Measuring Rural-Urban Disparity Toward Promoting Integrated Development Prospects between Rural and Urban Areas in Thailand

Measuring Rural-Urban Disparity Toward Promoting Integrated
Development Prospect between Rural and Urban Areas in Thailand
By

Choen Krainara
PhD Candidate
2008
1. Introduction
Thailand has adopted a five-year National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) since
1961.This plan applied to guide national development path through a range of coherent polices, programmes
and projects with the aim to advance socio-economic progress and uplift the well-being of Thai society.
Currently, it is under the implementation of the 10th NESDP (2007-2011). It is indeed worth noting
chronology of its 47 years of continuous existence of the NESDP which can be broadly divided into 3 stages.
This judgment based on particular emphasis given to the national spatial development policies context. The
first period (1961-1971) focused on formulating master plan, physical infrastructure investment, agricultural
development as well as import-substitution industrialization. The second period (1972-1996) emphasized on
framing comprehensive national development plan, structural adjustment, and reduced social and economic
disparity through rural development. The third period (1997-2011) highlighted on poverty alleviation,
sufficiency economy, building national competitiveness, environmental and natural resources management.

It is evident that Thailand has placed specific importance on strengthening spatial progress particularly
rural development over the years. Regional growth center concept and an integrated regional development
have domestically been adopted to guide spatial development in an equitable growth pattern. Due to
economic forces of regionalizaton, Thailand has additionally been forging towards regional economic
integration with neighbouring countries for over 15 years through policies/ programmes namely the Greater
Mekong Sub-region (GMS) and the Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand (IMT-GT) and bilateral cooperation.
Therefore, a convergence of internal and external spatial integration can be perceived. Most importantly, it is
necessary to internally measure the impact of the past national policies to what extent in bringing balanced
development of rural-urban areas. What is the progress of actions being undertaken to bridge rural-urban gap?
Clearer understanding on these issues can help formulate appropriate policies to address sustainable national
spatial development in this globalization era. The objectives of this paper are to firstly measure state of rural-
urban disparity in Thailand using some available indicators. It is secondly to asses the impact of
measures/actions taken to bride the rural-urban gap. Lastly relevant recommendation towards promoting
integrated development prospect between rural and urban areas in Thailand will be made.

2. Measuring Rural-Urban Disparity in Thailand
To investigate the state of rural-urban disparity in Thailand, Time Series data for 10 years horizon during
1997-2006 are used. It should be noted that there are some variations of time series of specific indicators to
be analyzed resulting from discontinuous availability of data. There are three major aspects to be studied
ranging from economic, social and environmental features. With respect to indicators, it intends to correspond
with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and sustainable development. Efforts have been made to
search for data. It then found out that all relevant data are typically compiled and represented at national,
regional and regional levels. It should thus be aware that it is extremely difficult to find such matched
indicators further disaggregated between rural and urban areas in Thailand.

Rural-Urban Relations Course 1
Regional and Rural Development Planning Field of Study, SERD, AIT

2.1 Economic Aspect Three key indicators are examined as follows:
1) Number and Ratio of Poverty
In 1990, the total number of people in poverty nation wide was at 20.82 Million or 38.18 % of
total population. Rural poverty accounted for 17.40 Million and urban poverty represented with
3.42 Million. The ratio of poverty was at 45.20 % in rural area and 21.35 % in urban area. Some
12 years later in 2004, the total number of people in poverty nation wide decreased to 7.09 Million
or 11.25 % of total population.

Likewise rural poverty shrank to 6.10 Million and urban poverty declined to 0.97 Million. The
ratio of poverty dropped to 14.26 % in rural area and 4.86 % in urban area. It implied that
Thailand has achieved some development progress in terms of income, but the magnitude of rural
poverty is larger than rural poverty for 7.11 times. Therefore, it is still challenging Thailand to
eradicate poverty, and bring down rural-urban gap on poverty incidence in order to ultimately
push Thailand out of poverty. (Please see detailed statistics in Table 1 and Table 2)

