intervention policy

"Agricultural price insurance" has become a sharp spear that destroys the competitiveness of the Thai agricultural sector, which has fallen to the lowest level in 21 years, causing competitors to steadily overtake.

This information is from

has surveyed the Global Agricultural Factor Production Index.

plus the decline is lower than the world average in 21 years, while Vietnam, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Indonesia, China, India have the index value adjusted ahead of us.

Assoc.Prof.Dr.Wissanu Attavanich

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wisanu Attawanich

, Lecturer of the Faculty of Economics

Kasetsart University

Research Specialist in Climate Change and Agriculture

Provides information that the index is an indicator of the change in competitiveness in many countries, linking factors of production such as land, labour, capital used to agricultural production.

There has been a survey to collect data from the past to the present.

"For the agricultural sector to develop well" otherwise it may lose the ability to export agricultural products.

and affecting the country's income to decrease accordingly

It appears that

"the Thai index has not adjusted since 2007", and the latest survey in 2020, the index fell below the world average for the first time in 21 years, "sending a signal that something was wrong with the agricultural sector" if released. This will affect agricultural exports.

“Wang came to be a problem with the stomach of farmers” became a burden of debt.

The cause of

has many factors, partly from

“Climate change” damages reduced agricultural productivity.

then have to meet

“Intense competition in the world market” affects trade quite a lot.

Including many changes in technology

These things are constantly being modified.

Even "neighboring countries" have developed agricultural research all the time.

The “budget burden” to help heal tends to increase.

As a result, investment expenditures to improve production efficiency decreased accordingly.

Ultimately, the competitiveness of Thai agricultural products in the world market will decrease.

“It has a negative impact on farmers” cannot escape this cycle of poverty.

In addition, midstream and downstream entrepreneurs who rely on farm produce will face higher cost risks.

and lose market share from reduced competitiveness

Then there is the question why Thai farmers do not develop agricultural products according to the market mechanism or adapt to the changing climate...?

It appears that research in the past indicates that the main cause comes from

"Government policies" tend to use agricultural policies of "market intervention, price insurance, or income insurance", such as the populist rice pledging scheme. The "government" will buy every grain of paddy from farmers.

and set the pledge price higher than the market

causing the quality of Thai rice to deteriorate

become motivated

unlike in the past, rice farmers often hoped for that profit.

"But in this era, we grow rice and wait for government subsidies" that heal each other spending a hundred thousand million baht each year.

Part of the factor comes from

"Political sector" prefers to help by giving money easily, freely, without conditions because it often wins the hearts of the masses, leading to voting in the next election.

“But this kind of policy implementation has only short-term benefits to farmers.” Finally, medium-term or long-term results are negative for the country.

Moreover,

may be of little benefit.

being sown with agricultural policies revolving around

"Market mechanism intervention" through unconditional remedies

"It is a populist policy" to win political votes that claim to raise farmer's income and live a better life.

Importantly, “This policy did not help reduce the burden of farmers' debts.” Looking back at the statistics, income has increased very little since the past, averaged 200,000 baht/household/year.

“In contrast to the rapid increase in production costs”, causing the agricultural household debt problem to intensify at an average of 300,000 baht/household/year during the past decade.

raises the question that

“If perfect policies are useful, why don't farmers get richer...?”

But if looking at the long term, farmers do not use the money from the project to invest in improving production efficiency.

Causing the ability to diminish and become unable to sell products

“I want to tell farmers that the free money policy has short-term benefits.

But it has a long-term negative effect on you. Notice the year 2020, the impact of COVID-19.

The ability to export Thai agricultural products has decreased differently from other countries such as Vietnam developing rice varieties.

Or cassava, low cost but high yield per rai, exports of products have already surpassed us,” Assoc. Prof. Dr. Witsanu said.

reflect that

“Thai farmers are fragile”, they do not have the immunity, their ability to cope when faced with a crisis that has consequences, they will wait for the “governmental sector” to come in and help heal this kind of adjustment indefinitely.

became a comeback to indirectly hurt farmers

And the government has a burden to spend more aid budget.

in fact

“This money should be used for farmers to adjust” to improve production capacity.

“It is to strengthen the sustainable agricultural sector” in order to have more money to invest in infrastructure in the country.

Emphasizing with

"investment in research development in Thai agriculture", there is almost no budget to support at present.

"It has become an unadvanced field," resulting in fewer experts and a critical shortage of researchers.

Many developers of plant species, plant diseases and plant insects exist today.

This makes "Thai agricultural sector unable to compete with neighboring countries that constantly develop researchers."

“Quick Win”, whereas research is quite late, taking 8-10 years to see results, but always delivers maximum benefits to farmers in the long term.

It turns out that "good policies that are beneficial to society are hard to come by" focusing on helping to make payments and seeing results quickly.

“Take pictures for the news” makes the budget run out.

In the future, it will ultimately not be good for the nation's society.

The issue is that

would like to send a signal to policy makers.

or political party

If possible, they should come together and help create a new norm.

"Issuing creative policies" leading to the improvement of agricultural production efficiency.

reduce production risks

and real marketing

so that farmers have lower production costs

increase in net income

"Household debt has decreased" and good policies allow entrepreneurs to purchase agricultural products with certainty in both quantity and quality, able to compete in the world market.

So don't just compete with each other and give money to farmers only.

“This is not good for anyone,” but may only gain short-term popularity votes.

“But the long-term results will have a negative impact on Thai society.”

and create sustainable benefits for Thailand

Finally, "politicians" should work together to "rethink, rethink" for the betterment of our Thai society.

not only focusing

"Populist policies" where the country receives little benefit is not sustainable...