Building Partnerships Between Government and Civil Society:
The Case of Paiboon Wattanasiritham and the
Governmental Central Bank

The Role of ODII and AIC

(Extracted from a  case was written by Ms. Brenda Furugganan and Prof. Mario Antonio G. Lopez),

Full version available at http://www.synergos.org/bridgingleadership/04/c_5_case_study_khun_paiboon_wattansiritham_thailand.pdf.

Asian Institute of Management. Copyright 2002, Asian Institute
of Management, Makati City, Philippines and Synergos Institute, New York

The Early Stages of Participation in Thailand

In 1991 an international NGO known as “Organizing for Development: an International
Institute (ODII)” wanted to introduce a way of institutionalizing participatory processes
throughout Thailand, in the belief that although the country's Fifth Plan mandated the
participatory process, the Tambons could not do so because they had not been trained and
no institutionalized mechanism for this purpose was available. ODII therefore offered to
introduce and pilot-test a holistic, selforganizing process known as “Appreciation,
Influence, Control” (AIC) during the implementation of one of its projects.


AIC involved “thinking and working together in a highly participatory and interactive
manner throughout.” It was based on the “principle of the three sources of power—
appreciation, influence, and control.”

“Appreciation” involved understanding reality coupled with using the imagination in
formulating a common vision. “Influence” involved the interactive search for the path
toward realizing the vision. It also entailed the search for “strategies.” Meanwhile,
“control” involved getting down to real action or “operating plans” that brought concrete
results.

ODII had tested the AIC process in a collaborative project with the Population and
Community Development Association (PDA), which was the largest NGO in Thailand,
as well as with the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI), the country’s most
prominent research institute. The ODII believed that the AIC process was an effective
tool in participatory development planning and that NGOs could assume the new role of
facilitator as an essential feature of this planning intervention. It took about a year for the
NGO Coordinating Committee on Development (NGO-CORD) to accept the idea of the
“facilitative role of NGOs” in national planning.

Shortly thereafter, another new challenge emerged. How would this process run “on the
ground,” considering that the concept of collaboration between the government and the
people, and the concept of public participation in decision-making and planning were
new to both the government and the grassroots? To spread the use of AIC in the rural
areas, ODII trained a small group of Thai facilitators. One of them was Khun Paiboon
Wattanasiritham, then President of the Foundation for Thailand Rural Reconstruction
Movement (TRRM), the oldest development NGO in Thailand. Acknowledged by ODII
as a key actor in spreading AIC throughout Thailand, Khun Paiboon Wattanasiritham
recognized that promoting AIC was part of his job. He said,

“I managed to take seven high-ranking persons with me to attend a four-day AIC
workshop run by ODII in the USA. They in turn have advocated for or created the
demand for the AIC workshops, many of which I helped organize. Other AIC-like
workshops were asked for through contacts with myself and with TRRM from
various quarters. Moreover, my development activities were such that they
normally call for participatory processes forwhich AIC is well-fitted.”

That same year, the World Bank sought ways to support the Thai government in forestry
issues related to the Global Environment Fund (GEF), particularly in dealing with the
issue of people in the forest. ODII was asked to provide assistance in the design of a
workshop using the AIC process. ODII, in turn, contacted Khun Paiboon who agreed to
facilitate the workshop.
The workshop objective was to find ways to create collaboration between the people
living in the forests and the government, on how best to protect the forests in Thailand.
During the three-day workshop, TRRM brought together four diverse groups of
stakeholders: government workers, forest villagers, NGO workers and scholars.
Throughout the process, the participants discussed realities, possibilities and strategies for
bridging the two sectors. The outputs of the workshop were action plans detailing steps
and implementing guidelines, including sectoral responsibilities.

One of the key success factors of the workshop was Khun Paiboon’s facilitation together
with Dr. Prawese Wasi, chairperson of the Local Development Foundation . “They were
able to create the right environment for the participants to keep open minds and to listen
to each other,” observed the organizers. Khun Paiboon himself said:
 

 “I have never really been conscious about whether or not I am a leader. I’ve
never thought about it. I have just been doing what I think must be done. It just
happened that I think, on the one hand, I have the kind of mentality that works
well with other people. I feel at ease working with different kinds of people. I
don’t have much trouble coming into relationships, that is, I find that I can accept
people as they are. I get along well with different types of people whether they are
extroverts or introverts.
“My work with various sectors with diverse backgrounds and mentalities may
have facilitated matters. I think it helps that I myself come from a rural village
and continue to go back and live among villagers. I have also been fortunate to
have worked with different organizations under different settings. The variety of
my experiences has helped me appreciate distinct kinds of people.”.

