New Public Administrative Approach of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives on Supervising Credit Union Cooperatives
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purposes of this research were to: 1) study the current state of supervising the Credit Union Cooperative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, 2) study the elements affecting the supervision of credit union cooperatives, and 3) study the new administrative approach for supervising the Credit Union Cooperative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. This research used qualitative research methods. The key informants were 1) government administrators, related agencies, and experts, 2) Klong Chan Credit Union Cooperatives executives, and 3) Klong Chan Credit Union Cooperatives members. The researcher used data collection methods and data analysis from documents, in-depth interviews, and brainstorming. Research findings were as follows. 1) The current state of supervising the Credit Union Cooperative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives was that the departments that supervise credit union cooperatives were the Cooperative Promotion Department and the Cooperative Auditing Department. The Director-General of the Cooperative Promotion Department was also a Cooperative Registrar, causing obstacles in coordination. 2) Insufficient government officials and lack of expertise. Cooperative managers did not have expertise. And cooperative members neglected supervision. 3) The new approach on supervising the credit union cooperatives consisted of amendments to cooperative laws, establishment of the Cooperative Registrar Office, standardize cooperative operations, strengthen the capacity of government officials, and establishment of collaborative network.
Article Details
Views and opinions expressed in the articles published by The Journal of MCU Peace Studies, are of responsibility by such authors but not the editors and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.
References
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571.
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2016). Handbook on theories of governance, UK.: Edward Elgar.
Azevedo, A., & Gitahy, L. (2010). The cooperative movement, self-management, and competitiveness: The case of Mondragon Corporacion Cooperativa. The Journal of Labor and Society, 13, 5-29.
Bevir, M. (2011). The SAGE handbook of governance. London: Sage Publications.
Considine, M. (2005). Making public policy: institutions, actors, strategies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Cooperative Promotion Department. (2018). The historical movement of cooperatives in Thailand. Retrieved June 1, 2018, from: https://bit.ly/2WxVKNK.
Corsidine, M., & Afzal, K.A. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Governance. London: Sage Publications.
Denhardt, J.V., & Denhardt, R.B. (2011). The new public service: Serving not steering (3rd ed.). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Hick, et al. (2008). The influence of collaboration on program outcomes: The Colorado nurse-family partnership. Evaluation Review, 32(5), 453-477.
Katsuyama, N. (2010). The economics of occupational licensing: Applying antitrust economics to distinguish between beneficial and anticompetitive professional licenses. Southern California Interdisc. Law Journal, 19(3), 565-587.
Kingsai, K., & Vaisamruat, K. (2018). Restructuring of the Thai Airways International Public Company Limited in time of crisis. Thammasat University Journal, 36(3), 183-216.
Kittiwiwatanapong, R., & Yossakrai, K. (2016). Paradox of outstanding savings cooperatives in Thailand and corruption problems. EAU Heritage Journal Social Science and Humanities, 6(1), 235-248.
Mitnick, B. (1980). The political economy of regulation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
OECD. (2005). Guiding principles for regulatory quality and performance. Paris: OECD.
Powell, W.W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network form of organizing. Research in Organizing Behavior, 12, 295-336.
Rakkwamsuk, E. (2017). New public service provided by the provincial parliament office. Western University Research Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(2), 139-151.
Siriprakob, P. (2017). 3 paradigms of public administration: concepts, theories, and practices. (3rd ed). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Sompong, S. (2009). Woman empowerment in natural resources and environmental management in the Chi river basin. (Doctoral Dissertation) Graduate School, Ramkhamhaeng University. Bangkok.
Stapenhurst, R., & Titsworth, J. (2002). Features and functions of supreme audit institutions. Openknowledge.worldbank.org. Retrieved August 8, 2019, from: https://bit.ly/2qb0RVJ.
Suchman, M.C. (1995). Legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Thepkraiwun, P. (2011). The development of collaborative network model for educational quality management in small sized primary schools. (Doctoralal Dissertation). Graduate School, Khonkaen University. Khonkaen.
Reeuwijk, L. P. (1998). Guidelines for quality management in soil and plant laboratories. Rome: Food & Agriculture Org.
Weber, E.P. (2009). Explaining institutional change in tough cases of collaboration: ‘Ideas’ in the Blackfoot Watershed. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 314-327.
