THESIS

1111;; i 1 I1II1I1I1I1IIIIII1IIIIII1III1III1III11II1III

IN 1

:9? '

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

BUREAUCRATIC COMMUNICATION IN LOCAL THAI GOVERNMENT

presented by
RATANA SUNDRAS I MA

has been accepted towards fulfilhnent
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in SOCIOLOGY

 

 

Major professor

Date 9-24-80

0-7639

OVERDUE FINES:
25¢ per day per item

RETURNING LIBRARY MTCREALS:
Place in book return to remove
charge from circulation records

 

 

 

 

 

BUREAUCRATIC COMMUNICATION IN LOCAL THAI GOVERNMENT

BY

Ratana Sundrasima

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1980

b

. (1

ABSTRACT

BUREAUCRATIC COMMUNICATION IN LOCAL THAI GOVERNMENT

BY

Ratana Sundrasima

My study "Bureaucratic Communication in Local Thai
Government" is explained by both culture and institutional-
structure which is given in examples studied by Herbert
Rubin "Mode of Bureaucratic Communications in Thai Local
Administration" in 1974. My study is a kind of descriptive
research which looks back to the historical time, includ-
ing the present time. However, I seek the information for
my study carefully by trying to judge it by value-free

idea rather than ethnical idea.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study could not be accomplished without the kind
assistance of Dr. William A. Faunce, my thesis advisor,
so I wish to express deep appreciation to him. My thanks
are extended as well to Dr. Donald W. Olmsted and Dr.
James B. McKee who consented to read this paper.

In addition, I would like to show gratitude to Buddha
and my grandfather who enlighten me when I studied this
issue. I cannot forget my parents who supported my study.
Thanks a lot to Miss Helen Carr, my host family, who helped
tocorrect my English.

Finally, I would like to thank my former professors
at Chulalongkorn, Thailand who paved the background of

my study, my respectful Aunt and my dearest sister.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O I I I O O O O O O 1

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT
THAILAND O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 3

THAI CULTURE O O O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O 10

ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION IN
THAILAND O O O O O O O C O O C O O O O O 0 O O O O 13

THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY IN RURAL
THAILAND C O I O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 l

BUREAUCRATIC COMMUNICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

AN EXAMPLE OF COMMUNICATION
MODES IN THAI LOCAL ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . 33

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 46

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 54

iii

INTRODUCTION

Bureaucracy has been an important subject of interest
to a large number of classical social theorists such as
Gaetano Mosca, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Robert Michels and
Talcott Parsons. The concept of bureaucracy, in itself,
condenses a develOpment of almost two centuries of politi-
cal-scientific and sociological analysis of problems of
administration and government and, because of this, the
concept has tended to lose its original function as an
inherent element of a general and broad historical
analysis concerning forms of social government.

In our daily life, the meaning of "bureaucracy
is roughly illegitimate power".l Bureaucracy is not
the Weberian ideal type. The term bureaucracy suggests
an administration standing above and beyond the reach of
the people, an administration which sometimes collaborates
with power groups beyond democratic control.

Moreover, "government bureaucracy has developed dif-

ferently in various countries of the world because of

 

l

Bengt Abrahamson, Bureaucrac or Partici ation, Sage
Publication, Inc., BeverIy HilIs, CaIifornia, I§77, p. 15.

the peculiar geographic, historical and cultural condi-
tions affecting each country and its people".2 The
bureaucracies of a small country with a homogeneous
population and homogeneous religion and a long history
of independence like Thailand are certain to be very dif-
ferent from those of countries with many races, religions,
and a history of domination by foreign powers.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the system
of bureaucratic communications of Thai local administra-
tion. To begin consideration of this issue, Thailand is
one of the develOping countries under a centralized
political system and, therefore, bureaucracy has a crucial
role to play not only in the daily routine but also in the
modernization process. Most works on Thai bureaucracy
contain mainly discussions of structural development.
There is very little literature focussing on the bureau-
cratic communication of Thai local administration.

Hopefully, this study will serve to stimulate more

research on bureaucracy in other developing countries.

 

2Joseph B. Kingsbury and Robert F. Wilcox, Principles
of Public Administration in Thailand, Institute of Public
Administration Thammasart University, Bangkok, Thailand,
1961, p. 20.

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THAILAND3

Thailand, or "Mung Thai" or "Prathed Thai" is situated
in the middle of the Indo-China peninsula. It has a land
area of 514,000 square kilometers or roughly the size of
Spain or two-thirds of Texas. The land is fertile when
coupled with the monsoonate climate, it yields rice and
other crops in abundance but has few known deposits of
natural resources. Thailand is an agricultural country
with about 85% of the pOpulation residing in the rural
areas. There is rapid growth of urban communities and
perhaps a decline in rural population, as the nation
is trying to move toward crOp diversification,
industrialization and economic prosperity.

Culturally speaking, the Thais are quite homogeneous.
The Thai language is understood throughout the Kingdom,
though there are a number of dialects. Buddhism, the
national religion, influences the Thais in all walks of
life having 94% of the pOpulation as its followers. Four
percent are Muslims concentrated in the South. Christi-

anity and other religions amount to only 2% of the

 

3Wendell Blanchard, g Elm Thailand: Its People,
Its Society, Its Culture, New Haven,HRAF Press, 1958.

 

population.

Outwardly, Thailand would pass for a modern western
nation with such things as vehicles, traffic and western
attire, but those who know the Thais well would confirm
that behind the facade there are some intrinsic subtleties
known uniquely as Thai. Some of these characteristics
are friendliness, kindness, politeness, paternalism
coupled with deference toward elders and superiors.

The Thais are individualistic and not very adaptive
to big organizations or team work. However, whenever
there is a common danger, the Thais stand united
and put up a good fight under a strong leader.

There are some old adages which aptly summarize the above
qualities: "The Thais will go all the way with a good
boss",4 and "Ayudha (name of old capital . . . signifying
the country) would never run out of great men".5

"There are good reasons to explain why Thai people
are quite different from its neighbors. Thailand has a
long experience as a nation. The national state system
was well recorded back to 1257 A.D. when its first capital

in the Golden Peninsula was founded in Sukhothai".6

 

4Edgar L. Shor,"The Public Service% in Joseph L. Sutton,
ed. Problems of Politics and Administration in Thailand,
Bloomington Press, Indiana, p. 54.

5Edgar L. Shor; QE' cit., p. 57.

6Edgar L. Shor; Ibid.

 

Scholars are now trying to trace Thai history back even

further. Throughout the past seven hundred years Thai-

land has managed to remain free with few misfortunes in
military adventure. Its political system, in brief, was
basically a paternalistic monarchy, with a few centuries
under the influences of the old Cambodian Divine Kingship
(Theva-raja) doctrine.

In a broad sense, Thailand's political and administra-
tive history are the facts of its homogeneity and in-
dependence. There have been no sudden and violent revolu-
tions in Thai history. Changes have occurred gradually
and have not been imposed by outside powers. There has
been borrowing from other countries, mostly from the West,
but these have been blended with Thai traditions to give

a continuity and internal consistency to the system of

government and administration.

