In Thailand, it is argued that centralised power and inefficient bureaucracy are still problems of the local development. Although the state has promoted decentralisation through the latest institution of local self-government, this has hardly achieved the genuine principles of local self-government. Paradoxically, policy and the approach of local bureaucratic development hardly differs from the conventional development and centralised administration used to promote agricultural activities and construct infrastructures based on static views of rural physical appearances by denouncing the dynamic context of the rural-urban linkage. Another crucial missing link of academic concern is that while political scientists study power and planners study the built environment, their precise interaction is under-researched. In particular, the local development gap in Thailand is due to a lack of comprehension of the relationships between the distinct relations of power between both state and economic factors, mobility, and the resulting planning practices. This article is excerpted from the results of a series of case studies in rural areas in Northeast Thailand. The results illustrate that based on state power and economic factors, mobility is the most striking issue, and it has affected the matter and flow of people and products between urban and rural areas. Moreover, nowadays the issue of mobility help us to better understand the real conditions of the villagers, places, and development policies.
|Keywords:||Power Relation, Mobility, Urban-Rural Linkage, Built Environment|
PhD Student, School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK