The Truth about Thailand's Transport Infrastructure Development and Financing
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
THAILAND
THITITHEP SITTHIYOT
Chulalongkorn University
The Truth about Thailand’s
Transport Infrastructure
Development and Financing
argue that Thailand has lagged behind This study is divided into five sections.
other countries in the region in terms of Following the Introduction, the second sec-
infrastructure investment since the Asian tion provides the overview of the Master
financial crisis in 1997. The relatively low Plan. The third section lays out the Trans-
quality of Thailand’s infrastructure com- port Infrastructure Investment Action Plans
Introduction pared to other countries in the region is
one of the major factors resulting in Thai-
land’s sinking competitiveness. According
(hereinafter “Investment Action Plan”) 2015
and 2016 as well as their estimated and
actual disbursement performances. It also
to the Economist (2015), Thailand fares presents the information on the Investment
relatively poorly in international rankings Action Plan 2017 and its disbursement fore-
when it comes to the quality of rail infra- cast. The fourth section discusses and com-
structure and facilities, limiting its overall ments on Thailand’s transport infrastruc-
A
healthy body needs well-function- logistics performance in the view of many ture development and its financing. Finally,
ing flow systems such as blood industries. In addition, the International the fifth section concludes and offers sug-
circulation, respiration, and metab- Monetary Fund (2016) notes that Thailand gestions for, but not limited to, Thailand’s
olism in order to transport nutrients, oxy- needs to upgrade its infrastructure to keep transport infrastructure project develop-
gen, carbon-dioxide, heat and waste prod- up with regional competition, lift its poten- ment and management.
ucts. For these substances to flow well, a tial growth, and avoid the middle income
strong and healthy mass transport system trap.
is required. Like the body, a healthy coun-
try relies upon excellent flows of goods,
In 2015, the military-led government
announced the Transport Infrastructure Overview of the
services, money, people, information,
knowledge, culture, water, air and wastes.
Development Master Plan 2015-2022 (here-
inafter “Master Plan”) with a planned total Transport Infrastructure
For these items to flow well, they must be
supported by an excellent infrastructure
investment of THB 1,913 billion. The aim of
the Master Plan is to promote connectivity Development Master
network.
Viewing the body as a metaphor for
a country and a mass transport system as a
and transform the country into a regional
hub and enhance competitiveness as well
as provide a foundation for long-term de-
Plan 2015-2022
metaphor for an infrastructure network, it velopment (Royal Thai Government, 2016).
is widely agreed that Thailand is not very The objective of this study is to investigate According to the Office of Transport and
healthy due to a lack of infrastructure in- the details of the Master Plan, its sources Traffic Policy and Planning (2014a), the
vestment to support flows of economic and of financing, and project disbursement. It main objectives of the Master Plan are to
social activity. There is clear evidence in- then discusses some concerns and caveats strengthen social and economic security,
dicating the poor health of Thailand, such that could benefit those interested in this increase transport safety, and improve
as the high cost of logistics and transpor- multi-year infrastructure development quality of life as well as enhance compet-
tation, traffic congestion in urban areas, program. Suggestions to improve Thai- itiveness and gain potential benefits from
deteriorating quality of life, and loss of land’s transport infrastructure develop- the ASEAN Economic Community. There
competitiveness. Amornvivat et al. (2015) ment and management are also provided. are five transportation modes comprising
38 | NOMURA JOURNAL OF ASIAN CAPITAL MARKETS | Spring 2017 Vol.1/No.2Figure 1: Transport Infrastructure Development Master Plan 2015-2022 and its Sources of Financing (THB Billion)
Master Plan 2015-2022 Sources of Financing
Air Transport Inter-city Rail State-Owned
Development, Network, Enterprise
Maritime 50 (3%) 66 (3%) Revenues,
Transport 86 (4%)
Development,
101 (5%)
PPPs,
298 (16%)
Public Government
Transport and State-
Highway Network in Owned
Network, Bangkok and Enterprise
624 (33%) Annual Budget Borrowings,
its Vicinity,
Allocation, 987 (52%)
1,072 (56%)
542 (28%)
Source: Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning (2014a) and Public Debt Management Office (2015)
this multi-year Master Plan. They are the proximately THB 1,913 billion, of which
inter-city rail network, public transport THB 66 billion was allocated for the in-
network in Bangkok and its vicinity, high-
way network, maritime transport devel-
ter-city rail network, THB 1,072 billion for
public transport network development in
Transport Infrastructure
opment and air transport development.
