| Since 1932 Thailand has been ruled by military leaders, civilian elites, or a combination of the two. The primary base of political power has been the alliance between civil servants and military officers. Political parties and parliaments have been used largely to legitimize decisions made by a ruling circle of military and civilian politicians.;The conceptual framework of this study has been derived from two contrasting arguments about the relationship between the military and economic development. On the one hand, the military is seen as a modernizing force, and military leaders as agents of national construction and economic growth. On the other, the military is viewed as a conservative force, and military leaders as guardians of stability and status quo.;In fact, however, the Thai military has been a hybrid institution, playing both roles effectively. Accordingly, we hypothesized, civilian-military government would be most effective in promoting economic development by generating policy outputs and policy outcomes.;Having applied regression analysis to a variety of data and indices measuring our dependent (socioeconomic performance) variables and our independent variable (regime type), we found confirmation for our hypothesis.;This work examines the role of the military in Thai economic modernization by assessing the relationship between regime types and socioeconomic performance during the period 1960-1984. Regime types consist of military-dominated government (1960-1972), civilian-dominated government (1973-1976), and civilian-military government (1976-1984). Socioeconomic performance consists of policy outputs and policy outcomes. |
