The Politics of Change in Thai Cities: The Urban Poor as Development Catalysts

  • Diane Archer


Thailand’s participatory slum upgrading programme, the Baan Mankong “secure housing” programme, which has benefited over 90,000 households, has spurned on a wider process of change amongst Thai urban poor communities. From a process of community savings to participatory upgrading of slums, the National Union of Low Income Community Organisations (NULICO) arose, and has become a key driver for community development in Thai cities. The network has gradually established firm relations with local government officials and has benefited from the support of the Community Organisations Development Institute (CODI), a state agency. NULICO and CODI have introduced a number of innovations to urban community development, such as a community-based insurance system and city-level Community Development Funds (CDFs). These CDFs run in collaboration with city authorities and allow for citywide upgrading, in order to achieve “cities without slums”, as well as providing income-generating and other revolving loans. From two CDFs in 2009, there are now over 60 CDFs established and over 200 in the pipeline. A new politics of change has emerged in cities as a consequence of the Baan Mankong programme, influencing the urban development of Thailand’s cities. Low-income communities are playing an increasingly important role in city development, with consequences for civic participation and democratisation of Thai grass roots.


Social Capital Urban Poor Bonding Social Capital Municipal Official Saving Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



My thanks go to the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR) for developing my understanding of CDFs in Asia. Any mistakes in this text are my own.


  1. ACHR. (2008). E-news: AprilMayJune 2008. Retrieved February 1, 2012, from:
  2. Archer, D. (2012). Finance as the key to unlocking community potential savings, funds and the ACCA programme. Environment + Urbanization, 24(2), 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boonyabancha, S. (2009). Land for housing the poor by the poor: Experiences from the Baan Mankong national de Slum upgrading programme in Thailand. Environment + Urbanization, 21(2), 309–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowen, G. A. (2008). An analysis of citizen participation in anti-poverty programmes. Community Development Journal, 43(1), 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fox, J. (2005). Empowerment and institutional change: Mappingvirtuous circlesof state-society interaction. Revised version of paper presented at the Working meeting on Power, Rights and Poverty Reduction, March 23–24, 2004, Washington, DC. Retrieved January 23, 2012, from:
  6. Gaventa, J. (2004). Towards participatory governance: Assessing the transformative possibilities. In S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.), Participation: From tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development (pp. 25–41). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  7. Harriss, J. (2007, June 30). Antinomies of empowerment, observations on civil society, politics and urban governance in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 2716–2724.Google Scholar
  8. Krishna, A. (2002). Active social capital: Tracing the roots of development and democracy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2004). Community-based and -driven development: A critical review. The World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mitlin, D. (2008). With and beyond the state – Co-production as a route to political influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations. Environment and Urbanization, 20(2), 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mosse, D. (2005). Power relations and poverty reduction. In R. Alsop (Ed.), Power, rights and poverty: Concepts and connections (pp. 51–67). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  12. Murphy, C. (2009, June 5). Populism erodes Thailand’s old order. Far Eastern Economic Review, 172, 7–12. Retrieved January 18, 2013, from:
  13. Putnam, R. (1998). Foreword. Housing Policy Debate, 9(1), v–vii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Putnam, R. D., with Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Williams, G. (2004). Evaluating participatory development: Tyranny, power and (re)politicization. Third World Quarterly, 25(3), 558–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Woolcock, M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from:
  17. Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)LondonUK

Personalised recommendations