For the inter-city rail network, the
Bangkok and its vicinity, THB 624 billion
for the highway network, THB 101 bil-
Investment Action
government plans to upgrade rail infra-
structure and facilities as well as to build
lion for maritime transport development,
and THB 50 billion for air transport de- Plans 2015, 2016 and
a double-track railway network (standard
gauge) in six main routes with their exten-
velopment. According to the Public Debt
Management Office (2015), the major 2017
sion to borders. To resolve traffic conges- sources of financing would come from
tion and pollution problems in Bangkok government and state-owned enterprise
and its vicinity, the government plans to borrowings accounting for 52% of total in-
extend mass transit railways, procure vestment. The remaining funding would Transport Infrastructure Investment
new public buses, and improve quality come from annual budget allocation, Action Plan 2015
of roads and bridges. With regard to the public private partnerships (PPPs), and The Office of Transport and Traffic
highway network, four-lane-road net- state-owned enterprise revenues which Policy and Planning (2014b) reported that
works will be developed in order to con- accounted for 28, 16 and 4% of total in- the Investment Action Plan 2015 com-
nect key economic regions and border vestment, respectively. prised fifty-nine projects with total invest-
areas. New motorways and expressways In addition to the Master Plan, the ment in the amount of THB 848 billion, of
will be constructed. In addition, the gov- government began implementing annual which THB 56 billion was expected to be
ernment plans to develop road facilities Investment Action Plans starting the same disbursed in 2015 and the rest would be
such as rest areas for trucks, a multi-mod- year. Their purpose is to give priority to carried over during the next 7-year peri-
al transport system and cross-border lo- projects based on their importance and od from 2016 to 2022. Figure 2 shows the
gistics centers. For maritime transport necessity as well as simultaneously stim- Investment Action Plan 2015 categorized
development, seaports on both the Thai ulating the economy. The next section by modes of transportation. It should be
gulf and Andaman Sea will be developed. surveys the Investment Action Plans 2015 noted that this was for the projects worth
Lastly, the government plans to increase and 2016, and their estimated and actu- THB 56 billion expected to be disbursed in
airport capacity with an aim to be the re- al performances. The Investment Action 2015 only, of which THB 10 million was for
gional hub for air transportation, enhance Plan 2017 and its disbursement forecast the inter-city rail network, THB 27 billion
the air traffic management system, devel- are also presented. for the public transport network in Bang-
op an airport logistics park, and invest in kok and its vicinity, THB 22 billion for the
human resources for civil aviation. highway network, THB 2 billion for mar-
Figure 1 shows total investment for itime transport development, and THB
the Master Plan categorized by modes 5 billion for air transport development.
of transportation and their sources of With regard to sources of financing, 47%
financing. This 8-year Master Plan was came from government and state-owned
initially estimated in 2015 to be worth ap- enterprise borrowings, 36% from annual
The Truth about Thailand’s Transport Infrastructure Development and Financing | 39THAILAND
Figure 2: Transport Infrastructure Investment Action Plan 2015 and its Sources of Financing (THB Billion)
Investment Action Plan 2015 Sources of Financing
Air Transport Inter-city Rail State-Owned PPPs,
Development, Network, Enterprise 4 (6%)
Maritime 5 (9%) 0.01 (0.02%) Revenues,
Transport 6 (11%)
Development,
2 (4%)
Public
Government
Transport
and State-
Network in
Owned
Bangkok and
Highway Enterprise
its Vicinity, Annual Budget
Network, Borrowings,
27 (48%) Allocation,
22 (39%) 26 (47%)
20 (36%)
Note: The total amount of investment in the Investment Action Plan 2015 was THB 848 billion. However, Figure 2 only shows the amount financing sources of investments
expected to be disbursed in 2015, which amounted to THB 56 billion.
