afterwards, felt neither responsibility nor guilt but considered the entire affair as merely stemming from “bad luck.” The author admits that many observers dismissed the leaders’ statements simply as excuses. However, he insists that they really believed in that astrological stuff. Regrettably, he does not try to include other elements of Thai culture in his analysis. For example, it is well known that the necessity to save one’s face often leads to scurrilous excuses or outright lies. It is also not unknown that the rejection of any personal responsibility and its social dispersion belong to the core of Thai culture. (However, if I as a German were held responsible for the killing of dozens of unarmed protesters, I would not exactly be happy either.)

Furthermore, it is claimed that the military coup-plotters chose 23 February 1991, 11.30, because this was astrologically predicted as the most auspicious time for the undertaking. It is not mentioned in this context that prime minister Chartchai, on that day, had ordered the air force to provide him with a plane to take him to Chiang Mai in order to let the King sign a letter of appointment putting a retired military rival (Arthit Kamlang-ek) into the position of deputy defense minister. Obviously, this was a blatant provocation of the active class-five clique (after many months of conflicts between the government and the military). They also suspected that one of theirs, namely Supreme Commander Sunthorn Kongsompong would be dismissed on the same occasion. (Since his death in 1999, accusations have been raised that he used his position in the NPKC to become “unusually rich”—a government committee is investigating the case.) In other words, no time was to be wasted—from their perspective—to put a stop to this game. This explanation, which essentially does without astrology as an explanation, is not altogether absent from the book. It is not mentioned in this context, however, but only in passing and hidden in note 103 on p. 137. Callahan does not bother to confront these divergent explanations, or weigh their relative importance.

The rest of the first chapter deals with TV-censorship, a video—produced by state TV—distorting the truth, and with an equally distorting fax.

In the second chapter Callahan points out that concepts such as “public opinion” or ”public” are comparatively recent additions to Thai political culture and remain structurally unstable. He mentions the social processes that led the political system to internally develop a functionally specialized sphere called public (perhaps, he could have included the standard reference in this field of study, Habermas’s book on the public sphere). As a result, demonstrations and protests are still called “mobs.” This expression not only connotes disorderliness, unlawfulness, aggression, a lack of controllability, and a lack of political rationality. It also implies that mobs are not authentic expressions of political discontent and that they do not represent the participants’ political opinions. In Thai discourse, mobs mainly consist of people hired by a “third hand” in order to further its particular interests. (The Ministry of the Interior, politicians, and the military have substantial experience in making such use of the country’s “citizens.”)

Of course, the May 1992 demonstrators were not of this kind. On the contrary, participants were mostly motivated by their convictions and their observation of political events. Nevertheless, no attempt was made to find a more positive term. Instead, variations of the negative expression were chosen as, for example, “middle-class mob”. This was accompanied by an attempt to re-define the meaning of this term in a way that it could also refer to rational and responsible political actors.

From the perspective of the military, however, the old meaning remained valid, and it justified the use of violence. Callahan contextualizes this with a description of the military as an institution that—almost necessarily—introduces violence into the political sphere of action. In Thailand, this basic fact of political-military life is made even more significant by the decades old ideology of national security (that has partly been based on the regional threat of communism and an insurgency that existed until the early 1980s). It has gained additional weight by the military’s self-perception of being the savior of the nation, and by reference to the official state ideology of “Nation, Religion, King.” All this leaves little space for oppositional political mass movements. They may be branded as “un-Thai,” often even as “anti-Thai.” (An old-style favorite of right-wingers has been “communist”; a modernized version is “NGO.”)

From Callahan’s description, one gets the impression that the acting generals can not actually be held personally responsible for the killings they ordered. After all, they merely communicated in the frame of reference of the existing discourse and, in their actions, reproduced the existing structures. The reader’s understanding is not helped when the author switches attributions for actions among “the military,” “the army,” and “Kaset and Issarapong” (two of the most important military actors, the first one from the air force, the second from the army). The attribution “Kaset and Issarapong” indicates both personal points of reference as well as their membership in class five of the military academy. Callahan himself notes that other members of the military did not like the demonstrations either but rejected the use of force against them. He also mentions that navy personnel protected fleeing protesters from army-personnel who were giving chase. Obviously, there is no “military” as a homogenous and monolithic bloc. Neither is there a unitary military way of perception and interpretation that, when it deemed action is necessary, provided for only a single option: shoot to kill. One may ask whether Callahan’s text would be different had he decided not to use “the military” as a main point of reference, and not even “the army,” but the “class five’s” (at least certain members) thirst for power.