Thailand's administrative history divides naturally

into four periods:7

1. The Sukhothai Kingdom,_1237-l350 A.D. The first

 

unified Thai Kingdom in the present homeland was estab-
lished at Sukhothai in the 13th century. The Thais were

able to unite some local principalities, to throw off

 

7Joseph B. Kingsbury and Robert F. Wilcox; 93. cit.,
p. 20-250

the Cambodian rule, and to establish a patriarchal mon-
archy at Sukhothai. Boundaries were extended and control
was exercised over the greater part of present Thailand.
The characteristics of government were a paternal
king and a territorially-based feudalism. There was
little distinction between civilians and soldiers; all
men performed both military and civil duties under feudal

nobles who owed allegiance to the king.

2. The Ayndhya Bureaucracy, 1350-1767 A.D. With the

 

fall of the Sukhothai period, the new capital was es-
tablished at Ayudhya. In 1431, the Thais conquered the
Cambodian capital at Angkor Thom, and brought back Cam-
bodian statesmen and court brahmans to help reorganize the
administration. The result was that the notion of
devaraja, or the divine king, replaced the Sukhothai

notion of a patriarchal ruler, and the older idea of the
king as a father to his people gave way to a master-servant
idea.

Moreover, there was the creation of bureaucray, not
only as an instrument of administration, but as a principle
of social organization. Feudalism ceased to be based on
land and became a personal system. The warrior nobles
became civil servants, and peasants became clients to their
nobleman. A client could choose his own patron, change at
will, and move from one place to another, instead of being

bound to the land. Under this new system, everyone in

the kingdom had a definite place in the hierachy. A
system of ranks and titles for officials and royal princes,
and a system of grades for common officials, indicated the
status, rights and privileges of each person.

Some of the effects of this system have been lasting.
The status and superior-subordinate relationship, the in-
stability of personal status and fortune (since all titles
were at the King's will), and an Open social structure with
considerable mobility - not only up but also down - are

all things that can be seen in Thailand today.

3. The Chakri Reformation, 1767-1932 A.D. Following
the fall of Ayudhya, the new capital was established at
Bangkok. The Chakri dynasty mainly reestablished the
prosperity of Ayudhya. Under King Chulalongkorn, (the
middle of the 19th century) Thailand passed from medievalism
into a period of material, enlightening progress charac—
terized by social and political change.

King Chulalongkorn had contact directly with his of-
ficials, and revived the old paternal concept of the
Sukhothai period. He was one of the kings to establish
important diplomatic negotiations with Western countries,
to employ European instructors and governmental advisers.

King Chulalongkorn was much interested in public ad-
ministration. Hereorganized the old departments into
European-type ministries, and transformed royal officials

into civil servants with definite salaries and regular

working hours. Provincial governments were brought under
central control by replacing the semi-hereditary local
rulers with centrally appointed governors who were given
salaries, rotated from post to post, and made responsible
to a central Ministry of Interior.

Moreover, he adOpted a system of Western advisers and
created King's scholarship for study abroad in order to
develop a supply of skilled native administrators which
later brought about diminished dependence upon foreign

advisers.

4. The Constitutional Period, 1932 A.D. - Present.

 

In June 24, 1932, a group of military officers and civil
servants staged a successful revolution against an absolute
King. The 1932 revolution did not institute democracy
but simply broadened the base of oligarchy, the govern-
ments since 1932 have governed Thailand by a regime of
limited monarchy under a constitution. While it is
authoritarian, the government is generally benevolent, and
exhibits a genuine and paternalistic concern for the
people, particularly relating to their livelihood.
According to this short history of their bureaucracy,
the nature of the Thai government is not only different
from other countries but it also changes from time to
time as the endogenous form of Thai government has been

influenced at times by external forces. In short, it

seems that Thailand is ruled under the blending of the

following principles.

1. Paternalism
2. Divine Kingship
3. Military Superiority

4. Constitutionalism with limited Kingship

Bureaucracy is the nation's biggest business with
civilian officials and military personnel. They include
all officers of the national government, local administra-
tion, teachers, university professors, policemen and per-
sonnel of public enterprises. Aside from being farmers
and officials, there are only few other things that the
Thais could do. The commercial and industrial sectors are
in the hands of foreigners, notably the Chinese.

"Not only does the bureaucracy constitute the largest
group, it is also the component of almost the entire Thai
middle class. Almost all university graduates are in
government service. They, therefore, are the real elite

class of Thai society".8

 

8Edgar L. Shor; 9E! Cit., p. 60.

THAI CULTURE

According to Embree, Thai culture can be characterized
as "loosely structured" which is defined as "unstructured,

"9 Thai culture

unpatterned, lacking in routinization.
patterns neither clearly mark nor emphasize the importance
of reciprocal rights and duties. Generally, the Thai
are more tolerant, individualistic, and easy going.
Their behavior cannot be characterized by rigid patterns;
their behavior tends to support personal values rather
than organizational values which is an obstacle to the
effective functioning of Thai bureaucracy.

In contrast to American and Japanese culture, the
Thai tend to lack respect for administrative discipline
and regularity which means "keep in line" and "be on time"
behavior. There is little feeling among the Thai that
administrative rules are significant. This feeling causes
a problem in bureaucracy where there is pressure to break

a rule. Sometimes the basis for the rule violation is

 

9Cf. Bryce F. Ryan and Murray A. Straus; "The Integra-
tion of Sinhalese Society"; Research Studies of the
State College of Washington, Volume XXII; December, 1954,
Number 4, p. 182.

10

11

the status of individuals with violations occurring less
frequently in the middle than at either end of the status
hierarchy. Sometimes it is a result of family pressure

or other influences; sometimes it is because of corruption
or bribery and the attitude toward the superior/inferior
relationship.

Moreover, Thai people tend to refuse responsibility
for the actions of organizations. They have a much stronger
attitude of "this is not my concern" than the attitude
of "organizational commitment".

Achievement of people in their work is not rewarded
in terms of strict rules of the organization. It is up
to the personal decision of the superior rather than the
quality of the work. As a consequence, they do not have
as much motivation to work. Reward and punishment is
given arbitrarily. There is less relationship between
personal ambition and organization stability. Ryan
describes the "reluctance of village people to organize,
and their skeptical even cynical, attitude toward

10

local leadership". And Panabokke and Halangode (1938)

reach the same conclusion "T. B. Panabokke's experience . .

. . had taught him to be forbearing towards the fatal

weakness of the people to be individualistic and the

 

10Bryce F. Ryan and Murray A. Strauss, 92' Cit.,
p. 182.

12
temptation to betray national interest".11

Up to this point, we can see that Thai institutions
fit the concept of loose structure in Embree's view. The
pattern of rights, duties and obligations is always open
to question and exception. The lack of organizational
commitment and the predominance of personal goals sug-
gests attitudes which decrease organizational stability
and development.

Although Thai culture is viewed as "loosely struc-
tured", this does not mean its society cannot maintain
integration. "0n the contrary, the loose integration
is a functional one allowing not only variation in in-
dividual behavior but also in national behavior. It has
a survival value; that is, a loosely integrated structure
such as the Thai may adjust to external cultural influences
with less drastic over-all changes than a more rigid struc-

12 This is the

ture such as the Japanese or Vietnamese".
flexible way to struggle for independence without strife

and violence.

