(p < 0.01)). Therefore, poorer households were particularly disadvantaged, as they
tended to have both lower education levels (Spearman rho correlation coefficient
p < 0.01) and lived further away from a paved road (Spearman rho correlation
coefficient p < 0.05). The influence of education levels on the maize price received
may possibly stem from the fact that those who are better educated are more likely
to have a greater knowledge of financial issues and improved negotiation skills. The
finding here that farmers without good road communications tended to obtain lower
maize prices confirms the findings of Keil et al. (2008).
12.3 The Effect of Agricultural Commercialization
on the Incomes of Ethnic Minority Farmers
There has been considerable debate among policymakers and academics in
Thailand as to whether the commercialization of agriculture is a change for the
better. Some policy documents have attributed social problems and economic
instability to the excessive influence of market forces on Thai society (NESDB
2002; UNDP 2007). Regarding mountainous areas, the Thai media often link
agricultural commercialization to deforestation, the occurrence of floods and
droughts, rivers being poisoned with agrochemicals, and farmers being laden with
debts (Forsyth and Walker 2008). A Thai government resolution in 1998 stated that
communities located in certain conservation areas – which almost entirely refers to
upland communities – must be strictly contained within demarcated residential and
agricultural areas and must focus on subsistence production (Forsyth and Walker
2008: 50). These statements stand in sharp contrast to the reality on the ground.
After three decades of economic growth in Thailand, pure subsistence systems are
nowadays difficult to find, with almost all communities in mountainous areas
growing some form of cash crop. In order to add to this debate about agricultural
commercialization in Thailand, during our research we quantified the level of
market integration to be found among farm households in a mountainous area,
and assessed the effect of market integration on farm performance and economic
well-being.
The study used a stratified random sample of 240 farm households in Chiang
Mai province belonging to the Karen ethnic minority. The whole province was
divided into four strata based on relative distance to the nearest markets, with three
Karen villages then randomly selected from each stratum, giving 12 villages in
total, from which 20 households were then randomly selected from each. Sampling
weights were used in all parts of the analysis to correct for selection bias. Using
questionnaires, we collected farm-level data on farm production and household
consumption activities, and for each crop and livestock product, as well as input and
consumption item, we asked whether it had originated on-farm or whether off-farm
transactions were involved. The reference period for the survey was 2006, with the
results published in Tipraqsa and Schreinemachers (2009).
12 Policies for Sustainable Development: The Commercialization of Smallholder. . .
471
tended to have both lower education levels (Spearman rho correlation coefficient
p < 0.01) and lived further away from a paved road (Spearman rho correlation
coefficient p < 0.05). The influence of education levels on the maize price received
may possibly stem from the fact that those who are better educated are more likely
to have a greater knowledge of financial issues and improved negotiation skills. The
finding here that farmers without good road communications tended to obtain lower
maize prices confirms the findings of Keil et al. (2008).
12.3 The Effect of Agricultural Commercialization
on the Incomes of Ethnic Minority Farmers
There has been considerable debate among policymakers and academics in
Thailand as to whether the commercialization of agriculture is a change for the
better. Some policy documents have attributed social problems and economic
instability to the excessive influence of market forces on Thai society (NESDB
2002; UNDP 2007). Regarding mountainous areas, the Thai media often link
agricultural commercialization to deforestation, the occurrence of floods and
droughts, rivers being poisoned with agrochemicals, and farmers being laden with
debts (Forsyth and Walker 2008). A Thai government resolution in 1998 stated that
communities located in certain conservation areas – which almost entirely refers to
upland communities – must be strictly contained within demarcated residential and
agricultural areas and must focus on subsistence production (Forsyth and Walker
2008: 50). These statements stand in sharp contrast to the reality on the ground.
After three decades of economic growth in Thailand, pure subsistence systems are
nowadays difficult to find, with almost all communities in mountainous areas
growing some form of cash crop. In order to add to this debate about agricultural
commercialization in Thailand, during our research we quantified the level of
market integration to be found among farm households in a mountainous area,
and assessed the effect of market integration on farm performance and economic
well-being.
The study used a stratified random sample of 240 farm households in Chiang
Mai province belonging to the Karen ethnic minority. The whole province was
divided into four strata based on relative distance to the nearest markets, with three
Karen villages then randomly selected from each stratum, giving 12 villages in
total, from which 20 households were then randomly selected from each. Sampling
weights were used in all parts of the analysis to correct for selection bias. Using
questionnaires, we collected farm-level data on farm production and household
consumption activities, and for each crop and livestock product, as well as input and
consumption item, we asked whether it had originated on-farm or whether off-farm
transactions were involved. The reference period for the survey was 2006, with the
results published in Tipraqsa and Schreinemachers (2009).
12 Policies for Sustainable Development: The Commercialization of Smallholder. . .
471