Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:23:56.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Western Imperialism and Defensive Underdevelopment of Property Rights Institutions in Siam

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2016

Tomas Larsson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Thailand and Japan both faced the threat of colonialism in the latter half of the nineteenth century. While geopolitical vulnerabilities provided Japan with a critical impetus for defensive modernization, they compelled the Siamese state to pursue a strategy of defensive underdevelopment. To understand this paradox, the article explores how variations in the “unequal treaties” imposed on Japan and Siam by Western powers shaped state interests in a policy area of vital importance to the two countries' predominantly agricultural economies: the rural land rights regime.

Keywords

colonialismproperty rightsinstitutional changeeconomic developmentinternational relationsSoutheast Asia
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , April 2008 , pp. 1 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

Earlier versions of this article were presented at the 2006 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association (MPSA) and at the Political Economy Research Colloquium of the Department of Government, Cornell University. Helpful comments from Martin Dimitrov, Jing Tao, and two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. Charles Mehl and Tongroj Onchan of the Mekong Environment and Resource Institute helped facilitate field research in Thailand. The Axel and Margaret Ax:son Johnson Foundation in Stockholm and the Southeast Asia and International Political Economy programs of Cornell University provided financial support.Google Scholar

1. Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European States, A.D. 990–1992 (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1990).Google Scholar

2. See Desch, Michael C., “War and Strong States, Peace and Weak States?” International Organization 50, no. 2 (1996): 242; Jackson, Robert H., Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Thies, Cameron G., “War, Rivalry, and State Building in Latin America,” American Journal of Political Science 49, no. 3 (2004): 451–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James A., “Economic Backwardness in Political Perspective,” American Political Science Review 100, no. 1 (2006): 115–131; Doner, Richard F., Ritchie, Bryan K., and Slater, Dan, “Systemic Vulnerability and the Origins of Developmental States: Northeast and Southeast Asia in Comparative Perspective,” International Organization 59, no. 2 (2005): 327–361; Kang, David C., Crony Capitalism: Corruption and Development in South Korea and the Philippines (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Stubbs, Richard, “War and Economic Development: Export-Oriented Industrialization in East and Southeast Asia,” Comparative Politics 31, no. 3 (1999): 337–355; Stubbs, Richard, Rethinking Asia's Economic Miracle (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005); Zhu, Tianbiao, “Consistent Threat, Political-Economic Institutions, and Northeast Asian Developmentalism” (PhD diss., Cornell University, 2000); Zhu, Tianbiao, “Developmental States and Threat Perceptions in Northeast Asia,” Journal of Conflict, Security and Development 2, no. 1 (2002): 6–29.Google Scholar

4. I use the term “developmental” in a broad sense, which includes also what Peter Evans calls “intermediate states.” Such states are neither “developmental” in East Asian fashion nor are they simply predatory. Such states become “more developmental” when their bureaucratic capacity is strengthened and focused on improving the society's economic well-being. This does not assume that states are able to achieve the level of intrabureaucratic or state-societal coordination attributed to East Asia's developmental states in their push to industrialize. See Evans, Peter B., Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Doner, Ritchie, and Slater, , “Systemic Vulnerability.” Google Scholar

6. Zhu, , “Consistent Threat.” Google Scholar

7. See, for example, Acemoglu, and Robinson, , “Economic Backwardness in Political Perspective,” pp. 127–128.Google Scholar

8. Anderson, Benedict, “Studies of the Thai State: The State of Thai Studies.” In Ayal, Eliezer B., ed., The Study of Thailand: Analyses of Knowledge, Approaches and Prospects in Anthropology, Art History, Economics, History, and Political Science (Athens: Ohio University Center for International Studies Southeast Asia Program, 1978); Battye, Noel Alfred, “The Military, Government and Society of Siam, 1868–1910: Politics and Military Reform During the Reign of King Chulalongkorn” (PhD diss., Cornell University, 1974); Brummelhuis, Han Ten, King of the Waters: Roman Van Der Heide and the Origin of Modern Irrigation in Siam (Leiden: KITLV Press, 2005).Google Scholar

9. North, Douglass C., Structure and Change in Economic History (New York: Norton, 1981), p. 23; Smith, Adam, Lectures on Jurisprudence (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1982), pp. 70, 426–427.Google Scholar