 

11Quoted in Bryce F. Ryan and Murray A. Strauss, Ibid.

12John F. Embree, "Thailand - A Loosely Structured
Social System", American Anthropologist, 52, 1950, p. 191;
Quoted in Bryce F. Ryan and'Murray A. Strauss, op. cit.,
p. 182.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION IN THAILANDl3

The administrative system of Thailand is highly
centralized because of a long series of government ef-
forts not only to subdue the rival kingdoms within the
territory which is now Thailand and then to bring the
feudal lords under the control of the king, but also to
give the central government effective control over the
outlying provinces.

The structure of the national government of Thailand
follows a basically simple plan of organization. Formal
relationships within the government are clearly defined,
but informal and personal relationships play an important
part in the management of the public's business especially
in the bureaucratic communication of Thai local administra-
tion.

There are five principal components in the organization

of the executive branch of the national government.

1. The King, designed by the Constitution as the

Head of the State, is a ceremonial head of the state.

 

13 . . . . .
The following description is based primarily upon
the Organizational Directory of the Government of Thailand,

1960, 1963 Bangkok: USOM/Thailand.
13

14

His powers are limited and controlled by the Constitution.
Politically, he has the right to consult and might be
consulted by the government in power. The King has the
advice of the Privy Council to perform his functions.

2. The cabinet functions as a collective executive,
with the prime minister as chairman.

3. There are fourteen ministries in the cabinet,
each of which is subdivided into departments, divisions,
sections, and:hisome cases sub-sections.

4. The government enterprises, which operate a number
of commercial activities of major importance.

5. The Administrative committees and commissions which
have responsibilities in a number of specialized aspects

of administration.

Provincial and District Organization. Thailand has a

 

highly centralized system of territorial administration.
The most important territorial units of administration are
the provinces (changwad) and districts (amphur). These
units are almost entirely governed from Bangkok. Pro-
vincial governors and district officers are appointed by
the Minister of Interior and take their orders from the
Ministry.

There are 71 changwad (provinces), each of which is sub-
divided into amphur. Each changwad has a governor and a

changwad council composed of deputy changwad governors

15

and chiefs of provincial administrative units. The gov-
ernor is in charge of all civil servants in his province
and is responsible for the efficient operation in his
territory of all offices, both changwad and amphur.

The administration of an amphur is under a Nai Amphur
(district officer). He is assisted by an amphur council
composed of the administrative officers who represent the
several departments of central government having functions
to carry on in the districts. The Nai Amphur has the
same authority and duties in his area as those of the
governor of a changwad. The governors and Nai Amphur

are officials of the Ministry of Interior.

Local Government. Within each amphur, the rural areas

 

are divided into tambol (communes) and muban (villages)
which are the most important units of local government.
There are two types of local government: commune and
village government and municipal government. In this

study we will briefly talk about municipal government,

and then consider carefully the commune and village govern-

ment especially in terms of bureaucratic communication.

1. Municipal government (tesaban) is an incorporated
unit of government designed to permit some self-government
in urban areas. Municipalities in Thailand exercise

legislative and administrative functions, have their own

16

elective officials and their own civil service. Within
the boundaries of the cities, municipal employees carry
on the principal functions which are performed in rural
areas by the district officials.

There are three categories of municipality in Thai-

land:

1. The Tambol municipality (the smallest);
2. The Muang or town municipality; and

3. The Nakorn or city municipality.

Each is governed by a municipal assembly (from 12-24
members) elected for five year terms. The latter is
an executive committee of the assembly. The council
(from 3—5 members) is appointed by the changwad governor,
whose selection is subject to approval by the municipal
assembly. The president of the council is the mayor

of the city, appointed by the governor.

2. Commune and Village Government. The natural com-
munities of Thailand are the villages (muban) consisting
of some fifty to several hundred houses and families.
The men and women of a village elect a puyaiban or headman,
who serves as long as he retains the confidence and respect
of the villagers. Retired headmen of the village serve
as a kind of informal council to the headman and wield

great influence in village life.

l7

Headmanship has high prestige, honor and status and
has distinctly heavy responsibilities. The government
pays money to him for public facilities but it is not
enough for him to pay for these facilities.

A number of villages are grouped together to form a
commune or tambol, headed by a Kamnan who is elected by
the headman of the villages composing the tambol (commune).
The Kamnan is a semi-governmental official who reports
each month to the district officers, and meets the village
headmen at his home to inform them of new governmental
orders and to settle minor disputes. He has charge of vital
statistics and health measures. These locally-elected
officials are for the most part dependent on and controlled
by the district government.

However, we need to look back to the first established
local government in Thailand in order to understand well
the characteristics of local Thai government. "The first
efforts to establish local self-government in Thailand
were actually made under the absolute monarchy, before

14 As early as 1905, an experi-

the revolution of 1932".
ment in local self-government was launched with the crea-
tion of a Sukaphibahn or "sanitation district" in a com-

mune of Samud Sakorn province, a short distance southwest

 

14Fred W. Riggs. Thailand: The Modernization of a
Bureaucratic Polity, East-West Center Press, Honolulu,
1966, p. 179.

18

of Bangkok. Provision was made for the creation of a

board all of whose members were appointed ex officio,
namely, the village headmen with the commune headman as
chairman. (A number of villages or muban constitute a
commune or tambon, whose head is chosen from among the head-
men of the constituent villages). "This board was author-
ized to collect certain taxes, largely on houses and build-
ing constructions, to be used for the maintenance of local
public works such as roads, bridges and lights, and to

enforce local sanitation rules in a congested coastal

fishing area".15

"In 1908 and again in 1915, new acts were promulgated
expanding the powers of the Sukahpiban, providing that
similar boards could be established elsewhere on the
recommendation of the provincial governor and the
monthon (region) head. By the time of the revolution,

it is estimated that there were some forty-five sukapi-
bahn".16
According to an act promulgated in 1914, qualified
voters in each village were authorized to elect their own
headman, but the district officer presided over the elec-

tion. The headmen of all the villages in a commune in

turn chose one of their numbers to be the tambon head.

 

15Fred W. Riggs; Ibid.
16

 

Fred W. Riggs; 92° Cit., p. 180.

19

Although, in this manner, the rural population was
introduced to some of the forms of local self-government
it may be doubted that they experienced much of it in
reality. Choop points out "the sukahpiban, commune, and
village institutions at that time were always controlled
by the central government officials“.17

After the revolution of 1932, more efforts were made
to launch a system of effective local self-government.

As soon as the promoters of the revolution seized power

in 1932, they publicly announced their devotion to the
principles of democratic constitutional government under
the constitutional monarchy, which was interpreted to mean
local self-government as well as representative institu-
tions in national government.

Despite this formal extension of the machinery of
local autonomy, Choop reaches the conclusion that "Thai
local self-government has become part of the hierachy of

18

the Ministry of the Interior" and again Horrigan reaches

the conclusion that "Bureaucratic domination of local self-
government is inherent in the central government controls
over policy, personnel, and finances of the local units

and in the strength and influence of the territorial

administrators. It is clear that the central government

 

17Quoted in Fred W. Riggs; Ibid.

