Quote:
Originally Posted by
sabang
The Economist, Feb 3rd 2005.
Thaksin's way : A formidable success story, though with some worrying signs
Thailand's economy has also changed beyond recognition since Mr Thaksin became prime minister. In 2001, the year he took office, the economy grew by a sclerotic 2.1%. Fallout from the Asian crisis of 1997 was still evident. Banks, weighed down by bad debt, were not making new loans. Businesses, many of them bankrupt or saddled with useless excess capacity, were not hiring or expanding. Those who still had jobs had reined in their spending for fear of losing them, while those who had lost them returned to their native villages, leaving 14% of the population below the government's poverty line. Skeleton high-rises, abandoned in mid-construction, punctuated the Bangkok skyline.
Last year, by contrast, the economy grew by perhaps 6.2%, after spurting ahead by 6.8% in 2003—its best showing since 1995. Non-performing loans are down to just 12% of the total, from a high of almost 50%. Poverty has fallen to less than 10%. Many previously suspended construction projects are under way again. Traffic in Bangkok, a reliable economic indicator, is approaching gridlock once more, thanks to the record number of new cars that have taken to the roads in the last few years.
.... On the whole, these innovations have helped to make Thai politics more responsive to the concerns of ordinary voters, and less dependent on the whims of greedy machine politicians. But that does not mean, as some of Mr Thaksin's supporters argue, that he has nurtured democracy by doing away with Thailand's traditional “money politics”. After all, Mr Thaksin actively courts provincial barons.
Thailand's election: Thaksin's way | The Economist
Pretty good, balanced article from The Economist actually- although it neglects to mention that Thai government debt fell by over 40% during Thaksin's tenure too. It has gone up sharply since the coup. :rolleyes:
What makes you think I did my MBA in Isaan BF? :rofl:
Always amuses me when people post articles on economics without understanding the reasons.
Thaksin's tenure was (fortunately for him) during a period of unprecedented global economic growth. Economies all around the world grew at very fast rates. Thailand's economy is mostly export driven and also a fair chunk is tourism. Both of these would've expanded during the economic boom no matter who was in power (Hell, even Cambodia's economy did). The knock-on effect of this would've been to increase GDP growth, increase government revenue (thereby reducing government debt) and reduce poverty. There's no skill in doing nothing.
He was most fortunate and was never actually tested, as he was removed before the global financial crisis of 2008. Something the Democrat's had to manage.
People forget these details. I've often wondered why. Is it some desperate need to be seen to be correct? Or an inability to understand? Or gullibility?
It happened in the UK. For years Gordon Brown was chancellor and the economy boomed, as the global economy was booming, he sat back and enjoyed the plaudits, basked in the glory. When it all when tits up (with him as PM), he was shown to be the utter incompetent he really was. He had no answer. He was voted out as soon as possible.