It is useful that Callahan describes a document (its full text is reproduced in an appendix) in which General Issarapong tries to justify what the army units did, and mentions the application of a military action plan that was originally designed to suppress armed communist uprisings in Bangkok (paireepinart—“destroy the enemy”). In this way, both “the military’s” ideological attitudes and an obviously grotesquely flawed organizational programming come into view. This last point gains weight by the observation that initially it was the police who were tasked with controlling the demonstrations, but that they were not prepared to perform this difficult assignment, either organizationally or in terms of equipment and personnel. A truly astonishing degree of incompetence on the part of the supposedly professional police and military seem to have contributed considerably to the sad events. This seems to have included serious problems with information-gathering: how can one act appropriately when one is basically in the dark about what is happening?

Chapter 3 starts with the observation that the protests did not end when Chamlong was put in jail. Therefore, there must have been other motivational forces at work leading to the mass mobilization other than merely Chamlong’s charisma. Callahan’s explanation does not refer to any “crisis of legitimacy” (as we have tentatively summarized Murray’s description). Instead, he emphasizes the development of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Their development is described at length, based on a very small number of NGO sources. The author assumes the existence of an “oppositional consciousness” as the main factor for creating identity. (For unexplained reasons, he uses action-oriented feminist theory to make his point, instead of more general social-science approaches; also the difference between opposition and boundary-drawing is blurred.) He encounters problems with distinguishing between “non-governmental” and “anti-governmental” attitudes and organizations. Then, the NGOs’ role after the coup of February 1991 is described. Particular importance—both strategically and tactically—is attached to the NGOs’ non-violent approach. This section is based on interviews the author conducted with the NGO-elite, people probably not inclined to understate their role.

It seems problematic that Callahan attributes the mobilization of the protests exclusively to the NGOs’ information networks and to the corresponding networks of personal relations between NGO members and their acquaintances. Other motivational forces and channels of communication are excluded or, at least, are not considered. In the author’s reading, there is no place for “ordinary people” reading newspapers, having political opinions, being angered about TV censorship, talking to each other at their work places, or phoning each other and then using the information gathered for reaching the decision to go to see for themselves. At least, there is a quotation in which an NGO representative expresses his satisfaction regarding the support their cause received from “the masses.”

In this context, a distinction could have been introduced between the organizational aspects of the protests on the one hand and the mechanisms of mass mobilization on the other. Callahan criticizes that, in the military discourse, the protesters remained faceless and were degraded to constituting a “mob.” However, it cannot be said that his own account gives them a recognizable face. On the contrary, they remain anonymous and are reduced to people who were brought to the demonstrations via the NGO networks. It may seem somewhat strange, but the protesters as individual subjects, who certainly had their own “imaginations” of what happened during May 1992, are assigned only a very marginal position in this book. There are a large number of references to (mostly English-language) newspaper articles, to interviews with the NGO-elite, and to the perspective of “the military.” Yet, it was obviously not of great interest to find out what interpretations the participants in the demonstrations themselves had to offer.

After the author’s stated intention to provide a cultural analysis largely gets lost in the third chapter’s historical-structural description (including a number of normative statements), the fourth and final chapter returns to culture. Callahan wants to analyze how people construct what they remember. He first takes a look at an art exhibition about the events. The less than startling result is that the military is not depicted as the hero but as the villain. His second example concerns different definitions of those who went missing in the aftermath of the shootings. It may not be too surprising to learn that state agencies tended to favor a restrictive definition which soon led to a reduction in the number of the missing. Again, what “ordinary participants” or “ordinary people,” who did not participate, remember is not considered important enough to warrant examination.

Callahan, William A. 1998. “Challenging the Political Order: Social Movements.” In Governance in the Asia-Pacific, eds. Richard Maidment, David Goldblatt, and Jeremy Mitchell, pp. xxx-xxx. London and New York: Routledge; in association with the Open University.

Callahan, William A. 1999. “Visions of Gender and Democracy: Revolutionary Photo Albums in Asia.” Millennium 27 (4): 1031-1060.

Callahan, William A. 2000. Pollwatching, Elections and Civil Society in Southeast Asia. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. 218 pp. (=Leeds Series on Democratization)

Callahan, William A. 2002. “Diaspora, Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism: Overseas Chinese and Neo-Nationalism in China and Thailand.” Hong Kong: Southeast Asia Research Centre, City University of Hong Kong. (SEARC Working Paper Series No. 35) 34 pp. http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc.

