Examining the Dynamics of Livelihood Strategies in Rural Thailand: A Case Study of Buriram, Sisaket, Chachoengsao, and Lopburi Provinces
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Rural households in Thailand exhibit significant heterogeneity, necessitating tailored policy approaches to effectively reduce rural poverty. This study employs latent-class clustering and transition matrix analyses to classify and examine the dynamics of livelihood strategies among rural households. Using balanced-panel data from the Townsend Thai Project spanning the years 2000-2017, six distinct strategies are identified, with the three lowest-income strategies comprising 70.53% of the sample. These households share common characteristics, including limited farm diversification, with a primary focus on small-scale rice farming. Additionally, they often operate small businesses and find employment in low-wage jobs. Interestingly, these households demonstrate the highest level of mobility, particularly between low and medium livelihood strategies, throughout the study period. Conversely, households following high-income strategies engage in diverse income sources and possess higher levels of farm assets and education compared to those in poor-strategy households. Rural livelihood strategies exhibit considerable dynamism, with 39.86% of households transitioning to higher-ranked strategies at least once, and 24.15% descending to lower-ranked strategies over time. These transitions align with the prevailing economic context and government policies concerning agricultural price supports and micro-finance access. Policymakers should prioritize initiatives that promote farm diversification, strengthen farming and non-farming community networks, and mitigate fluctuations in farm prices. Moreover, rural development plans should consider tailored policies suitable for each livelihood strategy to enhance the efficiency and sustainability of programs.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The paper is published under CC BY-NC-ND, in which the article is freely downloaded and shared in its original form non-commercially and its citation details are identified.
References
Alinovi, L., D’errico, M., Mane, E., & Romano, D. (2011). Livelihoods strategies and household resilience to food insecurity: An empirical analysis to Kenya. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/agrifood-economics/publications/detail/en/c/122495/
Attavanich, W. (2016). Did the Thai rice-pledging programme improve the economic performance and viability of rice farming? Applied Economics, 48(24), 2253-2265.
Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2007). The economic lives of the poor. Journal of economic perspectives, 21(1), 141-167.
Barrett, C. B., Reardon, T., & Webb, P. (2001). Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: Concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. Food Policy, 26(4), 315-331.
Boonperm, J., Haughton, J., & Khandker, S. R. (2013). Does the Village Fund matter in Thailand? Evaluating the impact on incomes and spending. Journal of Asian Economics, 25, 3-16.
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chawanote, C., & Barrett, C. (2013). Farm and non-farm occupational and earnings dynamics in rural Thailand. Retrieved from http://barrett.dyson.cornell.edu/Papers/NonfarmDynamics_ChawanoteBarrett%2025%20March%202013%20Revisions.pdf
Coleman, B. E. (2006). Microfinance in Northeast Thailand: Who benefits and how much? World Development, 34(9), 1612-1638.
Dawe, D., & Slayton, T. (2012). The world rice market crisis of 2007–2008. In D. Dawn (Ed.), The rice crisis: Markets, policies and food security (pp. 39-52). London: Routledge.
Ellis, F. (1998). Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. The Journal of Development Studies, 35(1), 1-38.
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hagenaars, A. J., De Vos, K., & Asghar Zaidi, M. (1994). Poverty statistics in the late 1980s: Research based on micro-data. Retrieved from https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=XF2015009737
Hewison, K. (2010). Thaksin Shinawatra and the reshaping of Thai politics. Contemporary Politics, 16(2), 119-133.
Jackson, D. A. (1993). Stopping rules in principal components analysis: A comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology, 74(8), 2204-2214.
Jiao, X., Pouliot, M., & Walelign, S. Z. (2017). Livelihood strategies and dynamics in rural Cambodia. World Development, 97, 266-278.
Kaboski, J. P., & Townsend, R. M. (2005). Policies and impact: An analysis of village-level microfinance institutions. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(1), 1-50.
Kaboski, J. P., & Townsend, R. M. (2012). The impact of credit on village economies. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(2), 98-133.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141-151.
Kislat, C., & Menkhoff, L. (2012). The village fund loan: Who gets it, keeps it and loses it? In S. Klasen, & H. Waibel. (Eds.), Vulnerability to Poverty (pp.283-304). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. (2002). Latent class models for clustering: A comparison with K-means. Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, 20(1), 36-43.
McCargo, D., & Pathmanand, U. (2005). The thaksinization of Thailand. Copenhagen: Nias Press.
Menkhoff, L., & Rungruxsirivorn, O. (2011). Do village funds improve access to finance? Evidence from Thailand. World Development, 39(1), 110-122.
