AMALGAMATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITATIVE ORGANIZATION IN THAILAND
Keywords:
Local Administrative Organization; Small Local Administrative Organization; ThailandAbstract
This study aimed to examine the amalgamation of small local administrative organizations (LAOs) with insufficient budgets for providing public services, focusing on structure, personnel, and financial aspects, as well as proposing reform guidelines. Using a qualitative approach, the research analyzed 50 secondary case studies—40 domestic and 10 international—through content analysis. The findings reveal that small LAOs have advantages in terms of proximity and prompt service delivery but lack the capacity to develop infrastructure, as most of their budgets are allocated to personnel expenses. In contrast, larger LAOs possess greater infrastructure development capacity but often face issues of inefficiency, bureaucracy, and weak citizen engagement. The study highlights that organizational size directly affects administrative efficiency, with a minimum budget threshold of 50 million baht per year and an appropriate population size between 5,000 and 10,000 people, aligning with the World Bank’s recommendation of 10,000 people per LAO. Additionally, suitable jurisdictional areas are suggested at no less than 7.5 square kilometers for urban zones and 20 square kilometers for rural zones. Regarding governance models, three forms are proposed: (1) special local administrations, such as economic, cultural, tourism, or border zones, managed under a City Manager system; (2) general upper-tier administrations, such as provincial municipalities that consolidate city or town municipalities into a single authority; and (3) general lower-tier administrations, adaptable to local socio-economic contexts, including urban municipalities, rural municipalities, and special municipalities. Overall, these recommendations aim to enhance efficiency, strengthen decentralization, and ensure that LAOs can more effectively meet the needs of their citizens
References
Anderson, J. E. (1994). Public policy–making: Introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Bardach, E. (1980, September). Implementation studies and the study of implements. Paper presented at the 1980 meeting of the American Policy Science Association, University of California, Berkeley.
Chelimsky, E. (1978). Differing perspectives of evaluation. In C. C. Rentz & R. R. Rentz (Eds.), Evaluating federally sponsored programs: New directions for program evaluation (Vol. 2, Summer). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Considine, M. (1994). Public policy: A critical approach. South Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan.
Dye, T. R. (1981). Understanding public policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Easton, D. (1953). The political system. New York: Knopf.
Eulau, H., & Prewitt, K. (1973). Labyrinths of democracy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Eyestone, R. (1971). The threads of public policy: A study of policy leadership. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Friedrich, C. J. (1963). Constitutional government. New York: McGraw-Hill.
House, E. R. (1984). How we think about evaluation. In R. F. Conner, D. G. Altman, & C. Jackson (Eds.), Evaluation studies review annual (Vol. 9). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hurst, J. (2010). Effective ways to realise policy reforms in health systems (OECD Health Working Papers No. 51). Paris: OECD Publishing.
Lasswell, H. D., & Kaplan, A. (1970). Power and society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Nagel, S. S. (1994). Systemic policy evaluation. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of policy studies. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
National Institute of Population and Social Security Research. (2007). Social security in Japan. Tokyo: National Institute of Population and Social Security Research.
Owen, J. M. (1993). Program evaluation: Forms and approaches. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sabatier, P. A., & Mazmanian, A. (1989). Policy implementation. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of policy studies. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Sharkansky, I. (1970). Policy analysis in political science. Chicago, IL: Markham.
Smith, W. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Sombat, T. (2006). Public policy: Concepts, analysis, and processes (14th ed.). Bangkok: Sematham.
Suchart, Y. (2001). Public policy (5th ed.). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Sakon, C. (2011). From policy to practice: The 15-year free quality education policy. Bangkok: Ministry of Education.
Sujee, A. (1999). Effective management strategies. Songkhla: Chonbut Graphic.
Thomson, S., Foubister, T., & Mossialos, E. (2009). Financing health care in the European Union: Challenges and policy responses (Observatory Studies Series No. 17). Copenhagen: World Health Organization.
Voradech, C. (2011). Theories of public policy implementation (5th ed.). Bangkok: Prikwangraphic.
Williams, W. (1971). Social policy research and analysis: The experience in the federal social agencies. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co.
Zibulewsky, J. (2001). The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA): What it is and what it means for physicians. Proceedings (Baylor University Medical Center), 14(4), 339–346.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of MCU Buddhapanya Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