Callahan, William A. and Duncan McCargo. 1996. “Vote-buying in Thailand’s Northeast: The July 1995 general election.” Asian Survey 36 (4): 376-392.

This interesting piece is the result of an 11-day period of interviews “with election candidates, campaign organizers, canvassers, voters, Pollwatch volunteers, and government officials” (p. 380). The body of the article describes six steps of campaign management which, the authors claim, “followed a broadly similar pattern througout the country” (readers are referred to Callahan 1999 for comparative information regarding the other regions of Thailand). The six steps were, (1) candidate recruitment (by the political parties), (2) central campaign organization (by the individual candidate), (3) the recruitment of hua khanaen (vote canvassers), (4) the organization and management of those hua khanaen, (5) campaign rallies, and (6) vote-buying (a comparative reference to พิชาย สมเจตน์ และ วรวิทย์ [1987] would have been in order). The role of PollWatch is also described. In conclusion, it can be said that, “money, achievements and personal qualities [of the individual candidate] are critical in determining electoral outcomes… [which are] largely divorced from national political issues” (p. 391 f.).

Finally, when the authors state that, “Vote-buying became a matter of concern to academics and urban elites at the time of the March 1992 election” one would like to add that this does not seem to be entirely correct. In fact, this concern by the groups mentioned already started during the Chartchai government, and it picked up steam during his last months in office. As a consequence, the MoI organized a big seminar on how to deal with this problem, supported by the Asia Foundation, on 11/12 January 1991. Further actions were made impossible by the coup of 23 February 1991. Shortly afterwards, the MoI started its Democracy Propagation Project aimed at eliminating vote-buying (see Nelson 1998: ch. 6; Anek 1996: 214).

Cam Trong. 1998. “Baan-müang: A Characteristic Feature of the Tai Social Structure.” Tai Culture 3 (2): 12-25.

Campbell, J. G. D. 1902. Siam in the Twentieth Century: Being the Experiences and Impressions of a British Official. London: Edward Arnold.

Campos, Joaquim de. 1940. “Early Portuguese Accounts of Thailand.” JSS 32 (1): 1-27.

Carment, David. 1995. “Managing Interstate Ethnic Tension: The Thailand-Malaysia Experience.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 1 (4):1-22.

Caron, Francois and Joost A. Schouten. 1969. True Description of the Mighty Kingdoms of Japan and Siam; trans. by Roger Manley. Bangkok: Chalermit Historical Archives Series. (Org.: London 1671) Another edition is Francois Caron and Joost Schouten. 1969. A True Description of the Mighty Kingdom of Japan and Siam. Introduction and notes by John Villiers. Bangkok: The Siam Society. (xxxcheck) Also see Joost Schouten. 1889. A Description of the Kingdom of Siam Written in 1636. Bangkok: Bangkolem Press.

Carter, A. Cecil, ed. 1904. The Kingdom of Siam. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.. 280 pp. (xxxcheck)

Case, William. 1994. “Elites and Regimes in Comparative Perspective: Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia.” Governance 7 (4):431-460.

Case, William F. 1996. “Can the ‘Halfway House’ Stand? Semidemocracy and Elite Theory in Three Southeast Asian Countries.” Comparative Politics 28 (4):437-464.

Case, William F. 2001. “Thai Democracy, 2001: Out of Equilibrium.” Asian Survey 41 (3):525-547.

Case, William F. 2001. Politics in Southeast Asia: Democracy or Less. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press. (“Thailand: An Unconsolidated Democracy”, Chapter 5, pp. 147-199)

Chai-anan Samuthvanit. 1971. “The Politics and Administration of the Thai Budgetary Process.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 185 pp.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1974. “Politicians and Bureaucrats: Legislative-executive Interactions in Thailand, 1969-1971.” Bangkok: [s.n.]. 59 pp.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1980. “Farmers Movement in Modern Thai Politics.” Paper. Thai-European Seminar on Social Change in Contemporary Thailand, 28-30 May 1980, University of Amsterdam, Anthropological-Sociological Centre, Dept. of South and Southeast Asian Studies. 30 pp.

Chai-anan Samudvanija. 1982. The Thai Young Turks. Singapore: ISEAS. xi+101 pp.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1985. “Implications of a Prolonged Conflict on Internal Thai Politics.” In Confrontation or Coexistence: The Future of ASEAN-Vietnam Relations, ed. by William Turley, pp. xxx-xxx. Bangkok: Institute of Security and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University.

