Thailand's Relapse: The Implications of the May 2014 Coup

Sopranzetti, Claudio

doi:10.1017/s0021911816000462

Cited by 37 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the free-range politics of PDRC rhetoric had to be suppressed—while a democracy founded in multiple centers of power might be seductive, this could only ever be permitted if those centers were under “higher guidance”—what Chambers and Napisa Waitoolkiat (2016) call the “monarchised military”. The reform had to ensure that Bangkok’s theatrical insurgences must never recur (Sopranzetti, 2016).…”

Section: –2019: Dictatorship Undisguisedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Networked insurgence and an anti-electoral democracy: Bangkok space 2014–2020

King

2021

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bangkok presents a rich history of popular uprisings directed against its periodic military dictatorships. Then, in 2006 and 2010 there were uprisings of increasing theatricality, playing to a hoped-for global audience, but now against democratically elected governments. January 2014 saw this insurrectional performance art raised to a new plateau where the city itself became the stage and the portrayed villain no longer the government, but government as such— against electoral democracy and for some vague, imagined ideal that might be seen as post-electoral democracy based in civil society rather than political parties. An ensuing military-drafted constitution built on this rejection, leading to manipulated elections in 2019 and a new, quasi-elected, monarchist-military government scarcely understandable outside the context of the dark euphoria of 2014. Then in 2020 the tide of insurgence turned again, against the military hegemony but also against the monarchy—a seismic shift. The paper’s focus is on these events of 2014 and their 2020 denouement, also on their implications for both the space and the form of the city in a digital age.

show abstract

Section: –2019: Dictatorship Undisguisedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Networked insurgence and an anti-electoral democracy: Bangkok space 2014–2020

King

2021

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the remainder of this article, I draw on ethnographic fieldwork in Thailand between October 2009 and June 2012 in highlighting some of the performative ways in which Indigenous Peoples are working to assert themselves as both Indigenous Peoples and loyal members of the Thai nation. Since 2012, Indigenous Peoples in Thailand have had to “reposition” (Hodgson ) themselves even further to the political right as Thailand continues to undergo a heightened process of “de‐democratization” following the May 2014 military coup (Sopranzetti ). Key factors behind this process of “de‐democratization” are an intensifying trend of “hyper‐royalism” amid a royal‐succession crisis and ongoing efforts by the ruling elite to maintain the semifeudal structure of Thai society (Thongchai )…”

Section: From Hill Tribes To Indigenous Peoplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing the Boundaries of Indigeneity: State‐Based Ontologies and Assertions of Distinction and Compatibility in Thailand

Morton

2017

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I discuss the concept of Indigeneity as it is being localized in post-2000s Thailand by a coalition of ethnic minorities. Their claim of Indigeneity is unique in purporting a state-based ontology that identifies the rise of the modern Thai state with that of their Indigeneity, reflecting the problematic nature in Thailand of claims to first peoples' status. The Thai state has long perceived of these yet-to-be-recognized Indigenous Peoples as "illegal migrants." Indigenous Peoples are working to assert not only their cultural distinctiveness but also their compatibility with the nation, especially via public performances of their loyalty to the Thai king. While their performances of Indigeneity are necessarily conforming to Thai nationalist expectations of ethnicity and belonging, Indigenous Peoples are reworking those expectations in a manner allowing them to get their own interpretations of history and systems of value recognized and distributed to larger audiences. [Indigeneity, performance, cunning of the unrecognized, royalist nationalism, Thailand] RESUMEN En este artículo, discuto el concepto de indigeneidad como ha sido localizado en la Tailandia posterior al 2000 por una coalición de minoríasétnicas. Su reclamación de indigeneidad esúnica en implicar una ontología basada en el estado que identifica el crecimiento del estado moderno tailandés con aquel de su indigeneidad, reflejando la naturaleza problemática en Tailandia de las reclamaciones al estatus de los Primeros Pueblos. El estado tailandés hapercibido por largo tiempo a estos pueblos indígenas aún a-ser-reconocidos como "migrantes ilegales". Los pueblos indígenas han trabajado para afirmar no sólo su unicidad cultural pero también su compatibilidad con la nación, especialmente a través de presentaciones públicas de su lealtad al rey tailandés. Mientras sus presentaciones de indigeneidad se han necesariamente conformado con las expectativas nacionalistas tailandesas de etnicidad y pertenencia, los indígenas han retrabajado esas expectativas de una manera que les permite lograr sus propias interpretaciones de la historia y los sistemas de valor reconocidos y distribuidos a audiencias mayores. [indigeneidad, presentación, lo artificioso de lo no reconocido, nacionalismo monárquico, Tailandia] º·¤ÑÂè Í º·¤ÇÒÁ©ºÑ º¹Õ é ¼Ù é à¢Õ Â¹ÍÀÔ »ÃÒÂ ¶Ö §á¹Ç¤Ố¢Í §¤ÇÒÁà»ç ¹ª¹à¼è Ò¾× é ¹àÁ× Í § «Ö è §à¤Ã× Í¢è ÒÂ¡ÅØ è ÁªÒµÔ ¾Ñ ¹¸Ø ì Êè Ç¹¹é ÍÂ¡ÅØ è ÁË¹Ö è §ä´é ¹ÓÁÒãªé ã¹ »ÃÐà·Èä·ÂµÑ é §áµè ·ÈÇÃÃÉ·Õ è 2000 ª¹à¼è Ò¾× é ¹àÁ× Í §àËÅè Ò¹Õ é àÃÕ Â¡Ãé Í §¤ÇÒÁà»ç ¹ª¹à¼è Ò¾× é ¹àÁ× Í §â´ÂÍé Ò §Çè Ò ¤ÇÒÁà»ç ¹ª¹à¼è Ò¾× é ¹àÁ× Í §¢Í §à¢Òà¡Ố¢Ö é ¹ ¾Ãé ÍÁ¡Ñ º¡ÒÃà¡Ố¢Ö é ¹¢Í §ÃÑ°ä·Â à»ç ¹¡ÒÃàÃÕ Â¡Ãé Í §ÍÂè Ò §ÁÕ ÅÑ ¡É³Ðà©¾ÒÐ «Ö è §ÊÐ·é Í¹ ¶Ö §»Ñ -ËÒ¡ÒÃàÃÕ Â¡Ãé Í § ¶Ö §¤ÇÒÁà»ç ¹ª¹´Ñ é §à´Ô Áã¹»ÃÐà·Èä·Â ·Ñ È¹¤µÔ ¢Í §ÃÑ°ä·Âµè Í¡ÅØ è ÁàËÅè Ò¹Õ é ÁÕ ÁÒÍÂè Ò §ÂÒÇ¹Ò¹«Ö è §äÁè à¤ÂÂÍÁÇè Ò¾Ç¡à¢Òà»ç ¹ª¹à¼è Ò¾× é ¹àÁ× Í § áµè à»ç ¹à¾Õ Â §ªÒÇµè Ò §´é ÒÇ·Õ è à¢é ÒÁÒÍÂÙ è ã¹»ÃÐà·È ä·Ââ´Â¼Ố¡®ËÁÒÂ ª¹à¼è Ò¾× é ¹àÁ× Í §àËÅè Ò¹Õ é äÁè à¾Õ Â §áµè áÊ´ §ÍÍ¡ ¶Ö §¤ÇÒÁà»ç ¹àÍ¡ÅÑ ¡É³ì ·Ò ...

