Agrarian Change in the Central Plain of Thailand (1950-2020):
A Longitudinal Study of Farm Characteristics
François Molle

1

Introduction

The Chao Phraya Delta, or Central Plain(s), is known as the 'rice bowl of Thailand', having been thehistorical heart of the country’s large-scale rice production and export. Commonly linked to the 1852
signing of the Bowring Treaty between Siam and Great Britain, which opened the country to world
markets, the history of rice production in the Central Plain has been the subject of many seminal
academic works (see among others Seksan, 1989; Ingram, 1971; Johnson, 1974; Feeny, 1982). The
1950s saw a research project examine social and economic changes in Bang Chang, a village outside
Bangkok (see Janlekha, 1955 and Hanks, 1972). In the 1970s pioneering work was carried out by
Japanese researchers, notably at Kyoto University, on environmental conditions and agriculturaldevelopment (e.g. Takaya, 1986; Kaida, 1974), as well as historical and anthropological factors (e.g.
Ishi, 1978; Tanabe, 1980; Tomosugi, 1980). In the 1980s agricultural transformations were analyzed
from a Marxian perspective with an emphasis on commercialized production, tenancy andlandlessness (e.g. Mehl, 1981; Chiengkul, 1983; Douglass, 1984). While research carried out at
Kasetsart University in the 1990s documented agrarian change and water management in the delta(see Molle and Srijantr, 2003; Molle et al., 1999a, 1999b). Perhaps because its share of Thailand's riceproduction gradually declined to around 20%, few studies have documented agricultural change in the
Chao Phraya Delta in the past 20 years. Yet, urbanization has steadily encroached upon the delta,
seeing agricultural land shrink by approximately a third since 1963, and it has had to increasingly share
the water resources of the Bhumipol and Sirikit dams with upstream areas and urban populations.
Farmers are known to be ageing, as in the rest of Thailand, and have had to embrace diversified
livelihoods (Rigg, 2019), while younger generations have largely walked away from farming (Rigg et al.,2008; Bhuchongkul, 1985).
The present article attempts to fill this knowledge gap by analyzing data on evolving farming structures
over the past 70 years. Data from the agricultural censuses of 1950, 1978, 1993, 2003 and 2013 allow
us to link past studies with the transformations that have taken place in the past two decades. We also
refer to a variety of other surveys and data (population censuses, labor surveys, Statistical Yearbooks),
as well as the academic literature, to draw a picture of agricultural change in the Chao Phraya Delta.
We proceed in two steps: first we present tabular data that describe the main features of farm holdings
regarding family members, land use, labor, land tenure, indebtedness. To avoid the significant bias
from considering the aggregated data available for the Central Region1 we have tabulated, combined
and compared data at the province (jangwat) or district (amphoe) levels. We leave aside the coastal
provinces that are increasingly incorporated into the neighboring Bangkok Metropolitan Area (BMA)
to focus on the seven agricultural provinces of Pathum Thani, Ayutthaya, Ang Thong, Singburi, Chai
Nat, Nakhon Pathom and Suphan Buri,2 which we term the 'core delta'. For certain variables it was
1

The Central Region includes the provinces of Trat, Rayong, Chon Buri and Chanthaburi to the east and Phetburi and Prachuap
Khiri Khan to the west that are less populated and mainly rain-fed. Thus, data for the Central Region as a whole incorporates
those from very different provinces.
2
Suphan Buri was retained because of its importance in the delta, despite the fact that roughly 40% of the province lies
outside the (irrigated) delta proper.

1

possible to map data at the amphoe level, after selecting the 103 amphoes that best match theirrigated Chao Phraya Delta (BMA excluded). We then move to a contextual interpretation of the data
and attempt to tease out the most salient features of agrarian change in the delta. We are often led
to disaggregate data at the jangwat level in order to reveal and explain opposing dynamics that cancancel one another out when aggregated at the (core) delta level. Thus, we intend to shed light on 1)
the heterogeneity inherent in the delta and the roots of this, 2) the challenges facing irrigatedagriculture in general in Thailand and its relative demise in the delta in particular. Our results are likely
to foreshadow, or resonate with, changes observed in other Asian deltas, such as the Pearl Delta in
China, the Red River and Mekong deltas in Vietnam and the Irrawaddy Delta in Myanmar.