Chai-anan Samudvanija. 1985. Village Bureaucracy and Development. Bangkok: The Public Affairs Group, The Public Affairs Foundation and Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. 11+6 pp.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1986. “Political Institutionalization in Thailand. Continuity and Change.” In Asian Political Institutionalization, ed. by Robert A. Scalapino, Seizaburo Sato, and Jusuf Wanandi, pp. 241-260 Berkeley, Cal.: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1987. Ministerial Reform Through Decentralization and Participation. [Bangkok]: Public Affairs Institute; with the assistance and cooperation of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. 95 pp.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1987. “Political History.” In Government and Politics of Thailand, ed. by Somsakdi Xuto, pp. 1-40. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1987. “The Bureaucracy.” In Government and Politics of Thailand, ed. by Somsakdi Xuto, pp. 75-109. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1989. “Thailand.” In Student Political Activism: An International Reference Book, ed. by Philip G. Altbach, pp. xxx-xxx. New York: Greenwood Press.

Chai-anan Samudhavanij. 1989. “The Role of the Military in National Development.” In Thailand's National Development: Social and Economic Background, ed. by Suchart Prasith-rathsint, pp. 149-165. Bangkok: TURA and CIDA.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1989. “Thailand: A Stable Semi-Democracy.” In Democracy in Developing Countries. Volume III: Asia, ed. by Larry Diamond, Juan J. Linz and Seymour Martin Lipset, pp. 305-346. Boulder, Col.: Lynne Rienner Publishers; London, England: Adamantine Press.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1990. “The Military and Modern Thai Political System.” In Development, Modernization, and Tradition in Southeast Asia. Lessons from Thailand, ed. by Pinit Ratanakul and U. Kyaw Thau, pp. 185-189. Bangkok, Thailand: Mahidol University.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1990. “Educating Thai Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 1 (4): 104-115.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1990. “Administrative Reform.” In Thailand on the Move: Stumbling Blocks and Breakthroughs, ed. by Suchart Prasith-rathsint, pp. 9-34. Bangkok: TURA and CIDA.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1991. “The Three-Dimensional State.” In Rethinking Third World Politics, ed. by James Manor, pp. 15-23. London and New York: Longman.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1992. “Promoting Democracy and Building Institutions in Thailand.” In The Democratic Revolution. Struggles for Freedom and Pluralism in the Developing World, ed. Larry Diamond, pp. 125-143. New York: Freedom House.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1992. “High Speed Growth and High Performance in a Technocratic Polity: The Thai Case.” s.n. 48 pp.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1993. “The New Military and Democracy in Thailand.” In Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries, ed. by Larry Diamond, pp. 269-293. Boulder and London: Lynn Rienner.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1993. “State-Identity Creation, State-Building and Civil Society.” In National Identity and its Defenders. Thailand, 1939-1989, ed. by Craig J. Reynolds, pp. 59-85. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books. (reprint; org.: Melbourne: Monash University, Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, 1991) (reissued with a new subtitle—“Thailand Today”—by Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai, in 2002; pp. 49-70)

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1995. “Economic Development and Democracy.” In Thailand’s Industrialization and its Consequences, ed. by Medhi Krongkaew, pp. 235-250. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Chai-anan Samudavanija. 1997. “Old soldiers never die, they are just bypassed: The military, bureaucracy and globalisation.” In Political Change in Thailand: Democracy and Participation, ed. by Kevin Hewison, pp. 42-57. London and New York: Routledge.

Chai-anan Samudavanija, Kusuma Snitwongse, Suchit Bunbongkarn. 1990. From Armed Suppression to Political Offensive: Attitudinal Transformation of Thai Military Officers since 1976. Bangkok: Institute of Security and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University. i+218 pp.

Chai-anan Samudavanija and Suchit Bunbongkarn. 1985. “Thailand.” In Military-civilian Relations in South-East Asia, ed. by Zakaria Haji Ahmad and Harold Crouch, pp. 78-117. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Chai-anan Samudavanija and Sukhumbhand Paribatra. 1984. “Factors behind Armed Separatism. A Framework for Analysis.” In Armed Separatism in Southeast Asia. eds. Lim Joo-Jock and Vani S., pp. xxx-xxx. Singapore: ISEAS.