show abstract

“…Thailand presents an ideal research context for the investigation of relational ties since the country has undergone political transformations after the military coup in 2014 and the latest general election in 2019. These events brought about high levels of uncertainty in terms of corrupt practices, political interventions, regulatory quality, economic decisions and social forces (Ricks, 2019; Sopranzetti, 2016). The variability in government policies creates market imperfections which impact the strategies and operations of the firms (Brewer, 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing foreign subsidiaries' performance through relational ties, market- and nonmarket-based capabilities

Thoumrungroje

Kapasuwan

2021

JSMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeGiven the inconclusive findings on relational ties–performance relationships, this study approaches this phenomenon through social capital theory and resource-based view (RBV) lenses to advocate the mediating role of nonmarket- and market-based capabilities.Design/methodology/approachA survey-based research methodology was employed. A list of 1,425 foreign subsidiaries was identified from the Thailand Board of Investment (BOI) website, and key informants were contacted. A final response rate of 11.8% was achieved. All hypotheses were tested via path analyses with the bootstrapping technique.FindingsThe results indicate that the relationships between business- and government-relational ties and performance are fully mediated by market- and nonmarket-based capabilities with the latter serving as essential but inadequate preconditions for achieving superior firm performance.Practical implicationsTo mitigate the liability of foreignness and to enhance performance of foreign subsidiaries operating in volatile emerging economies such as Thailand, government and business relational ties are crucial in developing nonmarket- and market-based capabilities. The nonmarket-based capabilities entail the ability to negotiate with and influence policy makers, which in turn helps augment the development of market-based capabilities, including the ability to be highly responsive to customers' needs.Originality/valueThis research illustrates the embedded roles of nonmarket and market-based capabilities developed through complex interactions among social actors, including the multinational enterprises’ (MNEs’) subsidiaries and government and nongovernment counterparts, in attaining superior performance. The results indicate how relational ties enable MNEs’ subsidiaries to develop various capabilities, and how these capabilities are related with each other and linked to firm performance. Findings from an emerging economy undergoing recent political and economic uncertainties also provide theoretical advancements for international business studies.

show abstract

Thailand's Relapse: The Implications of the May 2014 Coup

Cited by 37 publications

References 29 publications

Networked insurgence and an anti-electoral democracy: Bangkok space 2014–2020

Networked insurgence and an anti-electoral democracy: Bangkok space 2014–2020

Reframing the Boundaries of Indigeneity: State‐Based Ontologies and Assertions of Distinction and Compatibility in Thailand

Enhancing foreign subsidiaries' performance through relational ties, market- and nonmarket-based capabilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About