2

Structural change in agricultural holdings

2.1 Number and size of holdings
The first dynamic aspect of agricultural holdings is their size and number. Agrarian change is strongly
driven by associated population changes, in general, and inheritance rules and practices in particular.
The larger the number of children inheriting land the faster it will be divided and fragmented. The
resulting increase in the number of farm holdings is counterbalanced by the sale of land for nonagricultural use. In the core delta (Figure 1) the number of farms increased to almost 230,000 around
1993, before declining as the rate of land sales superseded that of the division of holdings. Since thetotal farm area also started to shrink after 1963 the average farm size declined from 29 rai in 1950 to20.7 rai in 2013 (-29%). Yet the number of farms has not dramatically changed in the past 60 years (adrop of 12% from the 1963 value), although the 2013 census pointed to the disappearance of close to
30,000 farms in just 10 years. This drop in the number of farms can be contrasted with the growing
trend observed at the national level (Rigg et al., 2018), which can be partly explained by the larger lossof land in the delta due to urbanization.
Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the absolute and relative changes in the number of farms by size: farms
over 40 rai have decreased overall since 1978, while very small farms increased until 2003. Farms under
20 rai made up 39% of the farms in 1950 against 58% in 2013. The increase until 2003 in the numberof large farms (over 140 rai) is noteworthy for signaling the consolidation of agrarian land. The absenceof such a transition, that is on the contrary observed in many parts of the world, is the object of debate(Rigg et al., 2018). This trend was partially reversed between 2003 and 2013, suggesting that the larger
farms comprised a significant proportion of leased land that the owners later decided to farmthemselves (due to high rice prices). Disparities by the size of farm, notably the growth in holdings
under 6 rai, saw the Gini index increase from 0.31 in 1950 to 0.56 in 2003 (later dropping to 0.50),
representing growing inequity in the distribution of land.
By evidencing the changes in farm size (in terms of both number and total area of holdings) Figure 4
illustrates the fact that while medium and large farms declined during the 1993-2003 period, and small
farms under 2 rai increased by around 18,000 units, the latest decade (2003-2013) witnessed adecrease in all size classes (most notably farms under 6 rai lost 20,000 units), except the 20-40 medium
range due to the fragmentation of farms in the 60-140-rai bracket and above.

2

Figure 1: Total number and area of farms in the core delta (6 jangwat)
2500007000000

Tot area

Number of farms

5000000
1500001000004000000
29,0

3000000

28,0

25,4

22,1

50000

20,6

20,7

2000000

Total farm area (rai)6000000

2000001000000

0

0
1950

1963

1978

1993

2003

2013

Figure 2. Evolution of total farms, by size class

Figure 3. Evolution of total farms, by size class expressed as percentage

Distribution of farms according to holding size class (in rai)
100%
90%
80%

1
10

1
10

0
8

14

14

12

70%
60%
50%

36

20%
10%
0%

1
6
9

0
4
10

27

22

27

30

21

21

23

9
8
1

8
10
5

13
5

1950

1963

1978

20
9

10
9

over 140
60 to 140
40 to 60

24

40%
30%

31

1
5
10

19

1993

3

9

20 to 40
10 to 20
6 to 1017

2 to 6

14

11

Under 2

2003

2013

18
6

21

Figure 4: Evolution of farm size class, by farm number and total area (various censuses)

Farm-level land endowment cannot be taken as a proxy of wealth, although there is a degree ofcorrelation. Large plots in single deep-water rice cropping, for example, illustrate the need to farmlarger areas to ensure a minimal income (Molle et al., 2001b), whereas intensive farming, such as
orchids and other flowers, aquaculture, or even vegetables in general, can yield substantial returns onlimited land. The increased number of small farms actually reflects such diversification better than theextreme division of land, because no one can live on a small rice plot, even double cropped, without
other sources of income.3 This means that economically unviable farms signal (often old) farmers who
continue to cultivate while receiving remittances from their children or other revenue.
Figure 5 shows that across the entire irrigated delta (twice the farmed area of the core delta),
diversification had reached almost a third of the cultivated land by 2003, having accounted for lessthan 5% in 1963, before contracting again.
Figure 5: Evolution of land use in the Chao Phraya Delta (aggregated amphoe-level data)

Land (and farm) productivity is closely linked to the intensity of rice cropping. The growth in double
cropping since the late 1970s has been remarkable, limited only by the availability of water in the dry
season. Where access to water is good, with supplemental sources such as shallow aquifers, natural
ponds (bung) or the rivers themselves, triple rice cropping can be observed. Molle et al. (2001b) havecompared three villages in the delta with rice cropping intensities of 1, 1.5 and 2.2 respectively,
showing how water conditions governed farm income and the need for financial diversification.

3

It is hard to determine the minimum size of a viable rice farm because income will depend, among other things, on land
tenure, the amount of farm labor used and the price of rice. The last two agricultural censuses failed to present data on 'riceonly farms', as in preceding ones, making it impossible to single out this category.