Mr. Paiboon also placed great emphasis on his Buddhist training. He said that there were
many frustrations and difficulties in development work, but his Buddhist discipline
helped keep him hopeful. He persisted in the face of failure. He practiced positive
thinking and maintained constructive relationships. He integrated Buddhist concepts in
the seminars he facilitated. According to him,

“When we seek popular participation, the interaction between and among people
is very important. Consensus-building, Buddhist practices, and learning from
each other worked well in the seminars. Instead of accusing one another, the
participants collaborated. The results are better and greater.”

He added,

“Buddhist concepts of compassion, truth, wisdom, and many more, all work to
support participatory development planning.”

The first successes encouraged other NGOs and government agencies to use participatory
processes. In 1993, Dr. Orapin Sopchokchai of the Thailand Development Research
Institute (TDRI), in cooperation with the Population and Community Development
Association (PDA) and the Community Development Department (CDD) of the Ministry
of Interior, organized a project that sought ways to increase women's participation in
village development planning and decision-making. The project built on previous
findings on the importance of including women in the development process, from
planning and decision-making through implementation.


Gradually, the NGOs mainstreamed people’s participation in all aspects of development
planning. TDRI conducted continuous research with the Interior Ministry, in advocating
participatory development in villages and sub-districts throughout Thailand.
PDA held over 81 participatory workshops over the past three years at the village, subdistrict and district levels. TRRM, for its part, organized workshops for government
agencies and public sector organizations, such as universities and hospitals. It also
worked with community organizations, NGOs and private sector organizations. TRRM’s
urban counterpart, the Urban Community Development Office (UCDO), organized
workshops for people's organizations working with urban poor communities.

Given the tools for participatory development and the successes with grassroots
development planning, government and the NGOs made a serious concerted effort to
promote the widespread participation of the “third sector” in national development.

Drafting the Financial and Fiscal Master Plan

In 1994, Khun Paiboon, through the TRRM Foundation, initiated a two-day multisectoral
seminar/workshop attended by various sectoral representatives that included government
officers, NGO leaders, members of the academe, community leaders and business leaders
who were supportive of social work. According to Khun Paiboon,

“The seminar/workshop was partly in response to the Finance Minister’s wish to
meet with development workers and leaders of grassroots organizations. I also
hoped that creative initiatives could result from such a workshop.”

The seminar/workshop advocated for more support for community-building and for
generating strategies to strengthen communities. It discussed how community
organizations could be strengthened and could serve as the base of social development in
Thai communities. The different sectors resolved to advocate the creation of institutions
and mechanisms to support communitybuilding work through savings and credit
movements. The resolution also called on government to provide more credit facilities.
The result was that government agreed to increase rural development funding as well
support for community- building. Khun Paiboon said:

“At that time, I was the president of Thailand Rural Reconstruction Movement
and we organized a two-day seminar. The Finance Minister attended, and some
leaders of NGOs, some academic people, some community leaders, and some
business persons who are more inclined to work in social and community
development were similarly present. We worked very intensively. The outcome
was a resolution, a common agreement, that either an institution or mechanisms
should be set up to support community-building work. Itwould be utilizing among
other things, savings and credit movements, and also the creditfacilities provided
by government to such an institution.


“That seminar resulted in the government’s agreement to increase credit facilities
through a fund, which at that time was called the Rural Development Fund, and
also added some other dimensions of support.”

Encouraged by a successful first gathering, the organizers called a second gathering of
sectoral representatives the following year. That again led to significant policy outcomes,
the most significant outcome of which was the initiation and eventual adoption of the
“Financial and Fiscal Master Plan for Social Society.” This master plan aimed at
strengthening organizations as well as developing a community-driven system for
improving the economic positions of Thai’s grassroots peoples including the urban poor.
Khun Paiboon added that:

“In the following year, we organized another one, this time with a new Finance
Minister. Again it was a congregation of people from different sectors, from the
government—a Cabinet Minister and high-ranking government officers from
different ministries—NGO leaders, community leaders, academic people and
some business leaders. That meeting led to a policy that came to be called the
“Fiscal and Monetary Policy for Society,” and was to be adopted by the Minister
of Finance. Among the many policies [recommended], the one with the highest
priority was the setting up of a financial institution or bank or an organization to
support community-building. Actually that policy later on led to the setting up of
what is now the Community Organizations Development Institute or CODI.
[Also] because of that seminar, I think it partly it had a strong influence on the
Minister of Finance for him to come up with a new policy to support community
and society through fiscal and monetary measures. Another policy that has
materialized [out of this gathering] is the setting up of what is now called the
Thai Health Promotion Foundation.

