Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
The article is a part of the literature review and theoretical framework in the research project named A Year of
Thai Foreign Policy under General Prayuth Chan-ocha Government (12 September 2014-12 September 2015). It aims to
review the Thai foreign policy study approach in the past as well as to make a debate on research methodology.
The article reveals that the mainstream Thai foreign policy (TFP) study approach still holds on the traditional
behavioralist manner, and has little dynamic on research methodology. In contrast, the Thai public policy (TPP) study
approach has continuous dynamic throughout time, even though they were developed from same academic origin. In the
light of behavioralism, the TPP study, different from the TFP study, lively has developed the various means and methods,
intimately parallel to the international academic society outside. Furthermore, many case studies of Thai foreign policy
show that their results are not relevant to the real situations of Thai states foreign policy process as the decision makers
really work. These facts lead to the major question on concurrent validity of these researches.
On this account, the article concludes with some contest arguments for the current Thai foreign policy study
approach. Standing at the crossroad, the TFP study approach must chooses a way: either yielding to traditional approach
or seeking for alternative approach by primary surveying the various research methodologies in the kindred fields. Last
but not least, I do not know what kind of destination is on the alternative way. But I surely know that the new and
progressive goals definitely arent on the same old road which brings travelers back to the same old places, and we cant
only sit on the fence.
Keywords: Thai Foreign Policy Study Approach, Thai Public Policy Study Approach, Research Methodology
Introduction
This article is enhanced from the literature review and theoretical framework, which is a part of the research
project named A Year of Thai Foreign Policy under General Prayuth Chan-ocha Government (12 September 2014-12
Epistemology of Public Policy Study and Foreign Policy Study in Behavioralism Era
Besides of the relationship of terms I mention above, public policy and foreign policy still had some common
epistemological fulcrum in the era of Behavioralism. These two related fields both included scientific logic as the pattern
of study. They emphasized on the knowledge derived from empirical and measurable data. And their research
methodologies aimed mainly to understand the phenomenon in the eyes of Causal law as well as try to generalization of
the studied issues. This kind of epistemology named Positivism. (Anumanrachathon, 2001: 12-15)
Under the umbrella of Behavioralism strongly dominated the American political science society in the 1960s1970s, the study of public policy-in the field of public administration-weighted much on the research about the policy
process (Worathepputthipong, 1997: 75-88). There were several important theoretical frameworks developed at that time,
clearly reflected the influence of behavioral approach:
1) The systematic analysis of public policy: It fundamentally viewed politics and society in term of system,
liked physical system, biological system, or ecosystem. On this basis, the politics thus was understood in a systematic
image of relationship between related factors within that system. There were many political scientists applied the idea of
1
I edit this meaning from its definitions appear in these works: David Easton (1960); Ira Sharkansk (1970); James Anderson (1979); Morton
Kroll (1969); Thomas Dye (1981)
[128]
Moreover, you may read furthered about the analysis of bringing system theory-as a decision making model-into the Thai politics study(the
P-M Approach), from Patcharee Siroross work (2555: 52-65)
3
I write this part further from a paper of Corrine Phuangkasem named Thailands Relations and Foreign Policy (1980-Present) (document
of subject PO640: Seminar on International Relations of Thailand, Master of Arts Program in Political Science, Faculty of Political Science,
Thammasat University.
[129]
The Dynamic of Public Policy and Foreign Policy Study in the Post-Behavioralism Era
After the era of Behavioralism, the public policy and foreign policy study seem to gradually split from each
other. Even though the foreign policy study-in the international academic circle-has developed various novel approaches 4,
the mainstream foreign policy study in Thailand still weights so much on traditional research methodology in behavioral
spirit. While the examples of novel approach in international academic circle include of discourse analysis (Larsen, 1997;
Campbell, 1998) and other post-structuralist thought (Kuehls, 1996), some of major works in Thailand academic circle
are as I present below:
The study of Foreign Policy of the Sarit Thanarats Regime towards Cambodia (Youchat, 2006) focused on
the analysis about determined factors of foreign policy framed in the system theory-used it in deductive way. It found that
Thailand foreign policy at that time was caused from both domestic and external factors.