42.2 Demographic profiles
The evolution of farming systems is largely governed by population change. The most relevant
demographic features include the fertility rate (average number of children per woman) and mobility(migration). Thailand has witnessed a spectacular drop in its fertility rate, from 6.1 in the post-WWII
period to around 1.5 at present – far below the reproduction rate of 2.1 needed to ensure a stable
population. As a result of this decline, along with outmigration, the number of holding members
dropped from 5.1 in 1978 to 3.2 in 2013. Figure 6 shows the evolution in holdings by size (number ofhousehold members) and illustrates the growth in holdings with 3 members or fewer, against thegradual decline in those with 4 members or more. Figure 7 evidences that small farms have close to 3
members on average, while large ones have 4 members or more. Large farms have the capacity toabsorb more family labor and also provide a more attractive economic prospect to heirs.
Figure 6: Number of holding members (last four censuses)

Figure 7: Average number of household members (by holding size)

As a result of the outmigration of (fewer) offspring to the agricultural frontier or other forms of
economic activity (locally or in larger cities), the average age of farm owners has increased substantially– from 47 in 1978 to close to 54 in 2013. Figure 8 (right) further reveals that the heads of holdings
under 35 years old only make 6.8% of the total, and more than half were over 55 years of age in 2013
(with 20% being over 65 years old).

5

Figure 8: Distribution of holdings by holder age class in absolute and relative terms (various censuses)
1963

1978

1600001993

2003

1400002013

Nb. of farms

Distribution of farmers by age class

Evolution of holdings by Holder's age class (%)
60,0

50,0

12000040,0100000
80000

30,0

60000

20,0

40000

53,9

47,6

30,3

30,9

50,9

43,5

42,4

42,3

9,2

8,1

6,8

2013

22,0
15,2

10,0

20000

49,5

47,3

0,0

0
under 35

35-55

1963

over 55

Age class

1978

1993

2003

Under 35

35 to 55

Over 55

2.3 Number of plots
The inheritance of land by children in equal proportions, as is common in Thai tradition (along with thejoining of plots upon marriage), results in the fragmentation of holdings – a familiar problem whereby
land is divided into smaller, and often scattered, plots. Dispersion can also be accentuated by theleasing of additional plots of land.
Remarkably, however, Figure 9 indicates that the average number of farm plots has remained stablesince 1978, at a value of around 1.75. As expected, the number of plots per holding correlates with thesize of the farm, with those over 60 rai having an average of 3 plots or more (but more than 5 plots in
25% of the cases). One explanation is that fragmentation by inheritance has been mitigated by theneed to adapt this custom precisely to maintain viable holdings for the child agreeing to take over thefarm.4 Fragmentation has also been controlled by the sheer reduction in the number of children perfamily. Last, even when land has been split among children it is observed that those who do not engage
in agriculture frequently cede their plots to those, if any, who take over the farm (either freely or withsome form of compensation in kind, e.g. rice bags or cash) (Molle and Srijantr, 1999).
Figure 9: Average number of parcels by size of holding (rai)
4,00

3,00

1978

1993

2003

2013

2,00

1,00

0,00
Average4

under 2

2 to 6

6 to 1010 to 20

20 to 40

40 to 60 60 to 140 over 140

One child may inherit the land and the others the house or cash, according to the family situation.

6

2.4 Land tenure
As land is split up and farm sizes dwindle, additional agricultural plots can be bought on the land market.
The price of land in the delta, however, has become so high that it usually no longer makes sense tobuy it solely for agricultural production (around half a million baht per rai). Farmland is therefore
obtained through lease arrangements that are generally on a monetary basis. (Payments in kind, suchas a share of the production, gradually disappeared in the 1970s and 1980s; see Molle and Srijantr,
1999.)
Figure 10 shows that around 37% of the land area was leased out until the 1990s and that thissubsequently rose to around 50%. In part this reflects the growing number of holdings with no family
members prepared to take over from retiring farmers, freeing agricultural land for others wishing to
expand cultivation in order to become economically viable. The percentage of ‘full tenants’ (thosecultivating rented plots while owning no land) fluctuated between 20% in 1963 and 27% in 2013.
Importantly, Figure 11 shows that the growth between 2003 and 2013 was concentrated on farms
larger than 20 rai, suggesting that some landless farmers (or with small plots) are able to rent enoughland to reach an economically viable level, despite (or perhaps, because of) the rent they pay to landowners. The origin of these full tenants is an important question, since it is possible that they wereforced to sell their own farm due to debt. We will return to this issue.
Figure 10: Changes in tenancy: percentage of farmland that is rented

7

Figure 11: Changes in tenancy: percentage of full tenants

2.5 Family and wage labor
The sheer reduction in holding membership has a bearing on the labor force available for farmoperations, exacerbated by higher cropping intensity, despite a drop in the average farm area. The
response is an expansion of the wage labor market and mechanization. Figure 12 shows, however, thatthe employment of permanent labor has remained minimal, at only 2%-3%, since (at least) 1978, andthat the use of occasional wage labor has also historically hovered around 55%, with a drop observedin 2003 (50.7%). Unsurprisingly, hired labor is chiefly found on larger farms, averaging above 60% for
those above 10 rai and 75% for those over 60 rai. This shows that resorting to wage labor is very
common. It can be seen that, unlike in later years, 1978 saw a more systematic use of hired labor onlarge farms while it was less common on small farms. This can be explained by the fact that, at thattime, larger families on smallholdings had no need for labor from outside the household, and thatmechanization was not yet widespread. Indeed, while the percentage of farms resorting to non-familylabor remained roughly in the 40%-47% bracket, the reasons for this have changed over time. In theearly days it reflected a lack of mechanization and the prevalence of transplanting, while today nonfamily labor is more related to ageing farmers no longer wanting, or being unable, to carry out certain
tasks. For example, spraying pesticide is frequently contracted out.
Figure 12: Percentage of farms resorting to wage or permanent labor (total and size class)
100
80