13Quoted in Fred W. Riggs, 92- Cit., p. 179.

20
possesses a dominance over local political action".19
When the Revolutionary Party came to power in 1932,
it promised to work for the decentralization of administra-
tion and a greater measure of local self-government but
it did not do as it promised. It called for the creation
of local self-government councils throughout the country
but neglected to provide adequate financing to carry
out its provisions.
From 1932 to the present time, the long tradition
of absolute monarchy and the habits of centralization,
combined with a lack of any organized demand for self-
government by the peOple have prevented much progress in
the direction of local autonomy. However, forces slowly
building up may reverse the traditional centralizing
tendency. One of these factors is the large machinery
of central-local administration which threatens to over-
whelm the departments in Bangkok with reports, inspec-
tions and decisions on local matters. Another force for
decentralization is the slow but steady growth of educa-
tion and democratic feeling, and the realization that
popular government applies to local as well as to national

institutions.

 

19Quoted in Fred W. Riggs; Op. Cit., p. 180.

THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY IN RURAL THAILAND

The kind of village to be discussed here is a remote
village, far from metropolitan centers. Villages close
to cities have a different political structure. This dif-
ference is a result of differences in the village economics,
in the educational level of villagers, and in the compre-
hensive formal organizations. The Thai villagers are not
a community of joiners. Trade unions, professional
societies, clubs, political parties, school associations,
and so forth, are few in number and of slight importance.
The villagers are not caught up in numerous formal inde-
pendent organizations, each influencing a sphere of his
life, each organized in hierachical pattern. "The society
is organized horizontally rather than vertically. Only
two structures, church and government, are built in pyra-
mid form. Even these hierachies mean little to most Thai

villagers; for them, Buddhism means the local temple, and

government means the village elders".20

"An individual's life is not surrounded by numerous

 

20Frederick J. Harrigan. Local Government and Ad-
ministration in Thailand: A Study of Institutions and
Their Cultural Setting. UnpubliShed Ph.D. Dissertation,
Indiana University, 1959, p. 100.

 

 

21

22

institutional codes. Each man is in large measure free

to make his own way. Family and village loyalties are

not unyielding; individuals often and lightly leave both
behind in the search for personal advantage. The Buddhist
religion requires each individual to seek his own salva-
tion unaided and unhindered by others. The government
lays down few rules for strict enforcement, and even Thai
nationalism does not demand that the Thai villagers love
their country. Neither state nor church imposes heavy

21 However, the

and frequent demands on the individual".
Thai villagers prefer to devote much energy, sentiment,
and money to their religion.
"The premise of Buddhism is that ultimate salvation
consists of escape from material existence into nirvana
in which one no longer exists as a sensate individual
being".22 Therefore,Buddhistflvalues are apparent also in
the endless merit-making of the believers. Ways of making
merit are legion. One gains merit each time he feeds
a monk, goes to the temple, releases caged birds or ani-
mals or contributes to the construction of a new temple.
Thai villagers enjoy their religion. Village social

life centers around the temple and nearly all village

 

21Frederick J. Harrigan; QE- Cit., p. 104.

22John E. DeYoung. Village Life in Modern Thailand.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press,
1955, p. 201.

23

festivals have religious overtones. Professor Riggs
reaches the conclusion that "the temple, or wat, is a
source of advice and information on matters practical or
esoteric such as theatrical performances, music and
exhibits of artistic works. The temple is the source

23 This acculturation in-

of a vital acculturating force".
volves the idea of right and wrong, of proper aims and
means, of ways of relating oneself to society.
"Beyond religion, Thai villagers respect, obey and
honor the king. Even though Thai kings have been shorn
of their political powers, they have retained the love and
loyalty of their subjects - the Thai villager is a royalist
at heart. The king embodies the values of the national
unity. His person - all that it symbolizes — molds the
society of villages into a nation sharing common values
and moving toward a common destiny".24
The family in villages is the simple nuclear unit,
usually containing five or six members. Within a single
village many people are related by blood or marriage.
Each married pair normally establishes its own residence,
owns its own land, and earns its own living.

Children are treated permissively and are instructed

by repeated example rather than by enforced decree. Respect

 

c)
“BQuoted in James McCarthy. Surveying and Exploring in
Siam. London: John Murray, 1900, p. 89.

24

 

James McCarthy; Op, Cit., p. 91.

24

follows age, and children are taught early to respect their
elders, priests and teachers, also exhibit the subtle and
gracious forms of politeness which are a notable feature
of Thai personal relations. After a certain age child-
ren are expected to aid in family projects, but they are
also taught to be self-reliant. Family ties are easily
cut. Individual members can leave when the proper time
~comes to take up residence elsewhere, even in another vil-
lage. When a man does move, it is usually to establish,
in a village like the one in which he was born, a family
like the one he has left.

Thai villages are composed of 100—150 households, or
from 500-750 persons. Usually the villages string out along
a canal or road. In the villages a sense of equality
pervades living conditions and social relations. There
is no legal and little social discrimination against
women. Women have rights of inheritance and ownership
equal to men. The Thai are not divided by bitter class
resentments based upon differentials of wealth. There is
no class consciousness in Thai villages. The people
generally feel that social justice prevails. The villagers
have no urge to transform their environment and have little
ambition to change their social position. They are content
to live and die in the village and at the social level
of their birth. They are content to earn enough for their

family's needs and a little over for contributions to the

25

temple and a few simple luxuries. Their style of life
does not compel a man to work harder to accumulate
more.

Typically, Thai rural villagers are peasants. They
live in simple but adequate houses of their own construc-
tion. One villager may own 30 acres and his neighbor
10, but it is very rare for one or a few villagers to
own nearly all the land and their neighbors almost none.

The village has its own government consisting of an
elected headman and an influential though informal council
of elders and priests. "The ordinary villager shows
much deference toward his superiors; he insists that
they deserve respect by virtue of their earned position."25

Although the villager respects his leader ing is not
willing to be led too far too fast. The Thai will express
outward consent and obedience and then quietly fail to
do as he has been commanded.

Up to this point, we can see that the typical Thai
villagers have three qualities that they most respect -
religious merit, official position including the King,
and age. Respect goes automatically to the elders.

Professor Riggs reaches the conclusion that "toward

superiors, he shows respect tinctured with caution

 

25Silcock, T. H., (ed.) Thailand: Social and Economic
Studies in Development. Canberra Australian National

University Press, 1967, p. 158.

 

26

Related to this is his fondness for dependence on others".26
"While displaying great independence and self-reliance in
his dealings with the world at large, he is eager in his per-
sonal life to enjoy the protection and generosity of a pat-
ron, some distinguished or powerful person to whom he can

attach himself".27

Thus the loyalties of the Thai are
typically and intensely personal, not institutional or
idealistic.

Moreover, "Thai peOple are closely tied to their pri-
mary organization, i.e., family, kin-group, classmate and
clique . . . which Professor Riggs again called the elect".28
This means that, lacking resources of big organizations or
party machinery, the power holders of Thai political ad-
ministration focus their efforts on holding to power through
small groups, composed of members who have known each other
very well for years. Therefore, the Thai are discouraged
from participating in big organization processes.