2) Access to Electricity of Villages
Access to electricity of villages is analyzed during the year 1992-2005. It presumed that there are
at 100 % of access to electricity in urban area. It should be noted that more number of villages are
added periodically. Villages with good access to electricity were increased from 92.2 % in 1992 to
93.8 % in 2005. Villages with moderate access to electricity were fluctuated from 4.2 % in 1992 to
5.2% in 2005, following the addition of villages. No access to electricity was decreased from 3.6
% in 1992 to 1.0 % in 2005. Overall, assessment shown that there is yet some rural-urban gaps on
this electricity coverage due to the criteria in counting those villages accessed to electricity are
quite broad. (Please see detail statistics and criteria in Table 1.3) It means that there may be more
numbers of Thai villages have not yet been added up and thus no access to electricity partly
resulting from scattered settlements in rural areas.

3) Number of People Access to Internet
Although this indicator is not stated in the MDGs, but it is important in the sense that this will
open up opportunity for connection with outside world in terms of marketing as well seeking for
job availability using internet. This is mainly private-oriented investment in providing services. In
1999, there were 1.19 Million internet users in rural area at the ratio of 3,108.7 per 100,000
populations that are quite low. While there were 2.34 Million internet users at the ratio of
12,361.5. In 2004, both the number and ratio of internet users in rural areas increased to 4.22
Million and 10,211.6 per 100,000 populations respectively. Whereas in urban area, there were
4.24 Million internet users with the ratio at 23,370.9. In this regard, the ratio of internet users in
urban area has 2.28 times higher than that in rural area. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen
proper use of internet to rural people so that they can make right use for educational and business
purposes. (Please see detail statistics and criteria in Table 1.4)

2.2 Social Aspect Four major indicators are studied as follows:
1) Population Distribution
In 1997, Thailand had total population at 60.81 Million categorized into those living in rural area
at 49.62 Million or 81.6 % while there were 11.18 Million or 18.4 % lived in urban area. Later,
rapid urbanization took place due to industrialization. Particularly from 2003 onwards, increased
urbanization rates fueled partly due to the upgradation of local government bodies, which are
responsible for local urban development. As a result, in 2006, people living in rural area declined
to 43.77 Million or 67.1 %, while those living in urban area kept increasing at 21.46 Million or
32.9 %. This trend is yet escalating in the future. However, rural-urban migration and
environmental problems particularly in Bangkok and vicinity and regional growth centers have


become a national drawback. For that reason, balancing rural-urban development is currently a
great challenge for Thailand. (Please see detailed statistics and criteria in Table 2.1)

2) Literacy rate and functional literacy rate
In 1992, the nation-wide literacy rate for those aged above 6 years old was at 90.6 % breaking into
88.4% in rural area and 95.4 % in urban area. In 1994, it increased to 90.1 % in rural area and
96.0% in urban area and 91.5 % nation wide. In general, literacy rate in Thailand is satisfactorily
improving and it has promising prospect to further rise in the future, as Thailand is ranked second
highest literacy rate in ASEAN region. Nevertheless, functional literacy rate, which is measured
on extent of rational thinking of those above 15 years old compared with the same age, needs to
pay special attention. In 1992, there were 42.3 % nation wide breaking down into 36.5 % in rural
area and 57.1 % in urban area. However, it kept increasing in 2003 at 54.3 % in rural area and 71.2
% in urban area, there is still much different rate between rural and urban comparison. This can
influence way of life, which we can observe that rural people sometimes blindly follow urban
lifestyle leading to unrational spending and affect community strength. (Please see detailed
statistics in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3)

3) Percentage of People Access to Heath Security
There are at least seven types of health security, but this study will focus on those who can access
to government health security. In 1991, there were 68 % and 65 % of of rural and urban people
who did not have health security respectively. In 2001, Thai Government initiated the 30 Baht
Universal Health Care Scheme for poor people. As a result, in 2006, the percentage of people
accessible to health security augmented at 82.1 % and 56.3% in rural and urban area respectively.
This initiative has greatly helped bridge the rural-urban gap of access to health security to a
balanced situation particularly for the poor and low-income groups in Thai society. (Please see
detailed statistics in Table 2.4)