Source: Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning (2014b)
Figure 3: Transport Infrastructure Investment Action Plan 2016 and its Sources of Financing (THB Billion)
Investment Action Plan 2016 Sources of Financing
Maritime Transport Air Transport State-Owned Toll Road
Development, Development, Enterprise Fund,
4 (0.2%) 52 (3%) Revenues, 14 (1%)
Highway 55 (3%)
Annual Budget
Network, Allocation,
160 (9%) 212 (12%)
Public
Transport Government
Network in and State-
Bangkok and Inter-city Rail PPPs, Owned
its Vicinity, Network, 377 (21%) Enterprise
397 (22%) 1,184 (66%) Borrowings,
1,138 (63%)
Source: Termpittayapaisith (2016) and Public Debt Management Office (2016a)
budget allocation, 11% from state-owned network, THB 397 billion for the public should be noted that the Toll Road Fund
enterprise revenues, and 6% from PPPs. transport network in Bangkok and its vi- was an additional source of financing that
Even though the government planned to cinity, THB 160 billion for the highway did not initially appear in the Master Plan.
disburse around THB 56 billion, the actual network, THB 4 billion for maritime trans- In December 2016, the Ministry of
disbursement turned out to be only THB port development, and THB 52 billion for Transport reported that the total amount of
1.6 billion which was almost 97% below air transport development. Based on the investment for twenty projects in the Invest-
the target. information from the Public Debt Man- ment Action Plan 2016 was revised down-
agement Office (2016a), financing for these ward from THB 1,796 billion to THB 1,399
Transport Infrastructure Investment projects was mainly from government and billion. Among twenty projects listed in the
Action Plan 2016 state-owned enterprise borrowings ac- Investment Action Plan 2016, there were
According to Termpittayapaisith counting for 63% of total investment. The thirteen projects with total investment of
(2016), there were twenty projects in the second major source of financing was PPPs THB 525 billion that were already approved
Investment Action Plan 2016 with total followed by annual budget allocation. Oth- by the cabinet while seven projects worth
investment in the amount of THB 1,796 er sources of financing came from state- THB 874 billion were postponed since they
billion. Figure 3 illustrates the allocation owned enterprise revenues and the Toll were at that time in the process of cabinet
of total investment, of which THB 1,184 Road Fund which accounted for merely 3 approval, under feasibility study or under
billion was allocated for the inter-city rail and 1% of total amount of investment. It negotiation. The Ministry of Transport pro-
40 | NOMURA JOURNAL OF ASIAN CAPITAL MARKETS | Spring 2017 Vol.1/No.2Figure 4: Transport Infrastructure Investment Action Plan 2017 and its Sources of Financing (THB Billion)
Investment Action Plan 2017 Sources of Financing
Maritime Transport Air Transport State-Owned TFF,
Development, Development, Enterprise Revenues, 45 (5%)
36 (4%) 11 (1%) 3 (1%)
Annual Budget
Allocation,
74 (8%)
Highway
Network, Government
189 (21%) and State-
Inter-city Rail PPPs, Owned
Network, 198 (22%) Enterprise
Public Transport 435 (49%)
Borrowings,
Network in 576 (64%)
Bangkok and
its Vicinity,
225 (25%)
Source: Ministry of Transport (2016) and Public Debt Management Office (2016b)
vided no details regarding the sources of around 5% of total investment according investment first announced in 2015. Inves-
financing of the revised Investment Action to the Investment Action Plan 2017. With tigating the details of individual projects
Plan 2016. While disbursements were esti- regard to the disbursement forecast, the listed in the Master Plan and those given
mated to be around THB 58 billion, the actu- government plans to spend THB 8 billion in the individual annual Investment Action
al disbursement turned out to be only THB for the thirty-six new projects in 2017. In Plans reveals some projects were not in-
19 billion or 32% of the target. Despite the addition, the government plans to disburse cluded in the original Master Plan but later
fact that this disbursement rate was below another THB 73 billion for thirteen projects appeared in the annual Investment Action
50%, it was much improved compared to that were listed in the Investment Action Plans. This raises the question whether the
the mere 3% rate in the previous year. Plan 2016 as well as THB 68 billion for sev- Master Plan is reliable as a guideline for
en projects that were postponed in 2016. those who are interested in using the infor-
Transport Infrastructure Investment The total amount of disbursement for 2017 mation for their analyses. It seems that the
Action Plan 2017
is estimated to be around THB 149 billion. Master Plan simply provides very broad
The Ministry of Transport (2016) also information about modes of transporta-
reported the Investment Action Plan 2017 tion that will be developed, but the details
as shown in Figure 4 where the govern-
ment plans to implement thirty-six projects
Discussion and Comments about individual projects could be changed
or adjusted anytime, depending upon their
with total investment of THB 896 billion, of
which THB 435 billion is allocated for the
on Thailand’s Transport readiness and appropriateness. Some proj-
ects might be withdrawn and new projects
inter-city rail network, THB 225 billion
for the public transport network in Bang- Infrastructure Development could be added in the future. Therefore, it
is better to follow the annual Investment
kok and its vicinity, THB 189 billion for
the highway network, THB 36 billion for and Financing Action Plans on a regular basis for projects
expected to be implemented in that year.
maritime transport development, and THB The other caveat is that even the details
11 billion for air transport development. and number of projects listed in the annual
These projects are new and were not in- As argued in the Introduction, a healthy Investment Action Plans could be changed,
cluded in the Investment Action Plan 2016. country, like a healthy body, requires adjusted or postponed during the year.
