Quah, Jon S. T. 1982 . “Bureaucratic Corruption in the ASEAN Countries: A Comparative Analysis of Their Anti-Corruption Strategies.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 13 (1): 153-177.

Quah, Jon S. T. 1999 . “Corruption in Asian Countries: Can It Be Minimized?” Public Administration Review 59 (6): 483-494. (includes Thailand )

Quah, Jon S. T. 1999 . “Combating Corruption in South Korea and Thailand .” In The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies , ed. by Andreas Schedler, Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner, pp. 245-256. Boulder , Col. , and London : Lynne Rienner.

Queen Ramphai's Memoir .” In Thai Politics: Extracts and Documents 1932-1957 , ed. Thak Chaloemtiarana, pp. 8-35. Bangkok : The Social Science Association of Thailand , 1978. (includes King Prachathipok's abdication letter of March 2, 1935)

Quigley, Kevin F. F. 1995 . “Towards consolidating democracy : The role of civil society organizations in Thailand .” Ph. D. dissertation, Georgetown University . 266 pp.

Quigley, Kevin F. F. 1995 . “Environmental Organizations and Democratic Consolidation in Thailand .” Crossroads 9 (2):1-29.

Quigley, Kevin F. F. 1996. “Towards Consolidating Democracy : The Paradoxical Role of Democracy Groups in Thailand .” Democratization 3 (3): 264-286.

Political development is said to pass through four steps: (1) authoritarianism , (2) transition to democracy , (3) consolidation of democracy , and (4) democracy. Quigley wants to examine whether democracy groups (which form part of civil society groups the number of which has dramatically increased during the past 20 years) help consolidate democracy, how, and to what effect. It is assumed that they provide non-elite leadership opportunities, create new political actors, and enable more previously excluded people to take part in the policy-making process. Particular problems of these groups are that they aim for “sweeping systemic change”, that their source of influence is the mass appeal their issue has, and that they are often integrated by “a charismatic of influential person who monopolizes decisionmaking.” Groups portrayed are the Confederation for Democracy , the Thongbai Thongpao Foundation , and Friends of Women . The empirical basis (1994 ), the author admits, is “somewhat sketchy”, and so his interpretations cannot avoid to at times seem less than well-founded. There should be a clear conceptual distinction between the actions of individuals, informal personal networks, and groups or organizations. It is said that democracy groups have influence because the government fears they would mobilize the masses if attention is not paid to their demands. This does not seem to be too realistic and based on the assumption that it was the CFD that received support in the May 1992 mass demonstrations when, in fact, it was the call for democracy (anti Suchinda, to be more precise ) that the demonstrations were based on (however catalyzed by Chamlong' hunger strike , or however organizationally supported and steered by the CFD). Regarding the TTF one might ask whether they mainly support the inclusion of people into the formal legal system (juridification ) or the inclusion into the political system (democratization ).

Qinnn, Rapin. 1997. “NGOs, Peasants and the State : Transformation and Intervention in Rural Thailand , 1970-1990 .” Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University , Canberra .

Quinn, Rapin. 2002 . “Conceptualisation in Social Research: A Personal Experience in Studying People-Centered Thai NGOs .” In ?????? ?? ?? ??????????? ?? . ????????? ??????? ? . ? . ???? . ???????? : ????????????????? ???????? ????? , pp. 235-254.
 
Last Updated ( Monday, 28 August 2006 )