In line with the emerging market-driven neoliberal formation of the state, diminishing direct role of public governance, and increasing involvement of semi-state and non-state actors, there has been an unprecedented proliferation of reform initiatives to decentralize state power to local government organizations. While the proponents of decentralized local governance highlight its positive outcomes such as people's participation, need-based service delivery, public access and accountability, and political education, many critics draw attention to its adverse consequences like inter-regional disparity, unequal benefits to local elites, challenge to national unity, and local corruption and cronyism. However, the current discourse based on a universalist one-size-fits-all approach largely overlooks its contextual determinants such as the past legacy of centralization, configuration of local power structure, bureaucratic elitism, and so on. In exploring such concerns, this article focuses on the case of Thailand in order to examine how the country's past tradition of centralization, atmosphere of bureaucratic polity, and local political elitism may have significant implications for its massive decentralization initiatives and local government reforms undertaken since the early 1990s

Volume 33

Numbers 12-13