4) Infant Mortality Ratio
In 1964/1965, Infant mortality ratio per 1,000 live births was at 85.5 % in rural area, whereas there
were 67.6 % in urban area. Some 35 years later in 1995, it brought down to 28.2% and 15.2 % in
rural and urban area respectively. Still, the gap of ratio between rural and urban area increased at
1.85 times in 1995/1996 particularly in rural highland and three southernmost provinces. Please
see detailed statistics in Table 2.5)

2.3 Environmental Aspect Two major indicators are highlighted as follows:
1) Proportion of household with access to safe drinking water or improved water source
In 1990, nation wide proportion of household with access to safe drinking water or improved
water source were at 80 % dividing into 76.2 % and 96 % in rural and urban area respectively.
Later in 2006, it much improved particularly in rural area up to 84.7% bringing to almost balanced
development with urban area at 96.8%. Thanks to the decentralization policy in setting up Tambon
Administration Organization (TAO) for provision of rural basic infrastructure services in the
recent years. (Please see detailed statistics in Table 3.1)

2) Solid Waste Management
In 1997, 13.56 Million Tons of solid wastes were generated nation wide breaking into 5.55
Million Tons and 8.01 Million Tons in rural and urban area respectively. In 2006, rural solid waste
was slightly increased to 6.82 Million Tons. Urban solid waste was fluctuating around 7.77
Million Tons. Bangkok alone generated solid waste at 21.0 % of total amount nation wide, but it is
capable to almost dispose waste created. There is growing imbalance between Bangkok and both
rural and the rest of urban areas in handling solid waste due to they can arrange only of half of


solid waste generated. This can pose public nuisance and health risks to community nearby to the
waste dumping sites in both rural and urban areas.

3. Policy Measures/Strategies/Actions Taken to Bridge the Rural-Urban Gap and Its Impacts
The Royal Thai Government has recognized these rural-urban gaps. In response to this, relevant policy
measures, strategies and actions to bridge the rural urban gap have been actively initiated and implemented in
the last 5 years. This consisted of two major policies namely the Grass Roots Economy and Social Security
and the Provincial Well-Being (NESDB, 2004). The brief features are described as follows:

3.1 The Grass Roots Economy and Social Security Policy
It was initiated during 2002-2003 under the leadership of Prime Minister Pol.Lt.Col.Dr. Thaksin
Shinawatra. The overarching objectives were to generate income and employment as well as building
community strength and community management towards self-reliance. This initiative was realized nation
wide in both rural and urban areas through seven key large projects as follows:

1) The People Bank Project It carried out by the Government Savings Bank by granting low interest
loans to those low-income groups particularly for informal sector entrepreneurs. By accessing to this
credit, it helps the poor to be able to invest in a range of businesses so that they can earn more income as
well as improving quality of life. In addition, the project helps them to be able to repay for previous
informal credit and enhance household savings through special interest rates offered. During 2002-2003,
740,718 low-income group customers borrowed money with the amount of 15,150.52 Million Baht. The
project proved successful in widening access to credit particularly for the poor. Nevertheless, it found that
the poorest of the poor get fewer benefits than SMEs entrepreneurs due to lack of managerial skills. In
addition, out standing loans were found at quite high rate.

2) Building of New Entrepreneurship Project It coordinated by Department of Industrial Promotion
with the objective was to train those unemployed and newly graduated persons to become a good
entrepreneur including provision of investment advisory and incubation. During 2002-2003, 14,656
individuals were trained. Subsequently, they made real investment at 7,454.29 Million Baht with total
2,415 established businesses. This created 14,584 job positions and the bank granted loan for investment
at 1,281.64 Million Baht. The project proved flourishing in creating job and investment. More importantly
it helps reduce rural to urban labour migration. Yet, it required more integrated coordination among
government related agencies.

3) Universal Health Care or 30 Baht Scheme Project It executed by Ministry of Public Health with the
objective was to ensure equal access to health care services of all Thai citizens’ particularly those low
income, the poor and disadvantageous groups. In 2003, a large number of 47.97 Million population or
73.2 % of total population registered to get access to this benefit. It helped save medical expenditures of
those who never had any types of health security at 10,634 Million Baht or 710.50 Baht/person/year. In
2003, the government spent budget at 58,055.67 Million Baht for the project. It revealed successful in
terms bringing balance of rural urban access to health care services particularly for the poor and poorest
of the poor as well as increasing public participation in public health security system. However, on supply
side, almost government hospitals faced low financial liquidity, eroding treatment quality and huge brain
drain of medical professionals to urban areas.