There are five sources of financing for smooth functioning of different types of Secondly, the sources of financing
these new projects (Public Debt Manage- flows that have to be supported by good and their composition have been changed
ment Office, 2016b). The main financing is infrastructure. However, assessing the per- over the years. While the Master Plan iden-
still from government and state-owned en- formance of transport infrastructure proj- tified four sources of financing, namely,
terprise borrowings accounting for 64% of ect implementation and its disbursement government and state-owned enterprise
total financing. PPPs account for 22% while in Thailand since 2015 reveals several ar- borrowings, annual budget allocation,
annual budget allocation and state-owned eas of concern about the country’s future PPPs, and state-owned enterprise revenues,
enterprise revenues account for 8 and 1%, health. First, the total amount of invest- the Toll Road Fund was later added as an-
respectively. The government also plans to ment over the 8 years of the Master Plan other source of financing in the Investment
establish the Thailand Future Fund (TFF) initially set in 2015 was to be around THB Action Plan 2016 and subsequently, the
to raise funds to finance these new trans- 1,913 billion, but the sum of investment in TFF is the latest source of financing added
port infrastructure projects. Financing the Investment Action Plans 2016 and 2017 in the Investment Action Plan 2017. With
that comes from the TFF is estimated to be is THB 2,295 billion. This exceeds the total regard to the composition of financing
The Truth about Thailand’s Transport Infrastructure Development and Financing | 41THAILAND
sources, government and state-owned en- in 2015 by the military-led government contingent on policy improvements and
terprise borrowings are the key sources of which proposed the 8-year Master Plan reduced risks. While a clear policy frame-
financing whereas the financing from PPPs covering 2015 to 2022. The government work was needed, the development direc-
and the TFF increased as the government reasoned that transport infrastructure de- tion set forth by policy makers should be
tries to avoid raising public debt. However, velopment would promote connectivity, based on reliable facts and data reflecting
one should not rule out the possibility that help transform the country into a regional Thailand’s current status of infrastructure
other new sources of financing might be hub and enhance competitiveness as well development. Systematic, periodic, and
introduced in the future. Those interested as lay a foundation for economic and social internationally consistent infrastructure
in investing in or doing business related to development. To put the Master Plan into information collection and dissemination
these multi-year mega projects should look action, the government has implemented would provide Thai policy makers with
for information regarding the sources of the annual Investment Action Plans start- a good background to better evaluate the
financing in the annual Investment Action ing in 2015 to set project priorities and current situation, identify bottlenecks,
Plans, not in the Master Plan. stimulate domestic economic activity. set clearer policies and prioritize projects
Lastly, on the issue of disbursement Investigating the details of the Mas- more effectively.