Chai-anan Samudavanija and Sukhumbhand Paribatra. 1986. “Internal Dimensions of Regional Security in Southeast Asia.” In Regional Security in the Third World, ed. by Mohammed Ayub, pp. xxx-xxx. London: Croom Helm.

Chai-anan Samudavanija and Sukhumbhand Paribatra. 1987. “In Search of Balance: Prospects for Stability in Thailand During the Post-CPT Era.” In Durable Stability in Southeast Asia, ed. by Kusuma Snitwongse and Sukhumbhand Paribatra, pp. 187-233. Singapore: IEAS.

Chai-anan Samudavanija and Sukhumbhand Paripatra. 1990. “Political Contestation in Thailand.” In Political Contestation. Case Studies From Asia, ed. by N. Mahmood, pp. xxx-xxx. Singapore: Heinemann Asia.

Chai-anan Samudavanija and Sukhumbhand Paribatra. 1993. “Thailand: Liberalization Without Democracy.” In Driven by Growth: Political Change in the Asia-Pacific Region, ed. by James W. Morley, pp. 119-141. Armonk, New York and London, England: M. E. Sharpe.

Chaichana Ingavata. 1990. “Community development and local-level democracy in Thailand: the role of tambol councils.” Sojourn 5: 113-143.

Chaichana Ingavata. 1981. “Students as an agent of social change. a case of the Thai student movement during the years 1973-1976. a critical political analysis.” Ph. D. dissertation, The Florida State University. vi+211 pp.

Chairat Charoensin-o-larn. 1985. “Understanding Postwar ‘Reformism’ in Thailand: A Reinterpretation of Rural Development.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Hawaii. 405 pp. (published in Bangkok: Editions Duangkamol, 1988 318 pp.)

Chaiwat Bunnag. 1983. “Les coups d’état militaires dans le contexte historique et politique thailandais (1932-1981).” Doctorat de 3^e cycle en sociologie, Paris VII. 537 pp.

Chaiwat Satha-Anand. 1987. Islam and Violence: A Case Study of Violent Events in the Four Southern Provinces, Thailand, 1976-1981. Tampa, FL: University of Florida. (=USF Monographs in Religion and Public Policy)

Chaiwat Satha-Anand. 1992. “Pattani in the 1980s: Academic Literature and Political Stories.” Sojourn 7 (1): 1-38.

Chaiyan Rajchagool. 1994. The Rise and Fall of the Thai Absolute Monarchy: Foundations of the Modern Thai State from Feudalism to Peripheral Capitalism. Bangkok and Cheney: White Lotus. 212 pp. (Org.: “The Social and State Formation in Siam, 1855-1932.” Ph. D. thesis, Manchester University, 1984 273 pp.) (= Studies in Contemporary Thailand, Volume 2)

Chakarin Komolsiri. 1995. “Globalization and Local Voices: Globalists, Fusionists, and Resistors among Thai Intellectual Elites.” PhD thesis, State University of New York at Binghamton.

Chakrapand Wongburanavart. 1978. “Administrative Attitudes of the Public Officials in Thailand.” Ph. D. dissertation, The University of Mississippi. 232 pp.

Chakrit Noranitipadungkarn. 1970. Elites, Power Structures and Politics in Thai Communities. Bangkok: Research Center, NIDA. 199 pp. (Org.: “Community Elites and the Power Structure: A Comparative Study of Two Communities in Thailand.” Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1968. xi+288 pp.)

Chakrit Noranitipadungkarn. 1974. Rural Thai elites and local development. Bangkok: NIDA. 25 pp.

Chakrit Noranitipadungkarn and A. Clarke Hagenick. 1973. Modernizing Chiengmai: A Study of Community Elites in Urban Development. Bangkok: Research Center, NIDA. v+120 pp.

Chalidaporn Songsamphan. 1991. “Supernatural Prophecy in Thai Politics: The Role of a Spiritual Cultural Element in Coup Decisions.” Ph. D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School. x+226 pp. (April 1, 1981 and September 9, 1985)

Chalidaporn Songsamphan. 1995. “Thailand: Slow Government, Sluggish Democratization.” In Southeast Asian Affairs 1995, pp. 327-342. Singapore: ISEAS. (xxxchecken)

Chalk, Peter. 2001. “Separatism and Southeast Asia: The Islamic Factor in Southern Thailand, Mindanao and Aceh.” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24 (4):241-269.

Chaloeylakana Wongtrangan. 1988. “Thai Elite Struggle in the 1932 Revolution.” Ph. D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University. 383 pp.