4) Agricultural Debt Moratorium Project It supported by Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural
Cooperatives (BAAC) with the objective was to alleviate debt burden of small farmers so that they will be
recovering from indebtedness. The qualified farmers must have debt not over 100,000 Baht per person.
During 2001-2004, 1,594,007 small farmers benefited with total debt moratorium at 94,328.46 Million


Baht breaking into 49.7 % in Northeastern, 27.2% in Northern, 12.4% in Central and 10.7% in Southern
region respectively. In addition, the farmers were undergone training technology transfer, occupational
revitalization as well as producing voluntary soil doctors, etc. The project substantiates positive results in
lightening debt burden at 97% of targeted farmers. However, more awareness building on right use of the
fund among farmers should be strengthened as well as finding means to minimize both formal and
informal debts. Favorable attention should be paid to lend a hand to the poorest of the poor groups.

5) Village Development Fund Project It initiated by providing 1 Million Baht revolving fund for each
village in order to utilize for generating jobs and reduces expenditures as well as building learning process
in managing the fund. During 2002-2003, 74,838 village funds were established with 12.1 Million
members totally granted loans at 167,887 Million Baht. Each member is eligible to borrow money at a
maximum of 20,000 Baht with repayment term for 1 year. Low interest rate charge is applied. Three
categories of the fund were divided consisting of AAA (well-managed) AA (moderate-managed) and A
(poor-managed). 70.81 % of members utilized the fund for agricultural activities, while 17.02% were
spent for trading activities, and the rest were used for other purposes. The project well achieved its goals,
as a large number of poor people ever accessible to credit so that they can expend for various productive
investment purposes. Yet, it found that the repayment term is rather short and many members misused the
fund. Moreover, some members borrowed money from other sources to repay the loan. Importantly, the
poorest of the poor have been received low amount of loanable fund due to lack of guarantors. Positively,
the fund has regarded as a means to bring balanced development of rural-urban areas as well as helping
build community strength and redistribute community welfare.

6) One Tambon One Product (OTOP) Project It has been targeted to eradicate rural poverty by
generating job and income opportunities as well as promoting an application of indigeneous wisdom into
valuable products for selling in both domestic and global markets. OTOP products mainly foods, herbal
products, handicrafts, and weaving were registered and then categorized into five distinguished stars
based on judged quality. Government rendered supports on quality assurance. During 2002-2003, a
combined sales volume was amounted at 52,207 Million Baht with as many as 6,932 selective 3-5 stars
products participated. Online marketing channel via internet website at www.thaitambon.com was set up.
Sixty percents of entrepreneurs formed as group enterprises. Interestingly, 80% of entrepreneurs were
women. This project has achieved in pulling people to stay back in rural areas, and helps revitalize
Thailand’s rural industry. Nonetheless, lack of skilled labor, capital and managerial skills, inadequate
skills on international trade, computer and internet usages were widely raised.

7) Caring Home Project It additionally implemented by Ministry of Social Development and Human
Security through National Housing Authority. The objective was to address shortage problems of standard
housing for low income groups with total monthly household income lower than 15,000 Baht by making
available affordable housings for these target groups representing low ranked government officials, state
enterprise’s staff and those people in informal sector particularly residing in urban areas. The project was
a special feature and had been put into operation from 2003-2007 with maximum capacity at 600,000
units, accounted for 45% of total low income housing’s demand. The investment cost had been at 293,932
Million Baht dividing into government budget (subsidy) at 52,920 Million Baht (18%) and commercial
loans at 241,012 Million Baht (82%). About 80 % of housing units were mainly concentrated in Bangkok
and vicinity. The initiative demonstrated that the policy is on the right direction in meeting mass demand
of low income housing together with providing clean living environment as well as fostering true sense of
community strength. Nevertheless, more provision of social services, convenient community transport
system at reasonable price should be fully supported. Government should also streamline budgeting
system in collaboration with private sector participation.


