This article is a rare beacon of intellectual clarity amidst the morass of historical illiteracy that continues to plague Thai political discourse. The Thai PBS article you so deftly dismantle is not merely mistaken—it is an affront to serious scholarship, a clumsy pastiche of misread academic literature woven together in service of a crude, authoritarian apologia.
That its author could, with a straight face, suggest that dictatorship is a precondition for economic development is testament to an almost heroic ignorance of the field. As you correctly point out, Przeworski et al. (2000) settled this debate long ago, demonstrating empirically that there is no inherent trade-off between democracy and development. Had the Thai PBS article’s author bothered to engage with the literature beyond cherry-picking citations to support their flimsy thesis, they might have spared themselves this intellectual embarrassment.
Your exposition of developmental states and systemic vulnerability is particularly commendable, not least because it exhibits the kind of analytical rigor so conspicuously absent from the article you critique. The notion that developmental states are inherently authoritarian is not merely incorrect—it is laughably so. That the Thai PBS piece invokes Doner, Ritchie, and Slater without grasping that systemic vulnerability applies equally to democracies and dictatorships alike only underscores the depths of its conceptual confusion.
Most importantly, you elevate the discussion beyond the jejune and tiresome democracy-versus-autocracy debate, directing attention to the real question: what form of developmental state is viable in Thailand today? Your engagement with Wong (2011) and Kattel et al. (2022) provides precisely the kind of nuanced, forward-thinking analysis that is so desperately lacking in public discourse.
In short, your article is an invaluable corrective to the rank amateurism that continues to masquerade as political analysis. One can only hope that those who peddle such intellectual detritus will, at some point, summon the humility to engage with real scholarship—or failing that, have the decency to remain silent.
Excellent piece, as always, Ken. I think that no one can disagree that Thailand’s economic advancement depends less on regime type and more on the creation of effective, inclusive, and adaptive institutions. The debate should focus on how to foster sustainable development in a way that addresses Thailand's unique challenges—rather than indulging in authoritarian nostalgia. Well, *some people* may disagree !!
This article is a rare beacon of intellectual clarity amidst the morass of historical illiteracy that continues to plague Thai political discourse. The Thai PBS article you so deftly dismantle is not merely mistaken—it is an affront to serious scholarship, a clumsy pastiche of misread academic literature woven together in service of a crude, authoritarian apologia.
That its author could, with a straight face, suggest that dictatorship is a precondition for economic development is testament to an almost heroic ignorance of the field. As you correctly point out, Przeworski et al. (2000) settled this debate long ago, demonstrating empirically that there is no inherent trade-off between democracy and development. Had the Thai PBS article’s author bothered to engage with the literature beyond cherry-picking citations to support their flimsy thesis, they might have spared themselves this intellectual embarrassment.
Your exposition of developmental states and systemic vulnerability is particularly commendable, not least because it exhibits the kind of analytical rigor so conspicuously absent from the article you critique. The notion that developmental states are inherently authoritarian is not merely incorrect—it is laughably so. That the Thai PBS piece invokes Doner, Ritchie, and Slater without grasping that systemic vulnerability applies equally to democracies and dictatorships alike only underscores the depths of its conceptual confusion.
Most importantly, you elevate the discussion beyond the jejune and tiresome democracy-versus-autocracy debate, directing attention to the real question: what form of developmental state is viable in Thailand today? Your engagement with Wong (2011) and Kattel et al. (2022) provides precisely the kind of nuanced, forward-thinking analysis that is so desperately lacking in public discourse.
In short, your article is an invaluable corrective to the rank amateurism that continues to masquerade as political analysis. One can only hope that those who peddle such intellectual detritus will, at some point, summon the humility to engage with real scholarship—or failing that, have the decency to remain silent.
Excellent piece, as always, Ken. I think that no one can disagree that Thailand’s economic advancement depends less on regime type and more on the creation of effective, inclusive, and adaptive institutions. The debate should focus on how to foster sustainable development in a way that addresses Thailand's unique challenges—rather than indulging in authoritarian nostalgia. Well, *some people* may disagree !!