Chalong Soontravanich. 1997. “Research on Thai-Myanmar Historical Relations in Thailand.” In Comparative Studies on Literature and History of Thailand and Myanmar, pp. 93-101. Bangkok: Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University; Universities’ Historical Research Centre, Yangon.

Chalong Soontravanich. 2000. “Siam and the First Hague Peace Conference of 1899.” In King Chulalongkorn’s Visit to Europe: Reflections on Significance and Impacts, ed. by Charit Tingsabadh, pp. 31-44. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.

Chamberlaine, James R., ed. 1991. The Ram Khamhaeng Controversy: Collected Papers. Bangkok: The Siam Society. 565 pp.

Chambers, Paul. 2001. “Mung Lek nai Mung Yai: How Factions Matter in Contemporary Thai Politics.” Journal of Social Sciences 32 (2): 192-230.

Chamnan Prasertchoung. 1987. “An assessment of knowledge, attitudes and practices of local political leaders in Thailand and their effect on the success of primary health care.” Dr. P. H. Hawaii. xiii+260 pp. (Kanchanaburi province)

Chamnan Rodhetbhai. 1990. Role of Monarchy in Thai Political and Social Development with Special Reference to King Bhumibol Adulyadej. New Delhi: Centre for South, Central South-East Asian and South-West Pacific Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. ix+419 pp.

Chan Ansuchote. 1970. The 1969 General Elections in Thailand. DeKalb, Illinois: Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University. 44 pp. (= Special Report Series, No. 3)

Chandler, David P. 1972. “Cambodia’s Relations with Siam in the Early Bangkok Period: The Politics of a Tributary State.” JSS 60 (1): 153-xxx.

Chandran, Jeshurun. 1970. “The Anglo-French Declaration of January 1896 and the Independence of Siam.” JSS 58 (2): 105-xxx.

Chandran, Jeshurun. 1971. “The British Foreign Office and the Siamese Malay States, 1890-97.” Modern Asian Studies 5 (2): 143-159.

Chandran, Jeshurun. 1977. The Contest for Siam, 1889-1902: A Study in Diplomatic Rivalry. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. xxiii+383 pp.

Chang Kuo Tao. 1976. “All the King’s Men.” AMPO, 8 (3): 18-25. (xxx23? author?)

Chantima Ongsuragz. 1965. The Stages of Political Development. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. (xxxThailand?)

Chantima Ongsuragz. 1982. “The Communist Party of Thailand: Consolidation and Decline.” In Southeast Asian Affairs, pp. 362-374. Singapore: Heinemann Educational Books. (xxxyears title?)

Chao Saicheua. 1999. “Safeguards for the Protection of Liberties and Citizen’s Rights: The Role of the Constitutional Court of Thailand.” Paper, Regional Conference on “Protection of Liberties and Citizen’s Rights in Contemporary Legal Systems”, Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand, 8-10 November 1999. 5 pp. (The author is the first president of the Constitutional Court.) Published as “The Constitutional Court of the Royal Kingdom of Thailand.” In Perspectives 2/1999: 11-18.

Charas Suwanmala. 1991. “Central control and local productivity: A case study in Thailand.” Ph. D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University. xxx pp.

Charas Suwanmala. [2000]. “An Overview of Decentralization in Thailand.” MS, 46 pp.

Charit Tingsabadh. 2000. King Chulalongkorn’s Visit to Europe: Reflections on Significance and Impacts. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. vii+135 pp.

“This book is the result of the International Conference on ‘King Chulalongkorn of Siam’s First Royal Visit to Europe in 1897’ held by Chulalongkorn University European Studies Programme (CUESP) on 6-7 November 1997’ (p. 135). See the articles by Rolin Jacquemyns, Nish, Kullada, Chalong, Piyanart, and Chompunut.

Charivat Santaputra. 1985. Thai Foreign Policy, 1931-1946. [Bangkok]: Thai Khadi Research Institute, Thammasat University. iv+465 pp. (Second English edition Bangkok: Suksit Siam, 2000; [18]+401 pp.)

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1974. “Buddhism and Political Integration in Early Ayudhya, 1350-1488.” Journal of the Faculty of Archaeology (Silpakorn University) 4 (4): xxx-xxx.

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1974. “The First Phibun Government and Its Involvement in World War II.” JSS 62 (2):25-88.

Charnvit Kasetsiri. 1976.

http://www.kpi.ac.th