with forest cover declining from 50 per cent of land area in the early 1960s to approximately
20 per cent in the mid-1980s. This was lowered to 15 per cent in 1986 according to unofficial
estimates. Not surprisingly, deforestation proceeded so rapidly that by 1968 Thailand became
a net importer of wood. The conclusion that can be drawn is that high economic growth can
be attained as in recent decades, stemming from an increase in the area under cultivation at
the expense of forest areas, in particular in the uplands. Commercial or cash crops like rice,
cassava, maize, jute kenaf and sugarcane are responsible for high economic growth and rapid
deforestation. My point is certainly not a refusal of foreign exchange earnings from selling
agricultural products if productivity in agriculture has been increasing over time. The
expansion of cultivated areas without a corresponding increase in productivity is irrational to
say the least.
One factor which have resulted in deforestation in Thailand is concerned with
property rights in land. Although illegal logging by people with political connections is
commonly accepted as important, titled land has been more significant than other factors.
General patterns encouraging deforestation include illegal encroachment by landless and
small farmers actually clearing land the expectation that they would then revive title to the
newly cleared land (see Siamwalla, 1991; Siriprachai, 1995a). the soft state in the context of
Gunnar Myrdal might fit the case of Thailand. According to North (1990), it implies that a
third party, namely the relatively autonomous state is required, however the Thai state
appears too weak to enforce the law of the land and secure property rights which can only be
done by political and judicial organizations that effectively and impartially enforce contracts
across space and time. However, property rights in land in Thailand have been very insecure
and chaotic. Some Thai scholars claim that because Thailand has never enacted a genuine
land tax, the necessity for a systematic land title is redundant.
As mentioned before, until the 1970s the agricultural sector still contributed a greater
part to the state in terms of economic growth, employment and foreign exchange. There is no
doubt the Thai state might have benefited from exporting more primary products to the world
market, even though the total productivity of this sector increased at a decreasing rate or
nearly stagnated. The point should be made that productivity in agriculture would keep on
increasing if property rights in land were not ill-defined and effectively enforced by a strong