50,7

58,5

55,3

40

2,0

2,5

20

39,5

42,2

46,5

41,5

1978

1993

2003

2013

56,2

60
2,8

2,4

0
Not employ

Permanent+

occasional8

Figure 13: Percentage of farms resorting to wage or permanent labor (by size class; 2013)
Holdings employing workers (2013)

100
90

80

% permanent + non-permanent workers% of holdings

70% non permanent worker

60% no employee

50
40
30

20
10
0

under 2

2 to 56 to 910 to 19

20 to 39

40 to 59 60 to 139 over 140

Size class of holdings (rai)Occasional labor can come from landless households or smaller farms that may have spare laborersthat they make available on the wage market. Figure 14 indicates that 73% of the holders were only
engaged on their own farm in 2013 against 64% ten years earlier. Another 18% are mainly engaged on
their holding and provide additional labor force to other farms (plus 9% who are ‘mainly engaged inother, non-agricultural work’). Figure 15 classifies this information by the size of the holding.
Unsurprisingly, large holders are more likely only to be engaged on their holding (81%), while small
farms are more likely to provide wage labor. Interestingly, while the data for 1993 and 2013 arecomparable, those for 2003 show that larger farms were ‘mainly’ engaged on their own holdings. This
indicates that farms over 10 rai diversified their income by working on other farms or in other sectors,
which, as we will see later, reflects the poor profitability of rice after the turn of the century.
Figure 14: Classification of holdings based on the main economic activity of the holder

Figure 15: Main economic activity of holder, by farm size

9The data above refer to ‘engagement’ (that is, roughly, in terms of time allocation). Figure 16 provides
complementary information by showing that, in terms of income, in 2003 around 15% of farms shiftedfrom the category ‘agricultural income only’ to ‘mainly agricultural income’, indicating that they
diversified out of agriculture – a phenomenon that appears to have been reversed in 2013. In that year
57% of farmers drew their income exclusively, and 27% mainly, from agriculture. While the figures
drop for smaller farms they remain high in relation to other regions of Thailand, showing that farmingin the delta can still provide a basic livelihood for those choosing to remain in the sector.
Figure 16: Distribution of holdings by main source of income
Distribution of holdings by main source of income
100
80Percentage

1993

2003

2013

60
40
20

0
Agri only

Mainly agri

Mainly agri Mainly other same agriwork
other

Agricultural censuses only look at ‘agricultural holdings’, that is, families that have an agriculturalactivity of their own. As we have seen, there is a degree of reallocation of the labor force across theseholdings, but it may also be the case that a substantial part of the labor force consists of workers relying
on daily wages as an income. In agrarian studies, a key question is whether the labor force isconstituted of former farmers who have become landless as a result of debt, linked, in particular, tothe commercialization of agriculture and growing reliance on the market. This question wasparticularly debated in the 1980s by authors such as Chiengkul and Douglass, who identified aphenomenon of smallholder eviction. Molle and Srijantr (1999) examined the evidence available overa longer period of time and showed that the percentage of full tenants had in fact remained remarkably
stable. It is difficult to fully account for these evictions based on the information available, but, unlike
countries where it fueled increasing rural poverty, Thailand’s industrialization offered landless farmers
financial alternatives. This largely avoided social inequality, landlordism and the formation of an evergrowing rural landless proletariat.
Further insight into labor availability in the agricultural sector can be found in quarterly labor surveys.
Figure 17 displays the distribution of employees in the agricultural sector (Central Region, Bangkok
excluded; January-March5) according to the hours worked per week. The solid line also shows thepercentage of people declaring their availability for more work, which is now close to zero, suggestingthat surplus labor has been absorbed by other economic sectors over the past two decades. Figure 18
confirms that agricultural wages are lower than in manufacturing and construction in non-municipal
areas and are less than half those in Bangkok’s construction sector. This suggests a strong ‘pull’ fromother sectors.

5

Data before 2000 are given for non-municipal areas, while data after 2000 include both municipal and non-municipal. This
introduces a small bias.