10. World Bank, The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 32.Google Scholar

11. Acemoglu, and Robinson, , “Economic Backwardness in Political Perspective,” p. 128.Google Scholar

12. Samuels, Richard J., “Rich Nation, Strong Army”: National Security and the Technological Transformation of Japan (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994).Google Scholar

13. This section draws heavily on Brown, Philip C., “The Mismeasure of Land: Land Surveying in Tokugawa Japan,” Monumenta Nipponica 42, no. 2 (1987): 115–155; Nakamura, James I., Agricultural Production and the Economic Development of Japan, 1873–1922 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966).Google Scholar

14. The land tax reform of 1873 is implicated in the subsequent rise of indebtedness, landlordism, and rural protest movements. See Bowen, Roger W., Rebellion and Democracy in Meiji Japan: A Study of Commoners in the Popular Rights Movement (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), p. 90 ff; Hayami, Yujiro, A Century of Agricultural Growth in Japan: Its Relevance to Asian Development (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1975), pp. 47–48. For a revisionist view, emphasizing the positive effects of the new order on the lives of Japanese farmers and tenants, see Smethurst, Richard J., Agricultural Development and Tenancy Disputes in Japan, 1870–1940 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 57–73.Google Scholar

15. Yamamura, Kozo, “The Meiji Land Tax Reform and Its Effects.” In Jansen, Marius B. and Rozman, Gilbert, eds., Japan in Transition, from Tokugawa to Meiji (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), p. 382.Google Scholar

16. Nakamura, , Agricultural Production , p. 195, n. 75; Smethurst, , Agricultural Development , p. 48.Google Scholar

17. Yamamura, , “Meiji Land Tax Reform,” p. 394.Google Scholar

18. Havens, Thomas R. H., Farm and Nation in Modern Japan: Agrarian Nationalism, 1870–1940 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), ch. 2; Smethurst, , Agricultural Development, ch. 3.Google Scholar

19. Hayami, , A Century of Agricultural Growth in Japan , p. 47.Google Scholar

20. Nakamura, , Agricultural Production , p. 177.Google Scholar

21. Smith, Thomas C., The Agrarian Origins of Modern Japan (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959), p. 211.Google Scholar

22. Bird, R. M., “Land Taxation and Economic Development: The Model of Meiji Japan,” Journal of Development Studies 13, no. 2 (1977): 163.Google Scholar

23. Westney, D. Eleanor, “The Military.” In Jansen, and Rozman, , Japan in Transition , p. 168.Google Scholar

24. Rousseau, Peter L., “Finance, Investment, and Growth in Meiji-Era Japan,” Japan and the World Economy 11, no. 2 (1999): 187; Sylla, Richard, “Financial Systems and Economic Modernization,” Journal of Economic History 62, no. 2 (2002): 289–290.Google Scholar

25. Feeny, David, The Political Economy of Productivity: Thai Agricultural Development, 1880–1975 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1982).Google Scholar

26. Ibid., p. 94.Google Scholar

27. Ibid., p. 95.Google Scholar

28. Asawai, Sunthari, “Sathanaphap Khong Khwam Ru Kiawkap Phatthanakan Khong Rabop Kammasit Thidin Khong Thai [The state of knowledge about the development of the Thai system of property rights in land].” In 30 Pi Thai Khadi Süksa [30 years of Thai studies] (Bangkok: Institute of Thai Studies, Thammasat University, 2001), p. 174; Lingat, Robert, Prawattisat Kotmai Thai: Kotmai Thidin [History of Thai law: Land law] (Bangkok: Thammasat University, 1940), p. 42 ff.Google Scholar

29. Larsson, Tomas, “Capitalizing Thailand: Colonialism, Communism, and the Political Economy of Rural Land Rights” (PhD diss., Cornell University, 2007), pp. 70–72. Similarly erroneous references, which treat the draft as if it had been enacted, are found in Feder, Gershon et al., Land Policies and Farm Productivity in Thailand (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988), p. 11; Feeny, David, “Competing Hypotheses of Underdevelopment: A Thai Case Study,” Journal of Economic History 39, no. 1 (1979): 123; Feeny, David, “The Demand for and Supply of Institutional Arrangements.” In Ostrom, Vincent, Feeny, David, and Picht, Hartmut, eds., Rethinking Institutional Analysis and Development (San Francisco: International Center for Economic Growth, 1988), p. 186; Feeny, David, “The Development of Property Rights in Land: A Comparative Study.” In Bates, Robert H., ed., Toward a Political Economy of Development: A Rational Choice Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 284, 286; Feeny, David, “The Coevolution of Property Rights Regimes for Land, Man, and Forests in Thailand, 1790–1990.” In Richards, John F., ed., Land, Property, and the Environment (Oakland, CA: ICS Press, 2002), pp. 185, 186; Molle, François, “Social and Economic Patterns of Landlord-Tenant Relationships in the Chao Phraya Delta, Thailand: An Historical Perspective,” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 33, no. 3 (2002): 534.Google Scholar

