Abstract:
|
The study examines processes of policy agenda, policy formulation and policy
implementation between OTOP policy and OVOP policy. The process of policy agenda
is analyzed using John Kingdon's multiple streams model, the process of policy
formulation is analyzed using the iron triangle model, and the process of policy
implementation is analyzed using the top - down and the bottom - up approach. The
three principles of OVOP movement are further brought to analyze OTOP policy
process. The were as follow:
1) The comparative analysis of policy agenda between OTOP and
OVOP. In the comparative analysis of problem stream showed that Thailand and Japan
have different levels of problems and impacts. The financial crisis in 1997 involved
with OTOP policy is a national problem, whereas the economic stagnation of Oita
prefecture involved with OVOP is a provincial problem. In the comparative analysis of
policy stream, the policy within the primeval soup of Thailand is shaped by the ruling/
political elites, while that of Japan comes from intention of villagers. In the comparative
analysis of political stream reveals that OTOP and OVOP policies had the reason.
OTOP policy is motivated by election victory of Thai Rak Thai party (TRT) in 2001,
brought Thaksin Shinawatra into the prime minister office. OVOP policy is also
motivated by being elected as the Oita governor of Morihiko Hiramatsu. The study
further found that in both cases the political stream was the most important stream in
the agenda setting. And, when the three streams were converged, a policy window of
OTOP and OVOP were opened. The policy entrepreneurs of OTOP were TRT advisors
shaping the policy into the policy agenda under Thaksin’s decision. In case of OVOP,
Hiramatsu played a role as a policy entrepreneur influencing the policy into the policy
agenda under his own decision.
2) The comparative analysis of policy formulation between OTOP and
OVOP by using the iron triangle framework. The researcher found that Thaksin and
TRT party was hope of Thai people for recovering the 1997 economic crisis. The study
also suggests that TRT of Thaksin gained power over the iron triangle of policy making
including the political group, business sector, and bureaucracy in this case. The party
can formulate OTOP as a public policy smoothly with the efficiency structure,
organization and integration. In case of OVOP, the policy is advocated solely by
Hiramatsu, no the iron triangle involved with liked in the OTOP case.
3) The comparative analysis of policy implementation between OTOP
and OVOP by using the top-down and bottom-up approach, and 3 principles of OVOP
movement. The research showed OTOP policy implementation was in the line with the
top-down approach. The government mainly guided, initiated, controlled, and
developed OTOP policy and projects. In contrast to OVOP, the policy implementation
was in the line of the bottom-up approach. Villagers played a major role in policy
implementation.
In addition, comparing the three principles of OVOP movement with OTOP
revealed that in a principle of Local to Global, OTOP products lacked universality and
identity, while OVOP products were developed from local resource as well as created
outstandingly and uniquely. In term of Self-Reliance and Creativity, Thai government
was a main actor in OTOP policy meanwhile villagers were a main actor in OVOP
policy. Oita villagers were supported by the prefecture in technology, marketing, and
so on. Furthermore, the OVOP policy attached little importance to the loaned money.
In principle of Human Resource Development, OTOP gave priority to develop products
and disregarded human resource development. On the contrary, OVOP set its ultimate
goal in developing human resource by establishing the village leader development
school (Toyo no Kuni Zukuri Juku) to develop the village leaders, building a network
for exchanging knowledge and information, as well as conducting a study visit in ordor
to gain more knowledge for community development.
|