10

Figure 17: Distribution of employees in the agricultural sector, by number of hours worked per week
(first quarter of the year)

Figure 18: Average monthly salary for men in various industries (first quarter of the year)

2.6 Farm equipment
The level of farm mechanization and equipment can be considered relatively high in the delta. Twoand four-wheel tractors have long replaced buffalo; combine harvesters are available for rice and sugar
cane crops, and three farmers out of four have (mostly axial) pumps to ease access to water and/or
drainage. As transplanting has been replaced by the direct sowing of pre-germinated seed, labor costs
have dramatically fallen. Farms without tractors (often aged farmers or absentee owners) contract out
soil preparation work.
Figure 19: Use of farm equipment (core delta)
75

40000
30000
25000

70
48

20000

54

60
50

41

40

15000

30

10000

20

5000

10

0

0

1978

11

80

1993

2003

2013

Percentage of farms using

Number of pumps

35000

2.7 Average agricultural income
The distribution of revenue derived from agricultural product (not to be assimilated into the total
revenue) is provided for the 2003 and 2013 censuses. Figure 20 (left) shows that farming income wasextremely depressed circa 2003 in contrast to the boom that occurred around 2013,6 again illustrating
the spectacular impact of rice farm gate prices on rural income. 7 The figure to the right strikingly
confirms that productivity decreases with farm size. Small farms under 2 rai include many cash crops
and therefore produce far higher revenue. Some larger farms are located in low-productivity, single
deep-water rice areas, generating a disparity across size ranges.
Figure 20: Annual revenue from agricultural product (2013 values): number of farms per range (left)
and value per rai (right)

2.8 Levels of debt
As recorded in the last three censuses, debt may provide insight into the sustainability of agriculture.
However, it is often hard to distinguish between productive investment, consumption loans and theforced borrowing of cash to ease financial difficulty. Figure 21 (left) indicates that debt is morecommon for large than small farms, although the difference was levelled out in the 2013 census.
Almost 200,000 farmers in the core delta were in debt in 2003 for a total of 14 billion baht
(approximately 337 million US$, 2003 values), meaning that the average farm debt was around 3,610
US$. Yet this obscures significant variation, since large farms have disproportionate debt comparedwith small farms (Figure 21, right). Farms over 140 rai averaged over 2 million baht of debt in 1993 andaround 1 million in the two ensuing censuses. It is likely that this represents investment loans, forexample, for rice harvesters, rather than delayed bankruptcy. We may also observe that while thenumber of indebted farms in 2013 was almost half of the 2003 value, the total debt was not reduced
proportionally. The average debt per indebted farm was therefore 44% higher than 10 years earlier (indeflated 2013 values).
The Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives (BAAC) is the largest provider of loans to farms(Figure 22), while village funds, relatives or money lenders are generally used for smaller amounts(Figure 23).

6

Agricultural revenue is expressed in 2013 values; hence, revenue ranges for 2003 have also been expressed in 2013 values
and the corresponding number of farms estimated by interpolation.
7
This also serves to caution against analyzing census data as if they were indicative of long-term trends, without duly factoringin the specific circumstances of census years.

12Figure 21: Percentage of holdings in debt (3 censuses)
Percentage of holdings in debt
80
70
60

50
40
30
20
10
0
1993

under 2

2 to 52003

6 to 910 to 19

20 to 392013

40 to 59

60 to 139

over 140

Figure 22: Number of farmers in debt and total amount of debt, by source of borrowing (core delta)

Figure 23: Average loan for different sources (2013 value), core delta

13

3Contextualising and interpreting data

This breakdown of information allows us to draw an overall picture of structural change in the
agricultural sector of the Chao Phraya Delta. In this section we attempt to join these different piecesof the jigsaw while disaggregating data at the jangwat level in order to identify the differences thatsuggest causalities and thus help us interpret the data.
A broad description of agrarian change in the Chao Phraya Delta, focusing on the 7 jangwat of the coredelta, shows that agrarian space has contracted by 35% since the mid-1960s due to urbanization but
has undergone a spectacular twin process of intensification and diversification. The original 3 million
rai of traditional (deep-water and floating) rice varieties were gradually replaced by double-cropped
rice (dry-season water supply permitting), and even triple cropping has been observed in certain areas(and years). Drainage and low water levels in canals have been tapped with the use of portable
individual axial pumps, as has groundwater when available. Diversification towards vegetables, flowers
and fruits has met the demand of urban markets, notably on the western side of the delta irrigatedfrom the Mae Klong.8 Most dramatically, shrimp and fish farming have expanded in the coastal areas
as well as inland. From 100,000 rai in 1994, the area devoted to fishponds expanded and peaked ataround 350,000 rai in 2010 (NSO and OAE data, various years). Shrimp ponds dropped from 150,000
to 50,000 rai over the same period (mainly due to the problem of disease among black tiger prawns)
but grew to around 125,000 rai over the past decade (with the spread of a new 'white prawn' variety).
The degree of mechanization and technological change in rice cultivation (most notably the shift fromtransplanting to direct seeding) and smaller holding sizes (from 29 rai in 1950 to 20.7 in 2013) have
reduced the need for labor. This has coincided with a dramatic decline in the fertility rate (from 6.1 inthe post-WWII period to 1.5 at present) and outmigration to Bangkok and its environs that have shrunk
farming families (from 5.1 members in 1978 to 3.2 in 2013).
Larger farms can be found in Pathum Thani (where wealthy families bought large tracts of land during
the development of Rangsit in the late nineteenth century), as well as in Ayutthaya (due to the low
yield of floating rice) and Suphan Buri (with the inclusion of some upland areas) (Figure 24, left). With
the diversification on smaller plots in Nakhon Pathom more than half the holdings are less than 10 rai
in size (Figure 24, right) and the average farm size drops to 14 rai (Figure 25, left). Given the soil quality
and availability of water in Suphan Buri, farmers are often able to triple crop their land, making it an
attractive prospect, hence the high proportion of younger farmers in relation to other provinces.
Indeed, in the three core rice regions of Ayutthaya, Ang Thong and Singburi, long confined to one cropof traditional varieties on part of their land, the average farmer is aged over 54 while the averagefamily size is as low as 3 (Figure 26).
Figure 24: % of farms over 60 rai (left) and under 10 rai (right)