which measures progress of the projects ter Plan, the annual Investment Action If there were only one change to be
in relation to what the government had Plans, and the disbursement rate of the made to make the suggestions of the Office
planned, the performance of disburse- projects reveals several concerns. This of National Economic and Social Develop-
ments in 2015 and 2016 was still far from study finds that there is no consistency ment Board and the World Bank relevant
perfect. It should be noted that it is not un- between projects listed in the Master Plan to today, it would be to replace ‘past tense’
usual for governments to be over optimistic and those listed in the annual Investment with ‘present tense;’ almost all sentences
and for large-scale infrastructure projects Action Plans where the latter seems to be still remain true based on the findings in
to be long delayed. These transport infra- more reliable than the former. It also finds this study. This lack of improvement would
structure projects are no exception as the that the total amount of investment for all be unsurprising to Taleb (2012) who notes
expected disbursement period for projects projects is not clear, since the total invest- that government officials often are better
listed in the Investment Action Plan 2017 ment given in the Investment Action Plans at talking about the problem than at fix-
has already been extended beyond the year 2016 and 2017 combined is far greater than ing it. Taleb (2010) also argues that gov-
2022, according to the Public Debt Manage- the overall 8-year total investment given in ernment officials are motivated more by
ment Office (2016b). It remains to be seen the Master Plan. In addition, the govern- maintaining their position than by finding
how much the government can improve ment has not only added new sources of real answers. In order to solve these issues,
the disbursement rate and manage the im- financing but also changed the proportion government must not only be benevolent
plementation of these projects in the future of financing coming from each source on but also must have good intentions for the
so that the Master Plan would not become a a yearly basis. Finally, the actual rates of well-being of the people and for the health
multi-year rolling plan with no sign of com- disbursement for the transport infrastruc- of the country. This study views that these
pletion. Those who plan to provide lending ture projects thus far have been relatively are critical assumptions for the successful
to these projects or conduct analyses about low compared with what the government implementation of public infrastructure
the effects of disbursement on the econo- initially estimated. Despite these facts, it development and management. Although
my should be aware of these facts and take should be noted that it is not unusual with they seem idealistic, without them, none of
them into account. This is because a dis- large-scale infrastructure project develop- the above issues would be resolved since
bursement rate of, say, 97% would give a to- ment and management that intent is not empirical evidence from around the world
tally different picture of the economy com- the same as outcome. As argued by Dörner seems to indicate that a government that
pared to achieving merely 3% of the target. (1997), only one hopes that these incidenc- promises its people a paradise on earth
es are always to be found in other projects. typically delivers nothing but chaos and
catastrophe, according to Popper (2011).
Conclusions and Suggestions for Thailand’s Large-Scale
Infrastructure Project Development
and Management
Assuming a government is benev-
olent and has a good will to benefit the
Suggestions for Thailand’s The Office of National Economic and
people and the country, it must also un-
derstand that complex systems, like soci-
Large-Scale Infrastructure Social Development Board and the World
Bank (2008) pointed out almost a decade
ety and economy, cannot be controlled in
a conventional way, like pressing a button
Project Development and ago that the transport sector in Thailand
exhibited institutional deficiencies such as
or steering a car, and that top-down con-
trol attempts will usually fail (Helbing,
Management lack of central planning, weak coordina-
tion, and unclear separation between op-
2009). In addition, Thaler (2017) recom-
mends governments conduct a ‘premor-
eration and regulation functions. Govern- tem’ before any major decision is taken by
ment and state-owned enterprises played assuming that, at some time after a plan
a large role in planning, regulation, and has been implemented, its outcome is a
Conclusions service provision. Without a sound poli- disaster and then writing a brief history of
The plan to develop transport infra- cy framework, there was no continuity in that disaster. Thaler views that there are
structure in Thailand is not entirely new policy and projects were delayed. These two reasons why a premortem might help
and the effort to put such a plan into action deficiencies presented a challenge to fi- prevent adverse outcomes. First, explicitly
has been long delayed due to economic nancing infrastructure improvements as going through this exercise can overcome
and political instability during the past private investors’ readiness to re-enter the natural organizational tendencies toward
two decades. The latest attempt was made market and act as a crowding-in effect was groupthink and overconfidence. The pre-
42 | NOMURA JOURNAL OF ASIAN CAPITAL MARKETS | Spring 2017 Vol.1/No.2mortem procedure gives cover to skeptics
who otherwise might not speak up since
References
the point of the exercise is to think of rea-
sons why a project did fail. The second Amornvivat, S., Homchampa, T., Kantaumong, Taleb, N. N. (2010) The Black Swan: The Impact
reason a premortem can work is because I., Ratanapinyawong, T., and Srisamran, S. of the Highly Improbable. London: Penguin
starting an exercise by assuming the proj- (2015) “Thai Transport Mega-Projects Pave Books.
ect has failed, and now thinking of why Way for Countless Business Opportunities.”
that might have happened creates the illu- Insight, Economic Intelligence Center, The Taleb, N. N. (2012) Antifragile: Things That Gain
sion of certainty. Thaler argues that labora- Siam Commercial Bank. Retrieved from from Disorder. New York: Random House.
tory research indicates that asking people https://www.scbeic.com/en/detail/product/
why something did fail rather than why it 1741 Termpittayapaisith, A. (2016) New Transporta-
tion Infrastructure Roadmap to Strengthen
might fail, inspires them to be more cre-
Dörner, D. (1997) The Logic of Failure: Recogniz- Thailand., (in Thai). Retrieved from http://
ative in problem solving. Lastly, according
ing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situa- www.jpp.moi.go.th/media/files/24_06_25
to Dörner (1997), government must learn
tions. New York: Basic Books. 59_6.pdf
to think in temporal configurations. This is
because human beings, by nature, do not Helbing, D. (2009) “Systemic Risks in Society and Thaler, R. H. (2017) 2017: What Scientific Term or
give adequate attention to the character- Economics.” SFI Working Paper. Retrieved Concept Ought to Be More Widely Known?.
