Driving the (policy for) the local

Professor Sirisak gives lectures at the college, specialises and conducts several studies on local administration, public policy, comparative public policy, decentralisation and public participation. He came across Thailand Policy Lab’s activities and policy communication through social media. However, when he discerned that most activities focus around the central government and institutions, he came up with an idea to connect students and staff from the College of Local Administration, Khon Kaen University, and other public policy networks around Thailand with the central government organisations. His idea was realised in the sustainable policy design for northeastern Thailand workshop, hosted by UNDP and Thailand Policy Lab, which will later be used in local development plans.

“We want to build an ecosystem that allows [people] to see that current public affairs and administration focus on area-based development and diversity. Top-down policies can only be applied in some contexts but they will not be able to drive the whole country [which needs understanding of various contexts including local ones]. It is impossible for a one sized shirt to fit everyone. Therefore, the idea of area-based development and diversity should be established from the local level.”

Khon Kaen, the gate to the northeast–without a rigid frame 

Most of the national public policy on issues such as inequality, income, economy etc. emerge from the northeast region. Although, the population of the northeastern part does not represent the whole population, it is undeniable that many public policy issues are clustered in this region due to the high number of population. These issues mentioned above are, therefore, considered very fundamental for policy designing for the northeast.

However, although Professor Sirisak commented that while putting a clear frame on the policy making process could be beneficial, making sure the frame is not too rigid would also allow us to see other interconnected root causes underlying issues we are solving as well.”

“Khon Kaen is one of the large major cities. It is the centre city of the northeast which has been given lots of opportunities. However, the central organisation should see Khon Kaen as only the gateway to other [local] networks [in the region]–not as a well-known major city of Khon Kaen. It is necessary to see Khon Kaen as an area that connects to other areas in which we have relationships. The question is how to bring every entity and organisation from all over the Northeast to work together with the central ones.”

Professor Sirisak explained that our interpretation of the “local” government significantly affects how and who we see as “stakeholders” [in making policy]. He mentioned that when the College of Local Administration, Khon Kaen University started off, it positioned itself only within the realm of local [government] organisations which might not be inclusive enough [when it comes to local policy making].

“When we are talking about local, most people only think of provincial and subdistrict administrative organisations and municipalities. So, we reinterpret [the meaning of] local. Local government does not only include subdistrict municipalities and administrative organisations, but it covers every entity related to that area–the civil services, private organisations, as well as civic sectors. We cannot exclude [some] districts or [some] provinces. Even private organisations have their own role to drive the public administration services. The civic sectors also play a role in communicating people’s voices and connecting with the central government. Hence, the word local evolved its meaning into every part of all layers [of the government], not just a single local government. This change leads to reinterpretation and reassessment of our stakeholders too. When we see local government through a different lens, our stakeholders are no longer just the local government.”

The tools reveal the issues and vice versa

He reflected that during the workshop, the Ice-breaking tool, suggested by Thailand policy lab, had become a comfort zone which made participants feel comfortable to share their experiences and information [in the first step of brainstorming for policy design] without fear of being judged and made them feel heard. While tools like the Persona and Iceberg model, which helps them digest the issues, allows participants to see layers of the issues through even more profound lenses.

“We usually see policy [making] as the matter of those in authority or those in the government. However, tools like the Iceberg model or Persona show us that policy making has to be–not even just citizen-centric–but people-centric. It has to be inclusive of anyone who resides in the area even though they are not officially registered as citizens. This approach of policy making has shifted the paradigm of policy making.”

Professor Sirisak pointed out that the younger generation, the people who would be living with the public policies we have been creating, has been excluded from the participation, discussion, the design process, and the making of public policy. He recalled the time when a student who participated in the policy workshop as a staff member raised an idea in the discussion circle. The topic was: What should be done to solve drug problems in local communities?

“One community leader asserted that drug addicts should be jailed–they should be suppressed. However, a student who participated [as a staff member] asked: “Why do we think imprisonment is the right solution to drug problems?” That question got the whole circle thinking. The younger generation has never been involved in a community meeting or discussion before. The student suggested that they should start from talking [to the addicts] and try to understand [the contexts of their lives]. The [empathetic] approach might reveal actual root causes that do not end at labelling them as ‘drug addicts’. If we dive deeper [to the root causes], they may have mental health problems, economic problems, or maybe we would be able to see whether the community has excluded them in any way. Approaching the issue with the Iceberg model is the missing piece [that changes the overall picture of] policy making.

“What we have learned far beyond the tools was that some groups of people had been excluded from policy making for a very long time. [I also think that] Thailand Policy Lab also gets to learn from this scenario as well. Some tools may be used (and worked) in Scandinavia but they might not work in Khon Kaen. Therefore, the tools also need to be flexible [with the contexts] too.”

Driving the (policy for) the local

Professor Sirisak said that the common objective in driving the local entities anywhere in the world is to yield authority to the local entities to solve the issues in the area. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that the formations, the structures, and mechanisms of the government of each country are different due to their contexts.

“In the United States, there are federal states. The unique point of federal states is that the bottom–local and regional entities–are strong and so are their top. Each federal state possesses autonomy [to some certain extent] so their local entities are strong. They do not have to call for decentralisation because they are already [structured like that]. However, Thailand’s local government and organisations are like limbs to the body of the central government. They just follow what the brain says. The demand for decentralisation would not be as effective if we do not understand the limitations of the laws and authorities given [to the local entities]. We also have to understand why the local entities are given those limitations as well. Then, we can think about what strategies we should come up with [to drive the local entities].” 

Professor Sirisak ended with a suggestion for Thai local entities to step out of their comfort zones in local policy making. While they are still hesitant to try, local entities can start from innovation thinking and develop more innovation within the area. They might have to consider possible mechanisms to unleash local power and potential within the legal authority that they have been given to some extent in the present day.