Income Distribution in Thailand: Its Changes, Causes, and Structure.
Income Distribution in Thailand: Its Changes, Causes, and Structure.
复制标题
泰国的收入分配：变化、原因和结构。
DOI：
10.2307/2059432
复制
发表时间：
1993
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Yukio Ikemoto
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. D. Stifel;Yukio Ikemoto
曼谷人口占泰国总人口的16%，却生产了泰国一半的国内生产总值。池本由纪夫问道，泰国令人印象深刻的经济增长记录在多大程度上促进了收入的公平分配，并减少了曼谷与该国其他地区之间的巨大差距？他的研究为泰国收入分配的变化提供了自20世纪60年代初首次获得相关数据以来最全面和彻底的分析。作者的计算证实了一种普遍印象，即在1960年代进口替代工业化时期，泰国的收入不平等加剧了。但与传统观点相反，收入分配得到改善，城乡差距在20世纪70年代中期缩小。作者将这种改善部分归因于商品繁荣和短暂的“民主时期”引入的社会经济政策。上世纪80年代，国际价格对泰国不利，保守的经济政策严重影响了低收入阶层，泰国的进步出现了逆转。泰国的收入分配最初是东盟地区最公平的。然而，自20世纪80年代以来，不平等在泰国迅速扩大，而在其他东盟国家有所下降，从而缩小或消除了泰国的优越表现水平。东亚工业化国家的收入不平等程度明显低于东盟国家。本研究中的大多数指数表明，在1962年至1986年期间，泰国农村的平等程度稳步下降。1970年代中期国家一级平等程度的改善是由城市地区的变化造成的。尽管农业占国内生产总值（gdp）的比重在过去30年里从60%左右下降到12%，但劳动力并没有发生类似的转变。Ikemoto没有讨论大约60%的人口仍然从事农业，他们已经到达了适合广泛农业扩张的土地的边界。条件较好的地区的农民能够加强其生产并使其商业化，因为他们更容易获得资源和市场。贫困主要是农村问题，集中在条件较差的地区，那里的许多家庭被排除在现代化进程之外。
With sixteen percent of the population, Bangkok produces half of Thailand's Gross Domestic Product. Yukio Ikemoto asks, To what extent does Thailand's impressive record of economic growth produce an equitable distribution of income and reduce the enormous disparity between Bangkok and the rest of the country? His study provides the most comprehensive and thorough analysis of changing income distribution in Thailand since relevant data first became available in the early 1960s. The author's calculations confirm the general impression that income inequality increased in Thailand during the period of import-substitution industrialization in the 1960s. But contrary to the conventional wisdom, the distribution of income improved and the urban-rural gap decreased in the mid-1970s. The author attributes this improvement partly to the commodity boom and to socio-economic policies introduced during the brief "democratic period." Progress was reversed in the 1980s when international prices turned against Thailand and conservative economic policies fell heavily upon lower income classes. Thailand's income distribution was initially the most equitable in the ASEAN region. Since the 1980s, however, inequality grew rapidly in Thailand and declined in other ASEAN countries, thus narrowing or eliminating Thailand's superior level of performance. The industrializing countries of East Asia have significantly lower levels of income inequality than the ASEAN countries. Most of the indices in this study indicate that equality in rural Thailand declined steadily throughout the period, 1962-86. The improvement in equality at the national level in the mid-1970s was caused by changes in urban areas. Although agriculture's share of Gross Domestic Product declined over three decades from about 60% to 12%, there was no parallel transformation of the labor force. Ikemoto does not discuss the roughly 60% of the population still engaged in agriculture who have reached the frontier of land suitable for extensive agricultural expansion. Farmers in better-endowed areas have been able to intensify and commercialize their production because of preferred access to resources and markets. Poverty is primarily a rural problem, concentrated in less favorable areas where many households have been left out of the modernization process.