istics of processes that unfold over time. from: http://www.santafe.edu/research/ Retrieved from https://www.edge.org/respo
Government must also learn to realize that working-papers/abstract/9596e5a57d1f9b7 nse-detail/27174
there is a delay between the execution of a e8fcc289f118555ce/
plan and its effects. Furthermore, govern- “China, Japan and the Case for Thailand’s Rail-
ment must learn to cope with side effects International Monetary Fund. (2016) “Thailand: ways.” The Economist. Dec. 22, 2015. Re-
and understand the emergent property of Staff Report for the 2016 Article IV Consul- trieved from http://country.eiu.com/article.
complex systems that the effects of its de- tation.” IMF Country Report., 16(139). Re- aspx?articleid=1843787968&Country=Thail
cisions may show up in unexpected plac- trieved from https://www.imf.org/external/ and&topic=Economy
es. Dörner suggests that government can pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16139.pdf
learn to cope with and manage complex The Office of National Economic and Social Devel-
systems through computer simulation Ministry of Transport. (2016) Transport Infra- opment Board and the World Bank. (2008)
exercises. A computer simulation can im- structure Investment Action Plan 2017: Thailand Infrastructure Annual Report 2008.
Towards Sustainable Transport., (in Thai). Retrieved from http://documents.world
mediately highlight the consequences of a
Retrieved from http://www.mot.go.th/page. bank.org/curated/en/916561468119356897/
government’s decisions and plans thereby
html?id=74 Thailand-infrastructure-annual-report-2008
helping government officials develop a
greater sense of reality.
Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Plan-
All of these are suggestions for the ning. (2014a) Thailand Transport Infra-
government. Until Thailand finds a gov- structure Development Strategy 2015-2022.,
ernment that not only is generous, has (in Thai). Retrieved from http://www.otp.
good intentions for society and the econo- go.th/index.php/post/view?id=462
my, and conducts premortems before mak-
ing decisions on large-scale infrastructure Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Plan-
projects but also thoroughly understands ning. (2014b) Transport Infrastructure
properties of complex systems and more Investment Action Plan 2015. (in Thai).
importantly, has the courage to accept Retrieved from www.otp.go.th/uploads/ THITITHEP SITTHIYOT
them, the smooth flows of social and eco- files/1471502637-6xg50-xv4el.pdf
nomic activity and the country’s future
health remain questionable. Popper, K. R. (2011) The Open Society and Its Ene- Chulalongkorn University
mies. London: Routledge Classics.
Dr. Thitithep Sitthiyot is currently a lecturer
Public Debt Management Office. (2015) Presen-
Acknowledgement tation for Morgan Stanley. Apr. 20.
at the Department of Banking and Finance,
Faculty of Commerce and Accountancy, Chu-
lalongkorn University, Thailand. Before join-
Dr. Sitthiyot would like to thank Yanisa Chaiya- Public Debt Management Office. (2016a) Presen- ing the Department of Banking and Finance,
reuk for meticulous research assistance and use- tation for Standard & Poor’s. Sep. 12. Dr. Sitthiyot spent sixteen years as a civil ser-
ful comments. vant mostly at the Public Debt Management
Public Debt Management Office. (2016b) Dis- Office, Ministry of Finance, Thailand.
bursement Plan for Transport Infrastruc-
This study is not supported by the industry and ture Investment Action Plan 2017 [Data He earned his doctorate degree in econom-
the views expressed in this article do not neces- File]., (in Thai). Nov. 11. ics from Claremont Graduate University, U.S.
sarily reflect those of the author’s affiliation. The His research interests include applying com-
author bares all responsibilities for any errors Royal Thai Government. (2016) Transporta- plexity science to analyze issues in econom-
that might appear in this study. tion Infrastructure Development. Jan. 20. ics, finance, and natural sciences, behavioral
Retrieved from http://www.thaigov.go.th/ and experimental economics and finance,
index.php/en/issues/item/99369-99369# forecasting skills, and uncertainty manage-
startOfPageId99369 ment.
The Truth about Thailand’s Transport Infrastructure Development and Financing | 43You can also read
