SocioCultural and Political Dimensions of Giving in Thai Society

1
Socio-Cultural and Political Dimensions of Giving
in Thai Society

• Juree Vichit-Vadakan
• Center for Philanthropy and Civil Society and
  School of Public Administration
• National Institute of Development Administration
• Bangkok Thailand
• November 16,2006

2
Philanthropy or Giving in Thai Society

• Well integrated into the cultural fabric and
  mindset (over 700 years)
• Religious giving
• Making religious merits through giving
• - Offering of food to monks
• - Offerings of lifes necessities to
  monks and temples

3

• Special fund raising for temples needs
• - Living quarters for monks
• - Chapels
• - Water storage
• - Crematorium
• - Buddha images
• - Renovations and repairs
• Giving for non-religious purpose
• - Charities to the poor and desolate
• - Giving to the disabled and physically
  challenged persons

4

• - Giving to poorer relations and friends
• - Giving to subordinates and clients
• Giving by the poor for various purpose
• - Giving and participation in religious
  activities
• - Annual temple-related fund raising
  activities
• - An intricate network of giving and fund
  raising by the migrants for home villages

5
Giving for both religious and non-religious
purposes have deeper meanings

• Building of a temple as an ultimate act of
  giving
• - For religious merits
• - For status enhancement
• - Posterity of the family and solidarity
  of the descendents
• - Affirmation of power and status
• - Differentiation and demarcation of ones
  domain vis-à-vis others

6
Organized philanthropy of migrants to home
villages

• Strengthening of social ties in the big city
• Reaffirmation of status back in home village
• Providing emerging leadership among the poor and
  marginalized migrants
• Allowing for dispersed migrants to reaffirm their
  social identity
• Forming an opportunity for fun and relaxation
  through the trip home

7
Symbolic Meanings of Giving

• As a social equalizer (The rich is expected to be
  generous)
• As a symbol of distribution of wealth
• As an enhancement of social solidarity
• As a symbol of reciprocity
• As a manifestation/expression of nurturing a
  social relationship

8
Contemporary giving versus traditional giving

• More channels for giving available
• - Royal foundations and charities
• - Civil society and Non-profit
  organizations have increased
• - Issue specific giving like for the
  elephants, the environment,etc.

9

• Giving has diversified
• - From individuals and families to group
  giving
• - Corporate entities emerged and are
  expected to contribute
• - State, state enterprises and quasi- state
  entities can assume donor role

10
Current situation on philanthropy

• Traditional pattern and form still prevail
• Newer forms are emerging and evolving
• Larger basis for recruitment of resources
• Educated public begins to contemplate responsible
  philanthropy
• Use of traditional method in fund raising via
  religion but for social purposes
• - Making Buddha images and coins with the
  proceeds for professional societies
• - Or for education and other charitable
  causes

11

• Extracting of surpluses from business for
  philanthropy
• - Coercion and gentle extortion
• - Bribes
• - Camaraderie with the powerful
• - Allowing for participation and alliance
  formation between business, politics and the
  bureaucracy

12
Giving and the Political Dimension

• Giving to politics/politicians
• - Direct vs indirect
• - Overt vs covert
• - Formal vs informal
• - Intermediaries may be used
• - Losses in betting (golf and other games)

13

• - Regular in-kind, indirect expenses (Food
  and beverages, other expenses)
• - Loans that never need to be repaid
• - Business transactions like buying over
  property, businesses of political figures
• - Personal mortgages with under valued
  collaterals (never expected to be redeemed)

14

• Politicians as givers
• - Long-term patronage/giving to constituents
• - Transportation service for ritual occasions
• - Giving for life crisis rituals
• - In-kind giving
• Access to goods, services and opportunities
  (jobs and education)
• - Giving for votes
• Anticipated and expected by voters in many
  parts of Thailand

15
Philanthropy or giving by the State

• Top-down
• Not tailored made
• Not need driven
• Usually not sustainable or truly appreciated
• Results of top-down giving
• - Dependency which incapacitates
  self-reliance
• - Weakens local initiatives

16

• - Reduces innovativeness and creativity
• - Strengthens and nurtures patron- client
  structure and mindset