From this point, we will show that the typical Thai
value - respect for official position - affects the bureau-
cratic communication in Thai local administration; espec-

ially in the common and village government level in the

rural areas of Thailand.

 

26Quoted in Kenneth E. Wells: Thai Buddishm: Its

Rites and Activities. Bangkok: The Christian Bookstore,
1960, p. 201.

 

27Kenneth E. Wells, Op. Cit., p. 203.

28Kenneth E. Wells; Op. Cit., p. 204.

BUREAUCRATIC COMMUNICATION

Bureaucracy is not a new phenomenon. It existed in
rudimentary forms thousands of years ago in Egypt and
Rome. But the trend toward bureaucratization has greatly
accelerated during the last century. In contemporary
society, bureaucracy has become a dominant institution,
the institution that epitomizes the modern era. Unless
we understand this institutional form, we cannot under-
stand social life today.

The concept of bureaucracy is viewed as a series of
dimensions as Weber described it. These dimensions
include division of labor, hierachy of authority, formal
Communication, . . . etc. So, the researchers of
organizations from the time of Weber to the present have
used the bureaucratic model as the basis for concept-
ualizing the system of interrelationships in organiza-
tion. Moreover, bureaucracy is not the Weberian ideal
type, "it has developed differently in various countries
of the world because of the particular geographic, his-
torical and cultural conditions affecting each country

and its people".29

 

29
p. 20.

Joseph B. Kingsbury and Robert F. Wilcox, Op. Cit.,

27

28

Theories of organizations which describe organiza-
tional behavior in terms of communication process often
use both the language of communication theory and the
components of bureaucratic structure. Some researchers
focus upon the existence of various channels of communica-
tions, the frequency of their use, and their relationship
to structural variables of an organization. Such research
often relates the output of an organization to the ef-
fectiveness of the communication channels. Neither school
of research focuses in detail upon the forms of bureau-
cratic communication in terms of functionality and dys-
functionality for bureaucratic output.

To begin consideration of this issue, four patterns
of bureaucratic communications are defined in terms of
structural features of organization in Perrow's study
(1970). These four patterns of bureaucratic communication
are formal, instrumental informality, ritualism, and
affective informality. The definitions of those patterns
permit uniform categorizations of communication patterns
by form in differing organizations. Such categorizations
can be used to analyze the functionalities and dysfunc-
tionalities of each mode of communication.

For uniform, comparative purposes, communication
must be defined in terms of present organizational features.
"To do this communication models will be defined in terms of

the two structural variables of "rules - procedures" and

29
"policy-goals".3O
"Rules-procedures are defined as the formally desig—
nated way(s) of undertaking a given process. It is assum-
ed that a set of rules-procedures exist in written form
and that explicitly included among these rules-procedures
are the proper methods for communicating within the or-

31 Such proper methods need not be restricted

ganization'.
only to formal reports. Informal talks,field debriefing,
etc. are considered congruent with formal procedures, so
long as they are permitted by the rules.

"Goal-policies consist of the written statements made

32 In

by the top hierachical level of an organization".
a governmental bureaucracy, such "goal-policies" are
determined through the official statements made at the
ministerial level. This particular definition temporarily
avoids the problems of whether or not organizational goals
can differ from individual goals and the even more funda-
mental problem of whether or not an organization qua
organization has a goal.

Hierarchyjjsdefined in terms of the Weberian concept

of a designation of status and is ranked along with the

 

30Herbert J. Rubin. "Modes of Bureaucratic Communica-
tions. Examples from Thai Local Administrations". The
Sociological Quarterly 15, Spring 1974, p. 212.

31Herbert J. Rubin; Op. Cit. p. 213.

BZIbid.

30

associated legitimization of authority. In this study
clients can be perceived as having ranks relative to the
organizational hierachy; clients (Thai villagers) are
considered to have less status than officials do.

These three concepts, in practice are not so clearly
defined. Hierachy and actual power do not always coin-
cide. "The formal position superior might actually have
less power than his nominal subordinate.. The proper
procedure might involve filling out a form and waiting,
but in a practical way, it might involve payment of tea
money and receiving immediate service. Moreover, indi-

vidual goals might or might not be congruent with official

. . u 33
poliCies .

Perrow's four modes of communication will be defined
in these formal structural terms — "goals-policies",
"procedure-rules", and "heirachy".

Formal communications occur when procedures are fol-
lowed in compliance with organizational goals. Ritualism
is the use of correct procedure to avoid accomplishing
the policies. Instrumental informality is the avoidance
of proper rules in order to achieve the goals. Finally,
affective informality is communication which neither in-
volves proper procedure nor is oriented toward ministerial
goals but serves to increase group solidarity.

The relationship among these modes are as follows:

 

33Herbert J. Rubin; Op. Cit., p. 214.

31

formality represents an ideal form of bureaucratic com-
munication; instrumental informality and ritualism both
are modifications of this form; instrumental informality
is concerned with output while avoiding procedure, while
ritualism is the use of procedures to avoid output. Af-
fective informality appears less closely related.

We will use these four patterns of communication for
comparing bureaucratic organizations according to the
following pattern of analysis. We should ascertain what
setting is associated with each mode of communication and
then analyze the Thai traditional culture which affects
those bureaucratic communications.

"The setting in Goffman's (1959) terms, associated
with each mode of communication should be determined.
Such setting can and does differ from organization to
organization and from culture to culture. But within one
organizational context a particular type of setting usually
will be associated with one mode of communication. Setting
can include location of the communication, refinement of
language, or even in more general terms, the atmosphere
associated with the communication".34 For example, one
would determine the appropriateness of an office setting
for each mode of communication. Or, for example, one

would observe if particular patterns of speech are

 

34Herbert J. Rubin; Op. Cit., p. 215.

32

associated with each mode of communication. In one context,
extreme refinement in language might be used in ritualistic
communication to protect the speaker from questioning.

In another context, flippancy and informality in language
might accomplish the same end.

After the setting has been determined, a systematic com-
parative study of the functionality of each mode of com-
munication within a given bureaucracy can be undertaken.
For example, affective informality might be useful in
increasing solidarity, but because of the lack of disci-
pline involved, it might be detrimental for increasing ef-
ficiency, but in other cultural contexts differing patterns
might be more suitable. Blau's (1958) study of the Ameri-
can bureaucracy suggests that instrumental informality
might be used in conveying rule changes to subordinates
but Crozier's (1964) analysis of French bureaucracy indi-
cates that formality must be used in this case.

In this study, bureaucratic communication in Thai
local administration has its own settings in this Thai
culture context. The strategy used in this paper is to
explain the effect of Thai traditional cultural factors
upon the mode of bureaucratic communication in the same
way that the French isolation of status groups (Crozier,
1964) was used to explain their effect upon the rela-

tionship within organizations.

AN EXAMPLE OF COMMUNICATION MODES IN

THAI LOCAL ADMINISTRATION35

Using data collected on the Thai bureaucracy36 we

find various examples of formal, affective informal,
ritualistic, and instrumental informal communications.