8

Urban expansion has also been responsible for the destruction of orchards, both old (Thonburi) and more recent (citrus ofRangsit).

14

Figure 25: Evolution of average farm size in rai (left), and % of farm holders under 35 years of age (right)

Figure 26: Average household members (left) and average age of holder (right)

The percentage of rented land has a similar trend for most jangwat: having hovered around 30% sincethe 1950s, it jumped to around 45% at the turn of the century before slightly decreasing (Figure 27,left). There are two major exceptions to this trend: in Ayutthaya as much as two thirds of the cultivatedland is now rented – a rising trend that must be combined with the only instance (with Ang Thong) ofincreasing average farm size, between 2003 and 2013. This suggests that large farms are being
consolidated through the renting of low-yield land released by ageing farmers.9 In Pathum Thani thehigh level of tenancy is historical, as noted above (Figure 27, right).
Figure 27: Evolution of the % of rented farmland (left) and full tenants (right) (by jangwat)

9

However, since around 2010 land cultivated with traditional rice varieties has been gradually converted to double-cropping,which will probably dampen this consolidation.

15

Pluriactivity – often a sign that agriculture cannot provide a sufficient income – is limited in the delta,
as noted earlier. Figure 28 (left) indicates that two thirds of farms were engaged exclusively inagriculture (and almost 80% in Nakhon Pathom), with the exception of Chai Nat and Ayutthaya in 2003.
The 2003 census reveals (Figure 28; right) that indeed the percentage of farmers with an income ‘fromagriculture only’ dipped (notably in provinces with traditional rice varieties), as low rice prices severely
dented the profit from rice cultivation. Data on rice farm gate prices (see appendix) show that the
1999-2001 period was an historical low and that the price in 2002 (last occurrence before the census
survey) was still around that low value. One can conclude that these 3 years of depressed prices forced
many farmers to supplement their income by working on other farms and in other activities. Datashown earlier (Figure 5) indicated that crop diversification away from rice reached almost a third of
the total farm area. Few farmers in core rice areas could live exclusively on their agricultural activity(15% in Ayutthaya, 23% in Ang Thong). By contrast, the 2013 census was carried out in the wake of 6
years of extremely high prices, explaining that, where possible, farmers returned to rice cultivation(see chart with the evolution of rice prices in the appendix).
Figure 28: % of farms engaged exclusively in agriculture (left) and with income 'from agriculture only'(right)

The difference in economic conditions between the 2003 and 2013 censuses is also illustrated by Figure
29 and Figure 30, which show that the percentage of indebted farmers substantially dropped after theyears of high rice prices (with the exception of Nakhon Pathom10), and that in 2003 many farmers
responded to the crisis by cutting the hiring of non-family labor (except, again, in Nakhon Pathom,where labor requirements for non-rice crops are largely unavoidable).
Figure 29: Percentage of farmers in debt (left); average farm debt (in 1000 baht, 2013 value) (right)

10

It is unclear what caused this dramatic rise in debt, but since rice cultivation is relatively minor in this province it may be
due to economic upturns in vegetable markets or aquaculture.

16

Figure 30: Percentage of farmers not using wage labor

4

Conclusion

The Chao Phraya Delta lies at the heart of Thailand’s history of commercial rice production. In 150
years it has moved from a sparsely populated, swampy, inhospitable region to a highly urbanised andartificial environment. While productive resources such as land, labor, capital and water were initiallyused for agricultural (mostly rice) production, they have gradually been reallocated to other areas andeconomic sectors. The shift was driven by technological and population factors as well as changes in
the national economy, in turn partly determined by global developments.
A defining factor of agrarian change is the intergenerational redistribution of land. In Thailand thecustom is to divide it equally among male and female heirs, with the threat of a very rapid
fragmentation of land holdings below economic reproduction levels, especially with a high fertility rate
(6.1 children per woman on average in the post-World War II period). Several macro-level trends havecombined to dramatically lessen that risk. They include:••••a sharp decrease in the fertility rate (the average number of children per woman now being
well below the reproduction level);a sweeping absorption of excess labor first by the upland frontier and then (from the 1980s
onwards) by nonagricultural sectors (both locally and through outmigration to Bangkok);mechanization and technological change in rice cultivation that dramatically reduced labor
requirements;
enhanced water control allowing the spread of double, and sometimes triple, rice cropping:
better control of the flood regime and better access to water at the farm level (tapping ofgroundwater, spread of individual pumps enabling the tapping of water from drains, rivers,
natural ponds and other sources).

Having gradually increased up to the end of the twentieth century, the number of farms is now
subsiding. Yet, over 50 years it has actually proved to be remarkably stable. A reduction of 35% of
cultivated land mainly due to urbanization has led to an overall decrease in the average farm size,
which is still slightly above 20 rai. This reflects the fact that land fragmentation has stabilized at a level
more or less compatible with the economic reproduction of the farm, although this average obscures
opposing trends toward diversification to cash crops on smaller farms (notably in Nakhon Pathom
province) and the consolidation of larger farms in the Ayutthaya/Sing Buri area. The stabilization of, or
limited decrease in, the average farm size has been allowed by the reallocation of land through therental market. This reflects in particular the fact that economic diversification has marginalized farming
for a number of landholders and that ageing farmers who are no longer able to work release land tolive off the rent. The eventual sale of land may also result from these two trends, especially given the17high prices fetched by land, and may provide an attractive option for older farmers with no offspring
willing to take on the farm. Yet, it seems that ‘land is “sticky”, for legal, institutional, agro-ecological,
historical, emotional and cultural reasons’ (Rigg et al., 2018) and older farmers are reluctant to sell.
The demise of the current generation could see the rise of a generation emotionally detached fromland and farming, who would more readily release land onto the market, further fueling the transition
towards land consolidation and bigger farms (ibid.).
The price of rice appeared as a defining factor in agriculture in the delta (and elsewhere in Thailand).
Comparing the 2003 and 2013 agricultural censuses neatly illustrated the correlation between farming
income and the allocation of labor and land. The depressed rice economy around 2003 explains therelease of land onto the rental market and the surge in large farms in all jangwat. But the 2013 data
show a partial reversal of this trend, which is most probably due to the high prices observed circa 2010,
which made rice farming attractive again to farmers who were renting out their land (see Molle et al.,2021, forthcoming). Together with the price of rice, the desirability of rice farming – and therefore,
crucially, the attractiveness of farming to younger generations (Faysse et al., 2020) – also depends on
cropping intensity governed by water conditions in each area. In the floodplains traditionally limited
to one crop of deep-water rice varieties, low productivity has forced the average farm size to increase
to remain viable. Recent technological advances have allowed a shift to the double cropping of highyield rice varieties, making rice farming more attractive.
In other areas, with easy access to water, double or triple cropping meant rice cultivation has been agood livelihood since the 1980s. This is particularly true of the upper West Bank in Suphan Buri
province11 and areas of the northern delta with access to shallow groundwater resources. Elsewhere,
such as in the lower delta closer to urban markets, rice farmers have diversified into vegetableproduction or aquaculture, notably where they benefit from a secure access to water.
On balance, the development of agriculture in the Chao Phraya Delta has largely managed to avoid
engendering the growth of a marginalized class of landless holdings or the excessive division or
accumulation of land, having benefited from an exceptional endowment of resources, with theproximity of both consumer markets and alternative economic opportunities. Nonetheless, it now
faces the new challenge of sustainability, in the form of water contamination, the overuse of pesticides,
diseases in intensive shrimp farming, the increasing amount of water being used by cities or upstreamof the delta, land speculation and coastal erosion.

5

References

Bhuchongkul, Ananya. 1985. From chao na to khon ngan: the growing divide in a central Thai village. PhD thesis,
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Chiengkul, W. 1983a. The effects of capitalist penetration on the transformation of the agrarian structure in thecentral region of Thailand. 1960–1980. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University, 253 p.
Douglass, M. 1984. Regional integration on the capitalist periphery: the central plains of Thailand. Research
Report Series n° 15. Institute of Social Studies. The Hague, 230 p.
Faysse, N.; Aguilhon, L.; Phiboon, K. and Purotaganon, M. 2020. Mainly farming … but what's next? The futureof irrigated farms in Thailand. Journal of Rural Studies 73 (2020) 68–76.
Feeny, D. 1982.The political economy of productivity, Thai agricultural development, 1880-1975. Univ. of British
Columbia, 1982.
Hanks, Lucien M. 1972. Rice and man: Agricultural ecology in Southeast Asia, University of Hawaii Press, 172 p.