3.2 Provincial Well-Being Policy
It was commenced during 2007-2008 under the leadership of Prime Minister General Surayuth
Chulanond. The aims were to strengthen participatory community development in an integrated fashion by
linking the active role of local administration units and central and regional government agencies in
upholding community planning so that they can solve own local problems. This is moving towards asset-
based community development approach complemented by a need-based community development approach.
This is done in parallel with progressive decentralization policy. So this policy is quite similar to the above
mentioned policy but it is much more focus on building community strength as well as particular importance
on rural development in order to bride the gap of rural-urban areas by integrating all activities at provincial
level. Five major programmes were undertaken comprising 1) Implementing the Philosophy of Sufficiency
Economy 2) Developing and Building Opportunity for the Communities 3) Enhancing Happiness and Well-
Being in Communities 4) Fostering Welfare for the Disadvantageous Groups and 5) Providing of Basic
Services to Communities. In 2007, the Government approved 7,000 Million Baht of budget with total number
of 91,916 already implemented projects.

4. Conclusion
Thailand demonstrates in transition in terms of rural-urban disparity, though overall national economic
performance is doing well. Polarization dominated by Bangkok and vicinity still existed living some stark
differerence between metropolis and the countryside. Dynamics of rural-urban relations is taking place and
Thailand yet has a great deal of work to bride this gap. Convergence of top-down and bottom up approach
have helped to increased equitable access to resources for development. Thailand is also on the right track on
reinforcing asset-based community development so that community strength is realized. Thanks to the
government and policy makers that have seen the essence of the grassroots economy that lay at the heart of
national wealth and competitiveness, equality, national security, social cohesion and sustainable development,
as there are majority of Thai citizens engaged in this section of economy. This will take sometimes to bring
balanced development of rural-urban areas. However, if we exert more efforts, it will bear fruits in terms of
establishing strong interactions and linkages reflecting the overall strength of the national economy.

5. Recommendations Towards Promoting Integrated Development Prospect between Rural and
Urban Areas in Thailand
Based on the above findings, some recommendations for promoting integrated development prospect
between rural and urban areas in Thailand can be made as follows:

5.1 A database of development progress reflecting spatial dimention disaggregated into both rural and
urban areas should be established so that it can help assess the progress of development policies and
public investments.

5.2 Continue strengthening community development through asset-based approach supported by
conducive environment of vertical and horizontal integration of government policies and actions.

5.3 Rural industrialization particularly on agro-processing and rural artisan industries should play crucial
role in attracting people to stay back in rural areas while their income opportunity and quality of life are
enhanced. This can be upheld in villages or secondary cities. Moreover, supportive marketing and
promotion activities through various means domestically and internationally should be created.

5.4 Special measures to address/build necessary capacity for the poor and poorest of the poor in terms of
access to credit, entreprenurship, social security and welfare should be built up so that they can be
integrated into local, regional and national economy.


5.5 Community organizations e.g. community- based oganizations, cooperatives, self-help groups should
be strengthened in building strong community enterprises and social cohesion.

5.6 Land reform activities to cater better livelihoods of those landlessness in rural area should proactively
be sustained.

5.7 Local administration units should be empowered in terms of budget, staff and policy coordination so
that they can effectively respond to the changing need of local communities. A broad-based collaboration
with civic groups and private sector should be boosted.

------------------------------------------


References

Asian Development Bank, 2007, Key Development Indicators 2007: Inequality: in Asia, Manila

Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, 2004, Report of Assessment of Grassroots
Economy and Social Security Policies for the 2003, Bangkok

Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, 2007, Table of Data on Poverty and Income
Distribution, Bangkok

Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board and Asian Development Bank, 2003, Planning
for Sustainable Urbanization in Thailand Project: Promoting Rural-Urban Linkages in Thailand prepared by
Douglas Webster and Noppanan Tapananon, Bangkok

Ministry of Public Health, the State of Thailand Public Health for the Year 2005-2006, Bangkok

Thailand Development Research Institute, 2006, the Report on Project for Prioritization of Problems on Natural
Resources and Environment, Bangkok

United Nations Development Programme, 2007, Thailand Human Development Report 2007: Sufficiency
Economy and Human Development, Bangkok

http://www.dopa.go.th for data of Thailand’s population from the year 1997-2003 retrieved on 13 March 2008

http://www.rakbankerd.com for data on summary of Thailand’s National Economic and Social Development
Plans, retrieved on 11 March 2008

http://www.nesdb.go.th for data on literacy rate and infant mortality ratio, retrieved on 21 March 2008