Administratively, Thailand is a centralized state
divided into province, district, subdistrict and village.
The ministries and numerous departments have representa-
tives on the national, provincial, and district levels.
Teachers and certain health and development officials have
subdistrict responsibilities. The district is usually
considered as the lowest level of the bureaucracy.

Most ministries are structured along hierachical lines
of command with minimal staff support provided for decision-
makers. At both district and provincial levels generalist
officials (the District Officer and the Governor) are

responsible for coordinating the technical, line officials.

 

35Most of this section is based upon Herbert J. Rubin;
Op. Cit., p. 216.

36The data were collected in a year-long field study
of rural Thai administration. Examples used in this paper
were observed by Irene Rubin, and two Thai assistants. The
research was sponsored by the Center for International
Studies at M.R.T. under the supervision of Prof. Pye. More
details can be found in Rubin, Op. Oi£., pp. 740-773.

33

34

In reality such coordination is quite poor. "There are
for example, some studies of Thai administration showing
that the power of a particular position in the bureau-
cracy depends entirely upon the rank of that position and
is minimally related to its functional responsibilities
Four aspects of Thai bureaucratic behavior are mentioned
as personalism, malcoordination, hierarchy and indifference
to clients".37 Within the bureaucracy.subordinates dis-
play extreme personal deference to their superiors. Such
deference involves unquestioning loyalty to the superior
and an inability to overtly disobey his orders. "Per-
sonalism facilitates exchange of information and, to some
extent lessens the problems of malcoordination. Yet it
also leads to the creation of a patron-client relationship
in which patrons use information and support of clients to
aid themselves and in turn provide material resources to

38 Such a patron-client system leads to

their clients".
waste of resources. Money is used to support the relation-
ship,whi1e service to the citizen (in contrast to the
superior) does little to aid the official in his career.
However, many studies which contain descriptions of the

communication process within the Thai bureaucracy only

distinguish formal from informal communications, focusing

 

37Herbert J. Rubin; Op. Cit., p. 217.
92 '

38Herbert J. Rubin;

35

upon the dysfunctions of formality and the functionality
of informality, such as Mosel's study (1963) and Riggs'
study (1966). The distinction between ritualistic (goal
avoidance behavior) and instrumental (goal seeking behavior)
which is a crucial distinction is missed by looking at
communications only in terms of the dysfunctions and
functions of formal and informal communication.
Communication patterns among officials and between
officials and villages in Thailand have been studied by
Rubin using the framework developed by Perrow (1970).
We will discuss this study in some detail because its
findings are a good example of the ways in which the
cultural and institutional factors discussed above in-
fluence bureaucratic communication. Observations were
made by Rubin on bureaucratic communications in two
moderately isolated rural districts. The districts con-
tained, respectively, 30,000 and 110,000 inhabitants,
and between 30-60 civil officials plus police and school
teachers. The civil officials represented various
technical and administrative agencies. The highest rank-
ing official was the District Officer who as a line of-
ficial is in charge of administrative activity, and as
area official, is in charge of all other district ac-
tivity. Complete descriptions of these areas can be

found in Rubin (1972).

36

Formal Communication

 

Formal communications within the Thai bureaucracy
are for conveying information from superior to infer-
ior. In describing formal communications we must dis-
tinguish them from ritualistic communications because
formal communications and ritualistic communication
are quite similar.

In both forms of interaction formal language is
used, deference is paid to the superior and control
of the interaction is clearly held by the superior. Yet
the goals of such interaction differ. In ritualistic
patterns the superior is trying to avoid accomplish-
ing bureaucratic goals. In formal interaction he is
using the respect felt toward his position to cause
inferiors to listen to information that will eventually
be useful to accomplishing bureaucratic goals. These
interactions can be indicated by describing a meet-
ing between the District Officer and village headmen,
between the District Officer and the section heads
and between the District Officer and ordinary villag-

ers.

37

The headmen meetipg. A monthly meeting is held at

 

the district hall for officials and village headmen. The
primary purpose of such meeting is to convey administrative
information to the headmen. The District Officer chairs
the meetings. Usually the Assistant District Officer and
on the average three section heads attend the meetings.

The meeting is held in an official hall. The District
Officer dominates village headmen and politely and dif-
fidently asks questions or responds when addressed. On
occasion the headmen take notes or are instructed to take

notes.

Such meetings involve a repetition of orders, announce-
ments, and exhortation from official to villager. PrOper
deference to higher status individuals is preserved at
the meetings. The District Officers want the headmen
to listen, understand and relay information to the vil-
lagers. The District Officers emphasize all important
points made at the meetings. They complain when headmen

Skip meetings.

The section head meeting. Similar patterns of inter-

 

action between junior and senior officials could be

seen at the monthly section meetings. The District
Officer chairs the meetings. Generally, but not without
exception, refined language is used. The chairman do
most of the talking; others usually talk only in direct

response to his questions. These formal meetings are used

38

by the District Officer to announce new policies or re-
affirm old policies which are then implemented.

Unlike the headman meetings at which the District Of-
ficer is simply relaying information from higher up in the
bureaucracy, the section head meeting is concerned with
immediate local problems. For the meeting to be both
successful and relevant requires that the District Officer
have sufficient information which could be provided by
formal reports.

But corruption, and subtle inefficiencies are not
brought formally to the District Officer's attention. He
learns of such problems through instrumental informal ex-
changes with his subordinates. For example, one district,
officer learned about coordination problems while chatting
on a jeep trip with a community development worker. The
existence of both formal and instrumental informal means
of getting information to the District officer enable him
to run effective, formal, monthly section head meetings.

The two modes of communication are complementary.

The village meetings. A third description by Rubin
of formal communications occurred in an isolated area
between the District Officer and villagers. For example,
the villagers were working on a joint road project but
some of the villagers were unwilling to cooperate with the
headman. The headman arranged a general meeting and in-

vited the District Officer to speak. Because of his

39

status virtually all the villagers attended quietly and
politely listened to the presentation. A formal meeting,
at which a sufficiently respected authority appeared, ac-
complished the goal of gaining cooperation on a needed
develOpment project.

Up to this point, in each of these cases, the headman
meeting, the section head meeting and the villagers meet-
ing - a formal setting is maintained. The superior is
treated respectfully and deferentially. He dominates
the entire meeting. Formal communications appear to be
effective in situations in which the superior has the
needed information to accomplish the formal goals of the
bureaucracy. At times, though the superior needs the

information provided by means of instrumental informality.

Ritualistic communication. According to Rubin,

 

though the setting for ritualistic communication is
similar to that of formal communications the purpose and
effect was quite different. Both involved an official
ceremony or a proper procedure. At both, formal language
and/or proper forms were used. At both the status superior
dominated the interaction.

The setting of ritualistic interaction differs from
that of formal. Meetings of a ritualistic nature are
hurried through; people are anxious to complete them.

None of the humor present in some formal meetings is

40

present. There seems to be a desire to minimize inter-
personal interaction while performing a ritualistic
activity. We can see the setting of ritualistic com-
munication clearly in the bureaucratic report, certain

village meetings and intersectional coordination.

