A Comparative Analysis of the Change in Household Economic Conditions from Political Changes

Main Article Content

Hareuthai Meenaphant


     This paper attempts to analyze changes in economic conditions of Thai households in relation to political changes in 2013 and 2017. By making use of the Household Socio-Economic Survey for the Whole Kingdom, conducted by National
Statistical Office in both years, a substantial shift in households’ geographical location of residence was found. Specifically, the number of households within municipal areas increased significantly, by 37.1 percent, in all regions whereas the
number for the non-municipal households dropped by 11.5 percent. A particularly large increase of 50 percent was observed for Greater Bangkok area (including Nonthaburi, Pathumthani, and Samutprakarn). The increase in household’s average monthly income for the whole kingdom was about 7 percent, but the North, the South, and Greater Bangkok experienced a decline in income with the South having the largest fall of 2.1 percent. Regarding household expenditures, overall they rose by 12.5 percent and only households in non-municipal areas of Greater Bangkok and the South experienced lower average expenditures. Income distribution, as measured by the Gini coefficients in 2017 and 2013, among households remained relatively stable for both years, 0.367 and 0.341, respectively, suggesting no significant improvement in the country’s income inequality during this five-year period. A gravely concerning problem facing all households was debt, which increased substantially over the study period. Households in the Northeast and Northern regions had the highest debt:income ratios among the regions. Much of the household debt was for consumption, constituting about 40.6 percent of the total debt, except for in Greater Bangkok region where debts were for home and land mortgages. The total household assets for the whole kingdom increased substantially between the two surveys, mostly in the form of houses, land, and buildings for either living or working. Households in all regions held very little in liquid assets, less than 10 percent of total assets. Only households in Greater Bangkok held a large proportion of financial and investment assets, about 12 percent of the total. The paper suggested that a longitudinal survey should be undertaken for truly measuring household economic conditions and changes in household debts and assets within the framework of household accounting.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
meenaphant ้. . (2020). A Comparative Analysis of the Change in Household Economic Conditions from Political Changes. King Prajadhipok’s Institute Journal, 17(2), 55–76. Retrieved from https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/kpi_journal/article/view/244047
Original Articles


พงศ์ศักดิ์ เหลืองอร่าม และ ยุทธนา เศรษฐปราโมทย์ (2018), “ต้นทุนทางเศรษฐกิจของความไม่แน่นอนทางการเมืองในประเทศไทย (Economic impacts of Political Uncertainty in Thailand),” Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, Discussion Paper No. 86, May 2018.

Acemoglu, Daron, Surresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson (2014), “Democracy Does Cause Growth,” NBER Working Paper No. 20004, March 2014, https://www.nber.org/papers/w20004

Alesina, Alberto, Sule Ozler, Nouriel Roubini, and Phillip Swagel (1996), “Political Instability and Economic Growth,” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 1 (No. 2), pp. 189-211.

Barro, Robert J. (1991), “Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 407-443.

Barro, Robert J. (1996), “Democracy and Growth”, Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 1 (March), pp. 1-27.

Becker, Gary S. (2010), “Democracy or Autocracy: Which is Better for Economic Growth?” The Becker-Posner Blog, 10 October 2010 http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2010/democracy-or-autocracy-which-is-better-for-economic-growth-becker.html

Burkhart, Ross E. and Michael S. Lewis-Beck (1994), “Comparative Democracy: The Economic Development Thesis,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 88 (No. 4), pp. 903-910.

Doucouliagos, Hristos and Mehmet Ali Uluba?o?lu (2008), “Democracy and Economic Growth: A Meta-Analysis,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 52 Issue 1: January 2008, pp.61-83.

Epstein, David L., Robert Bates, Jack Goldstone, Ida Kristensen and Sharyn O’Halloran (2005), “Democratic Transitions,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 50 (Issue 3), pp. 551-569.

Friedman, Milton (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1-27.

Gerring, John, Philip Bond, William T. Barndt, and Carola Moreno (2005), “Democracy and Economic Growth: A Historical Perspective,” World Politics, Vol 57 (April 2005), pp. 323-64.

Glasure, Yong U., Aie-Rie Lee, and James Norris, “Level of Economic Development and Political Democracy Revisited,” International Advances in Economic Research, Vol. 5, Issue 4 (November), pp. 466-477.

Hayek, Friedrich (1944), The Road to Serfdom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Helliwell, John F. (1994), “Empirical Linkages between Democracy and Economic Growth,” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 21 (Issue 2), pp. 225-248.

Kijkul, Gayvaleen (2013), Political Instability and Thailand’s Economic Growth, Senior Research Paper, The Bachelor of Arts Programs in Economics, 29 November 2013.

Knutsen, Carl Henrik (2010), “Democracy and Economic Growth: A Survey of Arguments and Results,” International Area Studies Review, December 2012, pp. 1-39.

Papaioannou, Elias and Gregorios Siourounnis (2008), “Democratisation and Growth,” The Economic Journal, Vol. 118 (Issue 532), pp. 1520-1551.

Quinn, Dennis P. and John T. Woolley (2001), “Democracy and National Economic Performance: The Preference for Stability,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45 (July 2001), pp. 634-657.

Landau, Daniel (1986), “Government and Economic Growth in the Less Developed Countries: An Empirical Study for 1960-1980,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 35 (Issue 1), pp. 35-75.

Persson, Torsten and Guido Tabellini (2007), “The Growth Effect of Democracy: Is It Heterogeneous and How Can It Be Estimated,” Unpublished Paper (Second Draft May 14), http://perseus.iies.su.se/~tpers/papers/cifar_paper_may16_07.pdf

Plumper, Thomas and Christian W. Martin (2003), “Democracy, Government Spending, and Economic Growth: A Political-Economic Explanation of the Barro-Effect,” Public Choice, Vol. 117 (1-2: January 2003), pp. 27-50.

Rodrik, Dani and Romain Wacziarg (2005), “Do Democratic Transitions Produce Bad Economic Outcomes?,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 95 (No. 2), pp. 50-55.

Scully, Gerald W. (1988), “The Institutional Framework and Economic Development,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 96 (Issue 3), pp. 652-662.

Tavares, Jos? and Romain Wacziarg (2001), “How Democracy Affects Growth,” European Economic Review, Vol. 45 (Issue 8), pp. 1341-1378.

Vrooman, Roger R. (2007), The Role of Political and Economic Factors in Thailand’s Last Two Coups D’ Etat, Master of Arts in National Security Affairs Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, September 2007.

Wongpunya, Nipit (2016), “What Thailand Needs to Do to Become a High-Income Country,” ISEAS Perspective, Issue: 2006 (No. 56), 11 October 2016.

Younis, Muhammad, Xu Xiao Lin, Yahya Sharahili, and Santhirasegaram Selvarathinam (2008), “Political Stability and Economic Growth in Asia,” American Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 5 (No. 3), pp. 203-208.