List of Tables

1. Economic Aspect

Table 1.1 Number of Poverty
Sector Year
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Urban 3.42 2.32 1.98 1.26 1.34 1.60 1.30 0.97
(Million)
Rural 17.40 15.72 12.18 8.53 9.67 11.15 8.20 6.10
(Million)
Nation Wide 20.82 18.05 14.16 9.80 11.01 12.76 9.50 7.09
Source: Table of Data on Poverty and Income Distribution, 2007, Office of Local Economic Development and
Income Distribution, Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board

Table 1.2 Ratio of Poverty
Sector Year
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Urban 21.35 14.10 11.70 7.28 7.49 8.70 6.66 4.86
(%)
Rural 45.20 40.27 30.75 21.26 23.74 26.96 19.72 14.26
(%)
Nation Wide 38.18 32.50 25.04 17.03 18.78 21.32 15.55 11.25

Source: Table of Data on Poverty and Income Distribution, 2007, Office of Local Economic
Development and Income Distribution, Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board

Table 1.3 Access to Electricity of Villages for the Year 1992-2005
Year Number of total Access to electricity No Access to electricity
villages which Good Moderate Number of %
data were Number % Number % villages
analyzed of of
villages villages
1992 59,354 54,719 92.2 2,466 4.2 1,169 3.6
1994 59,059 55,590 94.1 1,675 2.8 1,794 3.0
1996 60,215 57,523 95.5 1,198 2.0 1,494 2.5
1999 63,230 56,483 89.3 5,678 9.0 1,069 1.7
2001 66,193 60,128 90.8 4,698 7.1 1,367 2.1
2003 68,496 60,613 88.5 7,096 10.4 787 1.1
2005 69,096 64,807 93.8 3,568 5.2 721 1.0

Source: Rural Development Database, Department of Community Development quoted in quoted in the
State of Thailand Public Health for the Year 2005-2006, Ministry of Public Health
Remarks: Good means the village whose households are accessed to public electricity at more than half
of the total village households
Moderate means the village whose households are accessed to public electricity at less than half of the
total village households


Table 1.4 Number of People Access to Internet
Sector Year
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Urban 2.34 3.80 4.15 3.80 4.24
(Million)
Ratio/100,000 12,361.5 19,897.3 21,427.9 21,230.5 23,370.9
Population
Rural 1.19 2.22 2.81 3.27 4.22
(Million)
Ratio/100,000 3,108.7 5,750.2 7,177.6 7,964 10,211.6
Population
Total 3.53 6.03 6.97 7.08 8.46
Number
Nation wide
Nation wide 6,163.7 10,434.1 11,891.8 11,990.6 14,226.2
Ratio/100,000
Population

Source: National Statistical Office, Report of Survey on Household Use of ICT for the years 1999, 2001, 2002,
2003 and 2004, quoted in the State of Thailand Public Health for the Year 2005-2006, Ministry of Public
Health

2. Social Aspect

Table 2.1 Population Distribution
Sector Year
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Urban 11.18 11.33 11.43 11.45 17.84 17.97 18.04 20.67 21.05 21.46
(Million)
Percentage (%) 18.4 18.4 18.54 18.51 28.65 28.62 28.6 32.2 32.5 32.9
Rural 49.62 50.15 50.23 50.42 44.45 44.82 45.03 43.53 43.71 43.77
(Million)
Percentage (%) 81.6 81.6 81.46 81.49 71.35 71.38 71.4 67.8 67.5 67.1
Nation Wide 60.81 61.46 61.66 61.87 62.3 62.79 63.07 64.2 64.76 65.23
(Million)

Source: 1. www.dopa.go.th for data from the year 1997-2003 retrieved on 13 March 2008
2. Key Development Indicators 2007: Inequality in Asia, Asian Development Bank for data from the year
2004-2006, Manila