The bureaucratic report. The formal reports written

 

by the local officials represent a form of ritualistic
communication. Preparing such reports is clearly hard.
First, many required the same data monthly, quarterly
and yearly. Others are done under time limitations
thus increasing the potential for error. Many, if not
most, of the reports were not read or utilized for
action documents higher in the bureaucracy. To cope
with the clear frustration of filling out such reports
and of getting correct data, officials generally treated
such reports as ritualistic documents higher in the
bureaucracy. They are completely and consistently
filled out. But, the information contained on them

are not verified, or are faked. The result of this
process is inaccurate but correct-appearing information

which can be transmitted up the bureaucracy.

Certain village meetings. The "reaching the people"
project of the Ministry of Interior shows this pattern.

The official is supposed to reach the people, i.e., go

41

to the villager, let him know about the government and
aid in bridging the social and status gap between
villager and official. For example, one District Of-
ficer designates one day a year per subdistrict as the
reaching the people day. The meetings would last many
hours but rarely are villager questions posed. This
kind of meeting is designed to serve the people but in-

volves ritualistic communication.

Intersectional coordination. To obtain maximal out-
put from the limited number of local officials, coordina-
tion between sections is required. As a result ritualized
interactions occurred. This pattern is indicated by the
relationship of the community development officials with
technical officials. The community development workers
generally had better rapport with villagers but technical
officials have the requisite skills for development ac-
tivities. For example, the community development depart-
ment prepares documents explaining the importance of co-
ordination with the technical official. The suggested
patterns of preliminary consultation and coordination are
ignored.

Needless to say, the mutual planning and preliminary
consultation, which is the goal of coordination work, do
not occur. A ritualized reference to coordination occurred,

but individual uncoordinated projects are undertaken.

42

Instrumental Informality. Situations of instrum-

 

ental informality occur within informal settings between
officials of differing bureaucratic statuses. By struc-
turing a situation so that social inhibitions between
status superior and inferior are reduced, information can
properly be passed up to the superior. At times this in-
formation is useful to the superior in achieving bureau-
cratic goals.

Situations of instrumental informality occur when a
superior desired to break down certain social inhibitions
between himself and his inferiors. To do so the Superior
publicly undertook some informal actions. Once an in-
formal setting has been established, an inferior feels
free to present requests, complaints, and information to
his superior. Similarly, in an informal mode, the superior
is freed from certain restrictions upon his behavior.
Most of these involve normative constraints to behave
in a gentle fashion to subordinates.

This kind of pattern appears in the socializing after
formal events, and in the interactions of an outside

superior on a tour of inspection.

Socializing after formal events. Following formal,

 

religious, or legal events a bureaucratic superior might

suggest that subordinates informally gather for food,

43

drink and conversation. By doing so his inferiors feel
free to convey to him unofficially their wants, needs or
problems.

This kind of group interaction usually leaves the
office and goes to a social hall or restaurant. Alcohol
will be served, but it is served only moderately; drink
is meant to facilitate communications and not to impede
discussion. Similar interactions occur when certain of-
ficials visit the village. At the formal village cere-
monies, subdistrict meeting, or develOpment assemblies,
information flows only from official to villager. After
such meetings the official and village leaders retire to
the headman's house. Alcohol and snacks will be served.
After this treat is given,villagers feel that they are
able to direct requests and complaints to the officials
that through fear, awe, or courtesy they lumi not dared
to present at the formal meetings.

An outside superior on a tour of inspection. Su-
periors are curtailed in communicating with inferiors
by certain social norms. For example, they are not sup-
posed to take advantage of their formal positions to
flaunt their power or directly criticize their subor-
dinates. However, in an informal atmosphere such dis-
plays of power or criticism are interpreted as advice
between friends and accordingly not restricted by the

social taboos.

44

By instrumental informality, information could be
sent that otherwise would be blocked. The superior defines
a situation as informal. Social status between superior
and inferior is reduced. More honest and more threatening
information that cannot be conveyed through formal channels

is transmitted informally.

Affective Informal Mode. This mode is useful in

 

maintaining or creating solidarity in organizations.
According to Rubin, in the Thai case affective informal
communication requires a change of setting away from the
office or meeting place. Before informal conversations
take place, the officials will move outside the district
building and chat in the yard. Officials who are friends
conversed while going to a village or while drinking at
the local restaurant. As may be expected such exchanges
usually are relaxed.

Such discussions concerned work, weather, politics
or personal problems. Through these interactions, of-
ficials can enjoy each other's company and friendships
can be reaffirmed. These conversations served to solidify
the ethnic solidarity of the officials native to the area
against the officials from the central region of the

country posted to the North. During conflicts and other

45

stressful situations such affective solidarities are
quite important.
So, affective informal interactions occur between
status (near) equals. The primary resource each can
bring to the relationship is personal emotive support
which is therefore unlike instrumental informal interaction

between superior and inferior.

CONCLUS IONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We can see clearly the four patterns of bureaucratic
communication in Thai local administration; each mode
is distinguished from the other by different settings.
Formality and ritualism need the support of an official
setting. Affective informality and instrumental in-
formality occur only at locations removed from the
office. Affective informality usually occurs between
status equals. Only a superior through his choice of
language, location and other traits can change a formal
situation into either an instrumental informal or
ritualistic one.

Moreover, Thai traditional culture which involves
respect for official position affects these four modes
of bureaucratic communication. Authority is accepted
readily in the Thai bureaucracy as the basis for rela-
tionships within the organization. Riggs, (1966) Kings-
bury and Siffin (1966) reach the same conclusion that
the Thai have a high degree of respect for authority
and deference for persons having higher status. This

means that orders from the superior will be obeyed by

46

47

the inferior unless the order appears unreasonable, or
conflicts with established values, in which case it is
disregarded rather than opposed. There is a sincere
desire on the part of the inferior to avoid causing
trouble and friction in his relationship with a superior.

While Thais as a people, tend to be individualistic,
they also accord deference to those who hold positions
of authority. As Siffin has said:

"Two features of Thai society contributed greatly
to the accommodation of both status values and individual-
ism, the loose structuring, or high degree of permis-
sivity, characteristic of the social system, and the
shallow paternalism that is one aSpect of the appropriate
reciprocal relationship among superiors and subordinates
within it."39

So, it is characteristic of Thai culture that there
is unquestioning acceptance of the right of a superior
official to give orders to an inferior without challenge
from the latter.

In addition to "respect for the official position",
there is still some significance of the modes of bureau-

cratic communication for the local government of rural

 

39William J. Siffin, The Thai Bureaucracy: Institu-
tional Change and Development, East-West Center Press,
Honolulu, 1966, p. 132.

 

48

Thailand.

Some official records are kept in order to evidence
(or to minimize through false records) responsibility
for particular occurrences and events. Those records do
not always accurately report activities or may report
activities that did not occur. The actual data of
decision making are personal rather than objective, and
their importance tends to live in their source more
than their content.

The four modes of bureaucratic communication men-
tioned above come down from the top and not up from lower
levels. Respect for official superior position affects
these four modes in this aspect. This is illustrated
in Rubin's study by the cases of formal communication,
the headman meeting, the section head meeting, and the
villager meeting. The superior is treated respectfully
and deferentially. He dominates, if not monopolizes,
the entire meeting. Others present listen to what he
says and rarely respond, but apparently absorb the
message.