One of the priorities of that Master Plan was to establish a bank or financial institution to
support community-building. This led to the setting up of the Community Organizations
Development Institute or CODI. Prior to the multi-sectoral summits, the Finance Ministry
had no explicit fiscal and monetary policies for social development.

The Public Organization Act made CODI possible. The Act empowered the government
to create public organizations by passing a royal decree (resolution) at the Cabinet level
that did not have to go through Parliament. The degree, just the same, gave government
more flexibility to accommodate the need for new organizations to address the needs of
society.

Drafting the Vision of the Eighth Plan: A New Hope

By 1993–1994, participatory development had been gaining momentum in Thailand. The
chance to bring the new paradigm to the national level came in late 1994 when plans for
the drafting of the Eighth Five-Year National Economic and Social Development Plan
(1997–2001) started. A new Secretary General of the National Economic and Social
Development Board (NESDB), the body that advises the Cabinet on development
planning and policy, was appointed. Upon the recommendation of Khun Paiboon, the


Secretary-General of NESDB agreed to hold interactive discussions on the vision for the
new Plan and to get inputs from others for the drafting of the National Plan.

The Secretary-General, in collaboration with Khun Paiboon, initiated a workshop in
which some 60 leading social thinkers as well as leaders from the NGO community
participated and expressed their ideas and perspectives on the proposed Eighth Plan. The
workshop, the first of its kind, enjoyed considerable media attention thereby emphasizing
its importance. More than 100 journalists or twice the number of workshop participants
covered the event. Khun Paiboon said of his involvement:

“I was actively involved in designing and facilitating the participatory process,
particularly the multi-sectoral intensive planning workshops and the national
gathering attended by some 1,500 people who were divided into groups of 10
persons each, to brainstorm on the vision and strategies of the National Plan. I
was also involved in the actual drafting of the Plan, utilizing inputs from the many
workshops, conferences and meetings.”

He added that previous plans were formulated by technocrats following a top
downapproach to planning. As a result, these plans were widely criticized by other
sectors which said that the plans did not reflect “a balanced approach to development.”
He agreed, adding that:

“The weaknesses of the previous development plans were that these were
conceived and written by a small group of planners – a limited circle of thinkers.
The plans’ emphases were on economic growth as opposed to a wider social
dimension. In the Eighth Plan, the vision is clearer—human development is given
focus.”

As ideas were generated, the importance of two-way interaction became even more
apparent. Several other multi-sectoral conferences, intensive planning workshops and
meetings followed. These activities were capped by an ambitious conference of over
1,500 people from all parts of Thailand and from all walks of life, including politicians,
business executives, NGO leaders, government officers, community representatives,
farmers, slum dwellers, monks and nuns, teachers, engineers and doctors. No less than
the Prime Minister was present. He gave his seal of approval to the participatory planning
process.

The Problems and Difficulties of People’s Participation

“People’s participation” had been a key element since the Fifth Plan. However, the
concept did not mesh with the Thai political culture, which intensely promoted a patron-
client system.

The multi-sectoral gatherings initially encountered several difficulties. The task of
convincing sectoral representatives on the importance of their participation was as
equally daunting as the task of convincing government of its merits.


Many doubted whether the inputs or suggestions contained in the participatory plan
would be put into practice. The convenors and facilitators were actually learning on the
job. A number were uncertain that the process would work. Further there were times
when the mix of participants was not well-balanced or some participants missed some of
the sessions. These incidents constrained the progress of the meetings.

As the workshops and dialogues proceeded, communication channels were opened and
the relationships between the organizers improved. Deeper learning became possible as
an appreciation of the importance of participation and of development in general evolved.
The participants were learning from each other.

The sub-regional workshops involved about 60 people each, thirty to forty percent of
whom came from communities and the grassroots, while the rest represented NGOs, the
academe, business and government. The inclusion of as many women as possible was
stressed.

Finally, during a synthesis workshop, representatives from each of the sub-regional
workshops gathered to share and discuss their ideas. In all of these workshops, action
plans were drawn up. But mainly the reasons behind these workshops were as follows: to
create partnerships, stimulate dialogue and generate ideas to be used in the Eighth
National Plan.

Khun Paiboon said that there were several problems and difficulties inherent to the
process of participatory development planning. According to him, “The involvement of
many people from various sectors means ensuring an appropriate `mix’ and making sure
the design and facilitation of the process would be done well. It takes much time to bring
about satisfactory results.”

The Opportunities Arising from the People’s Participation
The initiatives to introduce and expand the people’s participation in development had
multifaceted outcomes. The participatory process encouraged many NGOs to believe in
the authorship of the Plan. Khun Paiboon added:

“Basically, the more participation, the stronger the feeling of ownership and
hence the more effective the implementation of the plan. Participation also leads
to better inputs to the contents and better responsiveness to the realities, problems
and aspirations of the people, for whose benefit the Plan is intended.”