Nguyen, T. T., Nguyen, L. D., Lippe, R. S., & Grote, U. (2017). Determinants of farmers’ land use decision-making: Comparative evidence from Thailand and Vietnam. World Development, 89, 199-213.
Nielsen, Ø. J., Rayamajhi, S., Uberhuaga, P., Meilby, H., & Smith‐Hall, C. (2013). Quantifying rural livelihood strategies in developing countries using an activity choice approach. Agricultural Economics, 44(1), 57-71.
Poapongsakorn, N. (2012). The political economy of Thailand’s rice price and export policies in 2007–2008. In D. Dawn (Ed.), The rice crisis: Markets, policies and food security (pp. 39-52). London: Routledge.
Poapongsakorn, N., & Jarupong, J. (2010). Rent seeking activities and the political economy of the paddy pledging market intervention measures. A Research Study Proposed to Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
Poapongsakorn, N., & Pantakua, K. (2014). Assessing the Thai paddy pledging policy: Its performance and social costs. World Food Policy, 1(2), 2-29.
Poapongsakorn, N., Pantakua, K., Nantajit, C., Arunkon, D., & Chenphuengpawn, J. (2014). Corruption in the paddy pledging policy. Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation.
Pye, O., & Schaffar, W. (2008). The 2006 anti-Thaksin movement in Thailand: An analysis. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38(1), 38-61.
Quandt, A. (2018). Measuring livelihood resilience: The household livelihood resilience approach (HLRA). World Development, 107, 253-263.
Rakodi, C. (1999). A capital assets framework for analysing household livelihood strategies: Implications for policy. Development Policy Review, 17(3), 315-342.
Ricks, J. (2018). Politics and the price of rice in Thailand: public choice, institutional change and rural subsidies. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 48(3), 395-418.
Rigg, J., & Salamanca, A. (2015). The devil in the detail: interpreting livelihood turbulence from a 25‐year panel study from Thailand. Area, 47(3), 296-304.
Santiphop, T., Shrestha, R. P., & Hazarika, M. K. (2012). An analysis of factors affecting agricultural land use patterns and livelihood strategies of farm households in Kanchanaburi Province, Thailand. Journal of Land Use Science, 7(3), 331-348.
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis (IDS working papers No. 72). Retrieved from https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/sustainable-rural-livelihoods-a-framework-for-analysis/
Shirai, Y., & Rambo, A. T. (2017). Household structure and sources of income in a rice-growing village in northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Studies, 6(2), 275-292.
Townsend, R. M. (2018). Townsend Thai project household annual resurvey, 2000-2017 (Rural). Retrieved from https://townsend-thai.mit.edu/data/annual-resurvey.shtml
Van den Berg, M. (2010). Household income strategies and natural disasters: Dynamic livelihoods in rural Nicaragua. Ecological Economics, 69(3), 592-602.
Vanwey, L. K. (2003). Land ownership as a determinant of temporary migration in Nang Rong, Thailand. European Journal of Population/Revue Européenne de Démographie, 19(2), 121-145.
Vyas, S., & Kumaranayake, L. (2006). Constructing socio-economic status indices: How to use principal components analysis. Health Policy and Planning, 21(6), 459-468.
Walelign, S. Z. (2017). Getting stuck, falling behind or moving forward: Rural livelihood movements and persistence in Nepal. Land Use Policy, 65, 294-307.
Walelign, S. Z., & Jiao, X. (2017). Dynamics of rural livelihoods and environmental reliance: Empirical evidence from Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics, 83, 199-209.
Walelign, S. Z., Pouliot, M., Larsen, H. O., & Smith-Hall, C. (2017). Combining household income and asset data to identify livelihood strategies and their dynamics. The Journal of Development Studies, 53(6), 769-787.
Wang, P., Yan, J., Hua, X., & Yang, L. (2019). Determinants of livelihood choice and implications for targeted poverty reduction policies: A case study in the YNL river region, Tibetan Plateau. Ecological Indicators, 101, 1055-1063.
Winters, P., Corral, L., & Gordillo, G. A. (2001). Rural livelihood strategies and social capital in Latin America: Implications for rural development projects (Working Papers No. 12947). University of New England, School of Economics.
Zhang, J., Mishra, A. K., & Zhu, P. (2019). Identifying livelihood strategies and transitions in rural China: Is land holding an obstacle? Land Use Policy, 80, 107-117.
Zinda, J., & Zhang, Z. (2018). Land tenure legacies, household life cycles, and livelihood strategies in upland China. Rural Sociology, 83(1), 51-80.