Thailand’s public sector reform in the 1990s aims to delegate authority and resources to local administrative organizations (LAOs) as key entities to provide public services and enhance the quality of life of the citizens at the locality (Unger & Mahakanjana, 2016; Wongpreedee & Mahakanjana, 2017). Despite such an effort, LAOs continue to encounter significant challenges and obstacles in public service delivery, primarily due to inefficiency resulting from the high number of LAOs, each operating with limited budgets (Lowatcharin & Crumpton, 2019). Recent proposals advocate for increasing LAO efficiency through inter-local collaboration, wherein two or more LAOs jointly provide services, either through shared service provision or other collaborative models. Additionally, cross-sector collaboration, which involves cooperation between LAOs and other sectors, has been proposed. However, empirical studies indicate that inter-local collaboration remains rare, and cross-sector collaboration is even less common among LAOs.
LAOs face difficulties in delivering certain types of public services due to the high costs involved, which small organizations cannot efficiently manage. Hence, collaboration between LAOs or between LAOs and other agencies is a viable strategy to improve public service quality and coverage. Studies from various countries demonstrate that LAOs have enhanced service efficiency through elevation, merger or amalgamation, or inter-agency collaboration. For instance, Japan’s government reduced the number of municipalities by over 50%, from 3,234 to 1,718, in 2011 (Lowatcharin, 2017). In Thailand, although studies have examined the feasibility of merging LAOs to enhance efficiency, such mergers face numerous challenges, including political interests and public preferences for small, close-knit local governments (Tantivejjavanichaya & Luangprapat, 2019; Lowatcharin et al., 2021).
Beyond merging LAOs, another promising approach is inter-local collaboration. This concept involves multiple LAOs jointly conducting activities or providing specific public services to their populations. This collaborative approach has been recognized since the enactment of the Municipal Act of 1953, which includes provisions for cooperation. Another critical concept is cross-sector collaboration, framed within the broader context of new public governance or collaborative governance, which has evolved in public administration since the 2000s (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Gash, 2022). This concept emphasizes not only intergovernmental relations but also partnerships between government entities and other sectors, such as private, volunteer, or non-profit organizations, to design, deliver, and provide public services to local communities (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006).
Despite legal frameworks and sustained efforts by both the government and academics to promote LAO collaboration, practical implementation remains limited. Research by Khamnuansilpa et al. (2020) reveals that both inter-local and cross-sector collaborations are rare, often limited to basic networking, coordination, or budget support.
Several challenges and obstacles impede inter-local and cross-sector collaboration in Thailand:
- Nature of Collaboration: Meaningful collaboration requires long-term commitment and continuous trust-building (Act for Youth, 2013). Changes in leadership or personnel can disrupt or halt collaborative efforts.
- Legal Constraints: Despite laws empowering municipalities to form syndicates and allowing LAOs to invest jointly with the private sector, practical implementation faces significant barriers due to subsidiary laws and related regulations. For example, the collaboration between five municipalities in Khon Kaen province to establish a light rail transit system has been hindered by legal issues (Taweesaengsakulthai et al., 2019; Tun & Lowatcharin, 2020).
- Dependency of LAOs: Hierarchical relationships and the cultural context in Thailand result in smaller LAOs relying on resources from larger ones, which may discourage larger organizations from pursuing collaboration (Chamchong, 2019).
- Local Leadership: The vision, commitment, and alliance-building skills of local leaders are crucial. Regardless of the readiness of local personnel, citizens, and networks, collaboration cannot occur without the support of local leaders. Research by Phonsungnoen and Lowatcharin (2024) highlights the significant role of mayoral capabilities in fostering collaboration between LAOs and other sectors.
To address the above challenges and obstacles faced by LAOs, several policy implications and recommendations emerge. Firstly, fostering long-term collaboration necessitates building trust and establishing stable leadership within LAOs. Policies should focus on leadership development programs and creating continuity in administrative positions to mitigate disruptions caused by personnel changes. Secondly, legal reforms are crucial to remove barriers that hinder inter-local and cross-sectoral collaborations. Simplifying regulatory frameworks and providing clear guidelines for cooperative ventures can facilitate smoother implementation of joint initiatives. Additionally, incentivizing collaboration through financial support and resource-sharing mechanisms can encourage smaller LAOs to engage in partnerships with larger organizations, ensuring equitable access to resources and expertise. Lastly, promoting a culture of collaboration through training programs, workshops, and knowledge-sharing platforms can help embed collaborative practices within the organizational culture of LAOs. By addressing these areas, policymakers can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of public service delivery, ultimately improving the quality of life for citizens.
Grichawat Lowatcharin
Assistant Professor and Associate Dean for Academic, Research, and Global Affairs
College of Local Administration, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
References
Act for Youth. (2013). Community collaboration. New York: Youth Centre for Excellence. Retrieved from http://www.actforyouth.net/youth_development/communities/ collaboration.cfm
Ansell C. & Gash, A. (2028). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(special issue), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x
Chamchong, P. (2019). The influence of socio-cultural conditions on inter-local collaboration: Rethinking resource-dependency theory from the lessons of Thailand. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 19(3), 4.
Gash, A. (2022). Collaborative governance. In Handbook on theories of governance (pp. 497-509). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lowatcharin, G. (2017). Local government consolidation: lessons from selected countries. Thai Journal of Public Administration, 15(2), 57-57.
Lowatcharin, G., & Crumpton, C. D. (2019). Local government and intergovernmental relations in Thailand. In P. Chachavalpongpun (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Thailand. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315151328
Lowatcharin, G., Crumpton, C. D., Menifield, C. E., & Promsorn, O. (2021). What Influences Success of Small Local Government Amalgamations: A Comparison of Cases in Thailand and the United States. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 34(5): 568–585. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-10-2020-0271.
Kamnuansilpa, P., Lowatcharin, G., Laochankham, S., Zumitzavan, V., Mahasirikul, N., Prachumrasee, K., & Ronghanam, P. (2021). The Development of Public Policies to Enhance the Capacity of Local Administrative Organizations in Reducing Economic Disparity and Improving the Quality of Life of People in The Area [Research Report]. National Research Council of Thailand.
Phonsungnoen, P., & Lowatcharin, G. (2024). An An Exploration of Cross-Sector Collaboration Among Thai Local Government Units During the COVID-19. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research in Asia, 30(1), 91–104. Retrieved from https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/psujssh/article/view/268307
Tantivejjavanichaya, C. & Luangprapat, W. (2019). Comparative study of cooperation and amalgamation of local government in foreign countries: Guidelines for development of local government in Thailand. Journal of Thai Ombudsman, 12(1), 47–72. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ombudsman/article/view/185511
Taweesaengsakulthai, S., Laochankham, S., Kamnuansilpa, P. & Wongthanavasu, S. (2019), Thailand Smart Cities: What is the Path to Success?. Asian Politics & Policy, 11(1), 144-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12445
Tun, S. K. T., Lowatcharin, G., Crumpton, C. D., & Kamnaunsilpa, P. (2020). Responding to challenges in local governance: comparing hybrid organizational responses in urban areas of Thailand and Myanmar. Journal of Mekong Societies, 16(3), 1-23.
Unger, D., & Mahakanjana, C. (2016). Decentralization in Thailand. Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 33(2), 172-187. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44132300
Wongpreedee, A., & Mahakanjana, C. (2017). Decentralization and local governance in Thailand. In E. M. Berman (Ed.), Public Administration in Southeast Asia (pp. 53-77). Routledge.