Table 2.2 Literacy Rate

Region Year 1992 Year 1994
Northern 86.7 88.6
North Easter 90.0 90.9
Central 93.1 94.0
Southern 86.7 88.2
Bangkok 97.0 97.9
Urban Area 95.4 96.0
Rural Area 88.7 90.1
Average Nation Wide 90.6 91.5
Source: www.nesdb.go.th
Remarks: Literacy rate means the ratio of those above 6 years old who can read and write at least one language per
total population

Table 2.3 Functional Literacy Rate
Sector Year
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Urban 61.7 65.4 67.5 68.6 70.0 70.8 71.2
(%)
Rural 42.2 46.9 49.4 50.8 52.9 54.6 54.3
(%)
Nation Wide 48.5 53.0 55.3 56.6 58.7 60.1 60.0

Source: Office of Development Evaluation and Dissemination, Office of the National Economic and Social
Development Board quoted in the State of Thailand Public Health for the Year 2005-2006, Ministry of
Public Health
Remarks: Functional Literacy Rate means level of ability of reading and writing and basic calculation that can be
applied this skill in solving problems of daily life. It measured from ratio of those people above 15 years
old who are finished primary education or equivalent per population in the same age.


Table 2.4 Percentage of People Access to Heath Security
Category of Urban Area Rural Area
Health 1991 1996 2001 2003 2004 2006 1991 1996 2001 2003 2004 2006
Security
1. No health 65 58 9 9 10.1 7.7 68 52 22 3 3.5 2.5
security
2.Government 22 17 15 15 15.3 14.1 6 7 9 6 6.5 6.6
Officials and
state enterprise
employee

3.30 Baht - - 56 56 54.6 56.3 - - - 84 82.8 82.1
Universal
Health Scheme

4.Social - 11 18 18 18.2 19.8 - 3 4 6 7.0 7.7
Security
5.Government 7 11 - - - - 23 36 66 - - -
Health
Insurance Card

6.Private 5 2 3 3 1.8 1.6 1 1 1 1 0.3 0.3
Health
Insurance
7.Others 1 1 1 - - 0.6 1 1 1 - - 0.7

Source: The State of Thailand Public Health for the Year 2005-2006, Ministry of Public Health

Table 2.5 Infant Mortality Ratio/ 1,000 Live Births

Year Total Urban Rural Ratio of Rural/Urban
1964/1965 84.3 67.6 85.5 1.26
1985/1986 40.7 27.6 42.6 1.54
1991 34.5 21.0 37.0 1.76
1995-1996 26.0 15.2 28.2 1.85

Source: www.nesdb.go.th

3. Environmental Aspect

Table 3.1 Proportion of household with access to safe drinking water or improved water source
Sector Year
1990 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Urban 96 95.9 97.6 98 90 95.4 96.8
(%)
Rural 76.2 67.9 73.6 77.2 75.7 83.2 84.7
(%)
Nation Wide 80 73.6 78.5 81.6 80.4 87.2 88.6
Source: Thailand Development Research Institute, 2006, the Report on Project for Prioritization of Problems on
Natural Resources and Environment


Table 3.2 Solid Waste
Sector Year
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Urban 8.01 7.55 7.78 7.63 7.74 7.88 7.83 7.97 7.65 7.77
(Million
Ton/Year)
Rural 5.55 6.04 6.04 6.3 6.6 6.43 6.5 6.6 6.67 6.82
(Million
Ton/Year)
Nation Wide 13.56 13.59 13.82 13.93 14.34 14.31 14.33 14.57 14.32 14.59

Source: Division of Solid Waste and Hazardous Management, Department of Pollution Control quoted in the State
of Thailand Public Health for the Year 2005-2006, Ministry of Public Health


Measuring Rural-Urban Disparity Toward Promoting Integrated Development Prospects between Rural and Urban Areas in Thailand

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (8)

Ähnlich wie Measuring Rural-Urban Disparity Toward Promoting Integrated Development Prospects between Rural and Urban Areas in Thailand

Ähnlich wie Measuring Rural-Urban Disparity Toward Promoting Integrated Development Prospects between Rural and Urban Areas in Thailand (20)

Mehr von Dr.Choen Krainara

Mehr von Dr.Choen Krainara (20)

Measuring Rural-Urban Disparity Toward Promoting Integrated Development Prospects between Rural and Urban Areas in Thailand