Ritualistic communication permits individual of-
ficials to protect themselves in different ways. In—
adequate official reports satisfy superior demands with

little effort on the part of the local officials. The

ritualized meetings of the official superior decreases
the status differences with respect to villagers. And
again, the ritualized coordination relationship between
sections permits the individual official to avoid be-
coming dependent upon other officials.

In the case of instrumental informality, the superior
defines this kind of communication as being informal.
Social inhibitions upon both superior and inferior are
thereby decreased.

Finally, affective informal interaction occurs between
status (near) equals; each can bring to the relationship
personal emotional support. This kind of communication is
different from instrumental informal interaction which is
between superior and inferior.

The pattern of bureaucratic communications is selected
by officials, which means that higher ranking officials
seek information on the state of affairs within their
jurisdictions and pick a mode of communication which
enhances their status; the officials talk instead of
listening; the subordinates respect the officials and
are eager to show all the outward forms of deference.
However, the villagers are not willing to be led too fast.
The villagers will express outward consent and obedience
and then quietly fail to do as they have been commanded.
The posture of subordinates is usually deferential and

protective.

50

Any visit by high ranking administrative officials to
their people helps to convince their people of the of-
ficials' paternal pride, interest in their work and their
particular problems. The meal with liquor that goes with
the official visits becomes lively and involves unin-
hibited discussions. Their peOple report to them person-
ally, bringing the gossip, the confidences and the susPic-
ions which help protect the officials against painful
surprises.

Rules and regulations are commonplace instruments of
communication within the bureaucracy but they work in
different ways. On the one hand, many rules and regula—
tions tend to be effective without question. On the other
hand, Specific rules and regulations can be ignored or
modified in particular actions by officials with high
status. Formal communication appears to be effective in
situations in which the superior has the needed information
and that superior is sympathetic to the formal goals of
the bureaucracy. At times, though, the superior acquires
the information by means of instrumental informality.
Through instrumental communication,threatening informa—
tion which cannot be conveyed in formal ways is transmitted
informally. However, it might not be good form for the
official to violate at will an old rule about some im-
portant matter and adopt a new rule. The new rule may

become a convenient justification for whatever future

51

action at variance from the older norms the official may
desire. As Siffin has said: "Rules (in bureaucracies)
are the instruments of an authority which is essentially
nonlegal, and which resembles legal authority chiefly
because any large administrative system must have a
fairly sizeable number of available premises in order

to continue to exist and operate in a coherent manner".40

In conclusion, we can see that the Thai value "respect
for the official position" affects bureaucratic communi-
cations in dysfunctional ways more than functional ways
to the organization. This value disrupts formal communi-
cation particularly and this type of communication is
necessary for the effective functioning of organizations.
Errors of communication can occur easily in the absence of
record keeping and other aspects of formal communication.
The respect for the official position value is a barrier
to the structural development of local Thai government in
rural areas.

One way to solve this problem is for the central
government to delegate more authority to the local govern-
ment in the rural area. Secondly, the government is
trying to give the people more education in order to help
the people to understand about the local-self administra-

tion system, which can inspire the people to get away

 

40William J. Siffin; Op. Cit., p. 236.

52

from unquestioning acceptance of the traditional value

of respect for the official position. Finally, the
government has to convince officials to stop assuming that
they are much superior to the villagers. Officials should
not expect villagers to respect unreasonable commands
simply because of their higher status. The formal mode

of communication may be preferable in this sense because
it does not rely so exclusively for its effectiveness

upon status differences.

However, our suggestions for getting rid of the dys-
functional value of Thai culture for the development of
bureaucratic communication are hard to implement because
this value appears to be deeply rooted in Thai rural
peOple ever since the establishment of Thailand as a
nation.

Moreover, this situation parallels the one that
Michel Crozier found in a study of two French bureau-
cratic organizations. Crozier states that "the rigidity
of task definition, rank arrangements, and the human
relations networks, results in a lack of communication
between the groups".41 From this perspective, it appears
that each group (villagers and officials) views its own
functions as the most crucial for the success of the

organization; as, for example when Thai officials try

 

41Michel Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1964), page 175.

53

to protect their own domain and ignore the organization's
goals. Thai officials are reluctant to delegate authority
and this is encouraged by Thai tradition of "respect to
the official position". The way to solve this problem

in Crozier's view is to introduce more rules to enforce
honesty which will lead to the achievement of organiza-
tional goals. In this way officials and the villagers
can increase their communication with each other. If

the officials are honest, then they do not need to avoid
face-to-face contact with villagers and the villagers

are more likely to initiate contact with honest of-

ficials.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blau, Peter. The Dynamics of Bureaucrapy. Chicago,
University of Chicago Press, 1958.

 

. The Structure of Organizations. New York,
New York Press, 1971.

 

Crozier, Michel. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago,
University of Chicago Press, 1964.

DeYoung, John E. Village Life in Modern Thailand. Berkeley
and Los Angeles: UnIVersityofCalifornia Press, 1955.

Embree, John F. "Thailand - A Loosely Structured Social
System", American Anthropologist, LII, No. 2, 1950.

Etzioni, Amitai. A Compprative Analysis of Complex
Organization. New York, Free Press, 1961.

 

Hanks, L. "Merit and Power in the Thai Social Order",
American Anthropologist No. 64, 1962.

Horrigan, Frederick J. "Local Government and Administra-
tion in Thailand: A Study of Institutions and Their Cul-
tural Setting", Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana
University, 1959.

LaPalombara, Joseph, (ed.). Bureaucracy and Political
DevelOpment. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963.

 

McCarthy, James. Surveying and Exploring in Siam. London,
John Murray, 1900.

Moerman, M. "Western Culture and the Thai Way of Life",
Asia 1, Spring, 1964.

Moffat, Abbot Low Mongkut, The King of Siam. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1961.

Mosel, James N. "Thai Administrative Behavior", in W. J.

Siffin, ed.; Toward the Comparative Study of Public Ad-
ministration. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1959.

54

55

Organizational Directory of the Government of Thggland,
1960, 1963 Bangkok: USOM/Thailand.

Perrow, Charles. Organizational Analysis. A Sociological
View. Belmont, CalifOrnia, Brooks7Cole, 1970.

 

Phillips, Herbert. Thai Peasant Personality. Berkeley,
University of California Press, 1965.

 

Pye, Lucian, W., ed. Communications and Political De-
velppment. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1963.

 

Riggs, Fred W. Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureau-
cratic Polity, East-West Center Press, Honolulu, 1966.

 

Rubin, Herbert J. "Modes of Bureaucratic Communication.
Examples from Thai Local Administration", The Socio-
logical Quarterly 15, 1974.

Siffin, William J. The Thai Bureaucragy: Institutional
Change and Development. East-West Center Press, Honolulu,
1966.

 

 

Wells, Kenneth E. Thai Buddhism: Its Rites and Activities.
Bangkok: The Christian Bookstore, 1960.

HICHI ARIES

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII