ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the relationship between the state and the higher education administration. Sinlarat (1985) persuasively argued that the development of Thailand’s higher education system has closely mirrored the peculiar approach of Thai-style development, which is characterized as elitist, heavily centralized, Western-centric and market driven. From its inception, involvement in state planning and national development was limited to the king, princes, and bureaucratic elites surrounding the palace, while the majority of the people did not participate in the policy process. Furthermore, decision-making and resources have always been centralized and concentrated in Bangkok. Most of the policy planning was decided by the senior bureaucrats, university rectors and the deans, while most of the academics or the “laymen” did not have adequate representation. According to Sinlarat (1985), the concept of center-periphery helps to explicate the development of Thailand. Externally, the Thai state has looked to London, Paris, and the United States as the models of development. Internally, the state has positioned Bangkok as the center and the metropolis while other regions must follow suit. Everything begins in Bangkok and subsequently penetrates to the rest of the country. Undoubtedly, the structure and dynamics of Thailand’s higher education have echoed this elitist and Bangkok-centric model.
