Search

This paper examines Iran and Thailand and shows that the distributional consequences of financialisation and globalisation do not depend exclusively on the extent of financial deepening and exposure to globalisation. Instead, the cultural and legal underpinnings of the creditor–debtor relationship and the form of global integration matter more. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This paper shows how the control over land and resources in rural Thailand in the present phase of globalisation is a struggle between economic, social and political powers at the global, national and local level. Ever since Thailand was integrated into the world market by signing the Bowring Treaty in 1855 and especially after it embarked on rapid development in the late 1950s economic growth has changed the rural (and urban) landscapes. Since the mid 1980s, export-oriented manufacturing industry has led Thailand into the present phase of globalisation by further liberalising its economy and increasingly leaving natural resources open to be exploited. Two socio-political tendencies have been competing in influencing territorialisation of rural Thailand. However, decentralisation and devolution of power promote local institutions that emphasise various degrees of self-reliance and sustainable utilisation of natural resources opposed to further liberalisation on the world market as promoted by national and transnational businesses and global institutions like the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Territorialisation of rural Thailand and management of local natural resources is therefore contested space where institutions at the local level operate in a contextual framework of policies formulated at the global level and implemented through national government agencies. The conflicts inherent in the multi-layered process of local territorialisation are blurred by the different institutions at different geographical levels having different perceptions of the environment. Political ecology or political environmental geography – promoted by a ‘counter-coalition’ of potentially like-minded actors operates on various levels in developing alternative territorialisation premised on socially just and sustainable livelihoods. Such approaches, it is proposed, are crucial to the study of local development in the context of globalisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of World Food Policy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents a case study of Burmese migrant workers in Mae Sot, Thailand who are employed in garment and textile manufacturing. Some of the issues explored include both micro and macro analyses of the economic and social impact of the group, their transnational experiences as part of globalization, and their relationship with their families in Burma as well as their new social relationships in Thailand.

The ongoing process of globalization in food provision is transforming the relationships between producers and consumers as well as the conventional role of governments in regulating the environment. Consumers are increasingly concerned about the environmental and social impacts of food production in developing countries and many are willing to take action. Conceptualizing globalization as the coming about of the network society offers an adequate basis for analysing transitions in food governance including new ways of consumer involvement. The case of shrimp produced through aquaculture in Thailand and consumed worldwide shows how innovative food governance arrangements appear in the context of global modernity. Authority and power in such arrangements are shifting away from national governments and towards producers, processors, traders and consumers along the supply chain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Urban & Regional Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the past decade Thailand's bubble of prosperity expanded beyond the wildest dreams of investors and burst in the faces of those who had inflated it. By being the fastest growing economy in the world as well as the epicentre of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Thailand became a cautionary tale of hypergrowth. During the boom and especially after the bubble economy burst there were heated debates in Thailand's highly energised public sphere about the accelerating pace of change, about political reform, and about the possible futures for the country and its people. All Asian countries subjected to the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) regime of austerity saw their national economic sovereignty compromised, and in this respect the financial crisis of 1997 had clear parallels with previous threats to Thailand's sovereignty in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Then, as in the late 1990s, the ruling elites allowed sovereignty to be compromised. In this essay I endeavour to map out the intellectual contours of post-boom Thailand. While accepting that these public debates are concentrated in the Bangkok megalopolis, I would suggest that it would be a mistake to dismiss the dominant themes of these debates as fatally elitist or Bangkok-centric. The public intellectuals engaging the issues have close ties to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other activists elsewhere in the country. At the core of these debates is the need to empower local communities in order to contend with the pressures of international financial organisations such as the IMF, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In economic terms, globalization is essentially the process of integration of national and local into a single global market. At present however, the process of globalization reflects an ongoing conflict between economic forces encouraging global integration and political forces that often re-emphasize the boundaries of the nation state. The recent economic crisis in East Asia has shown the downside of globalization. The Thai, Korean and Indonesian economies which grew very rapidly throughout the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, have not only seen a stalling of economic growth but also, following the crash of 1997, a reversal. For example, Thailand's GDP grew at 10.3 per cent from 1985 to 1990, which made Thailand the fastest growing economy in the world, ahead of other fast growing economies of the region. However, later the exchange rate suddenly collapsed in Thailand. Through an examination of the rise and fall of the Thai economy, the article explores the meaning of the globalization for a developing economy and eventually, the meaning of globalization itself. It argues that the problems facing the region did not arise because countries embraced the benefits of globalization, but because many countries in the region were unable to develop quickly enough the institutions and regulatory framework necessary to manage the process effectively.

The dual process of globalization and localization in the metropolis provides a challenging perspective for urban sociology and urban anthropology. Particularly in the mega cities of the third world, this process is highly contradictory and leads to intensifying conflicts about the use of urban land. By concentrating on the emerging localities and local forms of organization, it has been illustrated that globalization inevitably remains incomplete. the social creativity and agency of the city dwellers make them actors rather than objects or victims in the dynamics of change of the city. Localities thus provide a starting point for urban studies in which global, structural development can be linked with local processes and everyday life. From such a perspective, it seems possible to connect a sociological macroprospective of a world-system with anthropological research on the formation of local groups. In established slums in Manila, Philippines and Bangkok, Thailand closed-knit networks beyond kinship and ethnicity form the basis of local organizations. Personal relations in everyday life allow for social control, a rapid spread of information and a potential for the emergence of trust and solidarity.