30. Anderson, , “Studies of the Thai State,” p. 202.Google Scholar

31. Doner, Ritchie, and Slater, , “Systemic Vulnerability,” p. 349.Google Scholar

32. Bedeski, Robert E., “Diplomacy of a Developmental State.” In Kapur, Ashok, ed., Diplomatic Ideas and Practices of Asian States (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990), p. 62.Google Scholar

33. Brown, Ian, “Economic Thought in Early Twentieth-Century Siam.” In Chitakasem, Manas and Turton, Andrew, eds., Thai Constructions of Knowledge (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1991), p. 95.Google Scholar

34. Auslin, Michael R., Negotiating with Imperialism: The Unequal Treaties and the Culture of Japanese Diplomacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), p. 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. According to one popular mode of explanation, proposals for irrigation schemes and many other developmental programs for the agricultural sector failed to be adopted because they threatened—or failed to serve—narrowly conceived elite interests. According to Feeny, property rights modernization was one of the policy areas where elite interests, narrowly conceived, happened to coincide with broader societal interests. See Feeny, , Political Economy of Productivity, ch. 5; Holm, David F., “Thailand's Railways and Informal Imperialism.” In Davis, Clarence B. and Wilburn, Kenneth E. Jr., eds., Railway Imperialism (New York: Greenwood Press, 1991), p. 132.Google Scholar

36. The Bowring treaty became a model for subsequent treaties with foreign powers, including the United States and France (1856), the Netherlands (1860), Prussia (1862), and Japan (1898). See Ingram, James C., Economic Change in Thailand, 1850–1970 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971), p. 35.Google Scholar

37. Jeshrun, Chandran, “British Foreign Policy and the Extraterritorial Question in Siam, 1891–1900,” Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 38 (part 2), no. 208 (1965): 290.Google Scholar

38. Bowring, John, The Kingdom and People of Siam , vol. 2 (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 226.Google Scholar

39. While the treaty restrictions did not formally apply to Siamese subjects, the government “was unwilling to make a distinction between Siamese and European: therefore, in effect, the treaty restrictions on the levying of taxes applied also to the Siamese population.” Brown, Ian, The Creation of the Modern Ministry of Finance in Siam, 1885–1910 (London: Macmillan, 1992), pp. 18–19, n. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40. In fact, most of the “land” taxes were conceived of as taxes on trees. The tax assessment was to a large extent based on the number and size of fruit trees that grew on any particular plot of land. As for annual crops such as rice, the tax rate depended on the class of land it belonged to.Google Scholar

41. Feeny, , Political Economy of Productivity , p. 83.Google Scholar

42. File Concerning Harry Parkes' Mission to Bangkok in 1856 from the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, London (Bangkok: Khana Kammakan Phitcharana lae Chatphim Ekkasan thang Prawatsat, 1975), p. 47.Google Scholar

43. Since Siam was unwilling to go into public debt, again for fear that this would weaken its defensive posture, infrastructure projects had to be financed by direct revenues. On the link between British finance and British imperial expansion, see Cain, Peter and Hopkins, Tony, British Imperialism, 1688–2000 , 2nd ed. (New York: Longman, 2001).Google Scholar

44. Feeny, , Political Economy of Productivity , p. 83.Google Scholar

45. Bowring, , Kingdom and People of Siam , p. 217.Google Scholar

46. See Department of Lands, 100 Pi Krom Thi Din [Department of Lands 100 years], vol. 4: Ruam Kotmai Kao Kiewkap Thidin [Collection of old laws concerning land] (2001), p. 9. Farang is a Thai term for Westerner.Google Scholar

47. Lysa, Hong, “Extraterritoriality in Bangkok in the Reign of King Chulalongkorn, 1868–1910: The Cacophonies of Semi-Colonial Cosmopolitanism,” Itinerario 27, no. 2 (2003): 133.Google Scholar

