On the Study of Comparative Politics: Concept of Political Development, Democratization, Inequality/ Intersectionality Case Studies of Thailand

Main Article Content

Norachit Jirasatthumb
Kiraphat Khianthongkul

Abstract

This research aims to apply the concept of political development, democratization, and inequality/ intersectionality for exploring the relationship in political development, democratization, and inequality/ intersectionality by employing the case studies of Thailand and Japan. This research uses a qualitative approach, namely a document research combining with the approach of sociology of knowledge, in order to analyze and compare the economic, social, and political context of the case studies.
The research results show that: Thailand and Japan have a similar regime of governance and political institutions, but Japan has a more stable constitution. Moreover, Thailand and Japan are similar in terms of their early stage of economic development, but historical results of World War 2 caused, Japan to focus on technological development, having a consequence of more advanced economy. In social dimension, Thailand has high inequality due to the high distance of interaction between state and its people. However, Japan has a little inequality because the government considers equality and focuses on providing a coverage public service. This study recommends that the political development is an important process which encourages people’s participation and leads to democracy within the society.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Section
บทความวิจัย (Research Article)

References

Boix, C. and Stokes, S. C. (2013). Overview of Comparative Politics. Oxford Handbook Online. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199604456-e-027

Boix, C. and Stokes, S. C. (Eds.). (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Collins, P. H. (2020). Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory. In The Cambridge Handbook of Social Theory (Kivisto, P., Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2009). How Development Leads to Democracy: What We Know About Modernization. Foreign Affairs, 88(2), 34-48.

Kaufman, R. R. (2009). Inequality and Redistribution: Some Continuing Puzzles. Political Science and Politics, 42(4), 657-660.

Kohli, A. (2004). State-directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leemann, L. and Stadelmann-Steffen, I. (2022). Satisfaction With Democracy: When Government by the People Brings Electoral Losers and Winners Together. Comparative Political Studies, 55(1), 93-121.

May, V. M. (2014). Speaking into the Void? Intersectionality Critiques and Epistemic Backlash. Hypatia, 29(1), 94-112.

Pye, L. W. (1965). The Concept of Political Development. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 358, 1-13.

Schmitter, P. C. and Karl, T. L. (1991). What Democracy Is… and Is Not. Journal of Democracy, 2(3), 75-88.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Stuhr, J. J. (Ed.). (2000). Pragmatism and a Classical American Philosophy: Essential Readings and Interpretive Essays. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wiarda, H. J. (Ed.). (2002). New Directions in Comparative Politics. (3rd Ed.). New York: Routledge.

Wong, M. Y. H. (2021). Democratization as Institutional Change: Hong Kong 1992-2015. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 6(1), 92-106.