The participatory workshops undertaken at the grassroots level resulted in the creation of
a more balanced community development plan. This contrasted with the previous practice
of centralized planning and government agency-driven development projects, which had
less potential for success since the villagers took no ownership and had no incentive to
cooperate in the implementation of the plans.

A number of the resulting development plans were carried out by the communities on
their own, while other plans were presented to the Tambon (Subdistrict Councils) and
other development agencies for support or incorporation into the sub-district and
provincial development plans.

At the end of the NESDB participatory planning process, a ground breaking Five-Year
National Development Plan evolved along the lines of the new development paradigm.
For the first time, the National Plan emphasized human-centered development rather than
purely classical economic development. Its objectives included increasing community
participation in national development, while its implementation strategy followed the
integrated approach that called for cooperation between agencies and stakeholders in
designing, implementing and monitoring plans and projects.

Most significantly, the citizen's rights to unite and form associations were enshrined in
the
1997 Constitution under sections 45 to 47, which stated that the people had a right to
organize themselves to conserve or restore their customs, local knowledge, arts or good
culture of their community and of the nation and participate in the management,
maintenance, preservation, and exploitation of natural resources and the environment.

Further, the Constitution contained provisions for the institutionalization of NGO
representation in all committees responsible for enacting laws related to education,
health, and welfare. Khun Paiboon added:

“Now, government’s relationship with civil society had been improving albeit
somewhat slowly. In fact, even the National Security Council now works closely
with NGOs because they had started to realize the NGO’s potentials.
In addition, people’s movements and actions at the local and regional levels have
proliferated, including many networks as well as networks of networks. Also,
government agencies have come to adopt people’s participation as a matter of
course, although the quality of such participation may not be quite satisfactory as
yet.

The Task of Bridging

Khun Paiboon downplayed his role in promoting participatory development in his
country.
He attributed his role to serendipity. He added that he did not have much convincing to
do since:

“I was lucky. One day, I was invited to attend this meeting on social development
and poverty reduction, which was chaired by the Prime Minister. After the
Secretary General (of NESDB) finished talking, I was asked by the Prime
Minister for my reaction.
So I made the suggestion about participatory development. At that time, the
Secretary General was the first non-economist appointed to the post. He was a
political scientist so he was very open to the idea of participatory planning.


So I helped organize the special forum participated in by about 60 leading social
thinkers. The objective of that forum was to draft the vision and strategies for the
Eighth National Plan.

However, most people who knew did not dispute the fact that it was Khun Paiboon who
set off the “spark” that lighted the “wildfire” in participatory development. Khun Paiboon
also cited hard work as a major factor.

“As Managing Director of the Urban Community Development Office (UCDO),
which I helped set up in 1992 and remaining so until 1997, I was instrumental in
making community/people-centered, participatory development a reality on a
national scale among the urban poor. So when it came to conceptualizing and
drafting the Eighth National Plan, the concept of human-centered, participatory
development had real experiences and achievements to refer to.

Khun Paiboon stated that problems in collaborative work often arose from several
shortcomings. This was the gap that he had tried to bridge in the past. According to him:

“If there are any problems at all, it is more because of a lack of knowledge, a lack
of understanding or a lack of information or some limitation on the part of each
sector. Example, government may be bound by laws and regulations, some of
which are not appropriate. But as government officers, they have to abide by
those laws and regulations, and very often they interpret the laws and regulations
not too positively or not in a very helpful way.

“For example, people in the development sector or NGOs, would like to see the
government supporting NGOs work more, including, the granting of some tax
benefits to NGOs as well as people who donate money to NGOs. But we may find
that government officers in charge of mandating tax regulations tend to interpret
the regulations very strictly, and don’t try to come up with ways and means to be
more helpful. That’s not because there is a real conflict but because the
government people have not been able to understand or appreciate fully the value
that NGOs and civil society bring about.”

Likewise, Mr. Paiboon believed that many businesses in Thailand would want to support
development work but they had not been fully tapped. He said:

“Businesses may want to support development work but there are other
alternatives and demands on their resources that they have to meet. So it is not
always that they come to give support. But, in any case, I know government
people and government work; I also know business people. It is very often that I
have been able to be a middle person or an arranger of meetings, bringing people
together and getting them to talk about issues of common concern. In a number of
cases, of course, it becomes beneficial.

“There have been a series of events where there was a need for support and
understanding from the political sector which makes the decisions. A Minister’s
support and understanding, for example. In other cases the understanding of
high-ranking government officers, or the thinking of NGOs or community leaders
may be required. Well, I would try to understand or to think from the point of view
of each of those different categories of people.”