11

which combines fertile land, access to dredged natural ponds, rivers and groundwater together with the political clout of
its politicians with notable links to the Ministry of Agriculture.

18

Ingram, James, C. 1971. Economic change in Thailand 1850-1970. Oxford University press, Kuala Lumpur –London – Singapore. 350 pages.
Ishii, Yoneo (ed.) 1978. Thailand: A rice-growing society. The university press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 339 pages.
Janlekha Kamol O. 1955. A study of a rice growing village in central Thailand, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cornell
University, 421 p.
Johnston, D. Bruce. 1975. Rural Society and the Rice Economy in Thailand, 1880-1930, Ph.D. Dissertation: Cornell
University.
Kaida, Y. 1974. Pioneer settlements and water control development on the West Bank of the Lower Chao Phraya
Delta : water conditions in the deltaic lowland rice fields (II). Southeast Asian Studies, Vol.11, No.4.
Kasetsart University & ORSTOM, 1996. Identification of agricultural and irrigation patterns in the Central Plain ofThailand: prospects for agricultural research and development. DORAS project, Bangkok, 220p.
Kasetsart University & ORSTOM. 1996. Identification of agricultural and irrigation patterns in the Central Plain ofThailand: prospects for agricultural research and development. DORAS project, Bangkok, 220p.
Mehl, C.B. 1981. Social class and land ownership in the rice agriculture of Central Thailand, 1930-1980.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Cornell University, 123 p.
Molle, F. and Srijantr, T. 2003. Thailand's rice bowl: perspectives on social and agricultural change in the Chao
Phraya delta, White Lotus.
Molle, F., S. Durongdej, C. Chompadist, A. Joannon and Y. Limsawad. 1999. Improvement of rice cultivation andwater management in the flooded area of the Central Plain of Thailand: a zoning of rice varieties by using remotesensing imagery. Kasetsart University, DORAS Center, Research Report n°5, submitted to NRCT, Bangkok, 155p.
Molle, F.; Chompadist, C. and Bremard, T. 2021. Intensification of rice cultivation in the flood plain of the Chao
Phraya Delta. Japanese Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 58(2). (Forthcoming).
Molle, F.; Chompadist, Chatchom; Srijantr, T. and Jesda Keawkulaya. 2001a. Dry season water allocation andmanagement in the Chao Phraya basin. Research Report submitted to the European Union, Research report n°8,
Bangkok, 278p. http://g-eau.fr/index.php/fr/cb-profile/1853-molle-francois#Th
Molle, F.; Srijantr, T. 1999. Agrarian change and land system in the Chao Phraya Delta, DORAS Project, Kasetsart
University, Bangkok, Research Report n°6, 185p.
Molle, F.; Srijantr, Thippawal; Latham, L. and Thepstitsilp, P. 2001b. The impact of the access to irrigation wateron the evolution of farming systems: a case study of 3 villages in the Chao Phraya Delta, Kasetsart University,
DORAS Center, Research Report n°11, 60 p. http://g-eau.fr/index.php/fr/cb-profile/1853-molle-francois#Th
NSO (National Statistical Office). 1950, 1963, 1978, 1993, 2003, 2013. Agricultural census. Bangkok.
OAE (Office of Agricultural Economics). Various years. Agricultural yearbooks. Bangkok, OAE.
Rigg, J., Salamanca, A., Thompson, E. C. 2016. The puzzle of East and Southeast Asia’s persistent smallholder.
Journal of Rural Studies, 43, 118–133.
Rigg, J., Salamanca, A., Phongsiri, M.; Sripun, M. 2018. More farmers, less farming? Understanding the truncatedagrarian transition in Thailand. World Development 107: 327–337.
Rigg, J.; Veeravongs, S.; Veeravongs, L. and Rohitarachoon, P. 2008. Reconfiguring rural spaces and remaking
rural lives in central Thailand. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 39(3): 355–381.
Seksan Prasertkul. 1989. The transformation of the Thai state and economic change (1855-1945) Ph.D.
dissertation Cornell University.
Takaya, Yoshikazu 1986. Agricultural development of a tropical delta: a study of the Chao Phraya Delta.
Monographs of the Center for Southeast Asian Studies. Kyoto University, Vol. 17, Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 269 p.
Tanabe, S. 1980. Farming technology in the deep flooding area. Southeast Asian Studies 17(4): 658-707.
Tomosugi, T. 1980. A structural analysis of Thai economic history: a case study of a Northern Chao Phraya Delta
village. Occasional Papers No. 17, Tokyo: Institute of Developing Economies, 190 p.

19

6

Appendix

Figure 31: Gini coefficient for the distribution of farms by class size, various censuses

Figure 32: Evolution of farm gate rice prices

Figure 33: Rice area planted in the dry season in the Central Region (in rai)20