Importing Governance into the Thai Polity Competing Hybrids and Reform Consequences(2006年公共管理国际会议论文).docVIP

Importing Governance into the Thai Polity: Competing Hybrids and Reform Consequences Bidhya Bowornwathana Chulalongkorn University, Thailand Abstract The central argument is that the import of governance paradigms into the Thai polity has generated various competing interpretations of governance. The body of knowledge on governance in Thailand is in a state of chaos. For Thais, there is no clear answer as to what exactly is “governance.” Governance means different things to different people. It can also mean different things to the same people in different circumstances. Contradiction appears everywhere. Key words governance, administrative reform, reform diffusion. 1 Introduction The paper is divided into two major parts. First, the author argues that so far, there are five major interpretations of governance in Thailand: the new democracy or democratic governance, good governance, the efficiency perspective, the Ten Guiding Principles for the King, and the Thaksin system. The origins, assumptions and problems of each interpretation are explained. These five interpretations present us with hybrids of governance in Thailand. The second part discusses four reform consequences arisen from the import of governance: the difficulty of determining which prototype of governance is the correct one; the problem from cloning deformed hybrids; the confrontation among competing hybrids; and the appropriate level of analysis for governance. 2 Competing Hybrids from Different Interpretations of Governance The existence of many interpretations of governance in Thailand meant that there is no agreement as to which interpretation is the most suitable. Each interpretation of governance has produced many hybrids that have their own perspectives or frameworks for understanding governance. Since they are different, these hybrids are in a state of competition. The governance puzzle becomes even more complicated if we consider the fact that we can not agree on the nature of