4
The foreign policy analysis generally be separated into 6 principal approaches: (1) traditional approach; (2) comparative approach; (3)
bureaucratic structures and processes approach liked the famous work of Graham Allison (1971); (4) cognitive process and psychology
approach such as a work of Robert Jervis about perception and misperception (1976); (5) multilevel and multidimensional approach and; (6)
social constructivist approach liked the works of Ioannis (John) F. Galariotis (2008: online), Kseniia Chernysh (2010: online), Anne L.
Clunan (2009), Christian Thorun (2009). In addition, you can read the details about each approach above from a work of Robert Jackson and
Georg Sorensen named Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (2013: 252-256).
[130]
Thailand Foreign Policy Study Approach and Foreign Affairs in Real World
It is unclear that we can reach the understanding of Thailands actual foreign policy and foreign affairs from
whether foreign policy knowledge (in the field of international relations) or public policy knowledge (in the field of
public administration). In fact, that question seems to be nave. Because plan and policy analysis in the real world
actually relies on many disciplines, came together to entirely portray the situation and recommend the suitable policy
options. In spite of that condition of real policy process, the focuses of many works in academic world mainly anchor in 3
domains as I criticized below:
1) The analysis of input factors: Many works were written rather from the knowledge background of the authors
than the actual factors determined the decision makers. Above all, they favored to start with creating 3 boxes represented
3 level of analysis-national, regional, and global level-and pack the information suit to their prior knowledge down into
each box.
2) The analysis of policy making process: The maxim of this approach is seeking the concordance between the
decision-making models in the textbook and the phenomenon. It also pays attention only to show many actors in policy
making circle and how they look liked, rather than trying to reflect the mechanism between those actors and trace back to
the source of policy formulation.
3) The analysis of foreign policy outputs, outcomes, and impacts: The popular trend of this approach is
summarizing the studied policies into pattern. Though there were many frameworks about policy assessment developed
in Behavioralism era, very few scholars applied them for studying Thailand foreign policy evaluation. For the existed
works in this approach, their criteria mostly are not concrete enough. And whether the recommendations of those
literatures are benefit to the actual foreign affairs.
Such as the works of Aksaraphak Sumphaokaew named Thailand Political and Security Foreign Policy Towards the United of America post
the incident of 11 September 2001-19 September 2006 (2007).
[133]
References
Allison, G. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: HarperCollins.
Anderson, J. 1979. Public Policy-Making. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Anumanrachathon, T. 2001. The Social Quantitative Research. Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai Pimp Suey.
Buakaew, K. 2007. Thailand Foreign Policy Towards China: Comparative Study of Thaksin Shinawatra
Government and Chuan Leekpai Government. Master Thesis, Master of Arts (Political Science),
Ramkhamhaeng University.
Callahan, P. et al. (eds). 1982. Describing Foreign Policy Behavior. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Campbell, D. 1998. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Chaothong, N. 2004. Thailand Foreign Policy in the Frame of ASEAN in 1990s. Master Thesis, Master of Political
Science, Thammasat University.
Charoensin-o-larn, C. 2001. The Critical Political Science. 2nd ed. Bangkok: Thammasat University Press.
Chernysh, K. 2010. Russian Foreign Policy Discourse During and After War: Representations of NATO. Master
Thesis, Master in International and European Relations, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Linkoping Universetet.
Chittick, W. (ed.). 1975. The Analysis of Foreign Policy Outputs. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
Clunan, A. 2009. The Social Construction of Russias Resurgence: Aspirations, Identity, and Security Interests.
Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press.Kamolvej, T. 2010. The Public Policy in Public Governance
Context. in A. Tamronglak (ed.). Public Governance: Public Administration in C.21. Bangkok: Thammasat
University Press.
Deutsch, K. 1957. Mass Communications and the Loss of Freedom in National Decision-Making:A Possible Research Approach
to Interstate Conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution 1.
Dye, T. 1981. Understanding Public Policy. 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Easton, D. 1960. The Political System. New York: Alfred A. Knoff.
__________. 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Klongvithee, S, Plan and Policy
Analyst, the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB). Interviewing. 27
March 2015, Thammasat University (Tha Prachan Campus).
Frankel, J. 1959. Towards a Decision-Making Model in Foreign Policy. Political Studies 7.
[135]