48. Bootsma, N. A., “The Recuperation of Sovereign Rights by Asian Countries, Circa 1870–1945,” Itinerario 29, no. 2 (2005): 55. Reliable data on the total number of foreign subjects are scant. One report from April 1899 reports that France claimed to have 14,000 protégés in Siam (an increase by 8,000 since 1897). The number of British subjects in Siam stood at 9,000 at the same time. More important, however, was the immense potential for continued growth: French imperial anthropology identified the “Siamese” as a minority ethnic group, constituting, according to one 1903 estimate, only a third of the population of the kingdom. See Foreign Office, “Mr. Greville to the Marquess of Salisbury, Bangkok, February 2, 1899,” in Further Correspondence Respecting the Affairs of Siam 1899 (1900); Streckfuss, David, “The Mixed Colonial Legacy in Siam: Origins of Thai Racialist Thought, 1890–1910.” In Sears, Laurie J., ed., Autonomous Histories, Particular Truths: Essays in Honor of John R. W. Smail (Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, 1993), p. 130.Google Scholar

49. The restrictions on the ability of “foreigners” to own land were not based on origin or ethnicity but on jurisdiction. Subjects of states that did not have treaties with Siam—most notably China, but also Latin American and some European countries—were freely given the right to own land also outside the twenty-four hours' zone. Persons falling under Siamese jurisdiction became “Siamese” in light of the law, while persons with extraterritorial rights were defined as foreigners.Google Scholar

50. Foreign Office, “Mr. Archer to the Marquess of Lansdowne, Bangkok, August 23, 1902,” in Further Correspondence Respecting the Affairs of Siam 1902 (1903).Google Scholar

51. Satow, Ernest, “Memo on the Points Raised in Mr. Gould's Note of 23 September, 23 November,” in PRO 30/33/1/7 (1887).Google Scholar

52. Nutsatham, Noppharat, “Kanpatirup Kotmai Thidin Nai Samai Phrabatsomdet Phrachunlachomklao Chaoyuhua [Land law reform in the reign of King Chulalongkorn]” (Master's thesis, Chulalongkorn University, 1977), p. 205.Google Scholar

53. Foreign Office, “Mr. Paget to the Marquess of Lansdowne, Bangkok, October 27, 1905,” in Further Correspondence Respecting the Affairs of Siam 1905 (1906).Google Scholar

54. A note on sources: the National Archives in Bangkok does not allow researchers to access the files covering the treaty negotiations with Britain and France, which, even a century later, are considered too sensitive. The discussion here therefore mainly builds on British sources, which often include copies of the correspondence produced by the government of Siam.Google Scholar

55. Foreign Office, “Consul Beckett to Mr. Greville, Chiengmai, October 13, 1898,” in Further Correspondence Respecting the Affairs of Siam 1902 (1903).Google Scholar

56. Foreign Office, “Mr. Archer to the Marquess of Lansdowne, 1902.” See also Ramsay, James Ansil, “The Development of a Bureaucratic Polity: The Case of Northern Siam” (PhD diss., Cornell University, 1971), p. 217; Bunnag, Tej, Khabot Ro So 121 [The 1902 revolt] (Bangkok: Thai Watthana Phanit, 1981), p. 46.Google Scholar

57. Foreign Office, “Consul Frost to Mr. Beckett. Kedah, November 6, 1907. Inclosure in No. 10,” in Further Correspondence Respecting the Affairs of Siam 1908 (1909).Google Scholar

58. Foreign Office, “Mr. Paget to the Marquess of Landsdowne. Bangkok, August 4, 1903,” in Further Correspondence Respecting the Affairs of Siam 1903 (1904).Google Scholar

59. Foreign Office, “Mr. Archer to the Marquess of Lansdowne, 1902.” Google Scholar

60. Foreign Office, “Mr. Paget to the Marquess of Landsdowne, 1903.” Google Scholar

61. In support of this more restrictive policy, a modern map of the twenty-four hours' zone was produced, for the first time, in 1906 to assist the officers issuing title deeds. See “Gibson to Sisunthonwohan, 1 October,” in National Archives R5 Kh.4/6 (1906).Google Scholar

62. Jeshrun, Chandran, The Contest for Siam, 1889–1902: A Study in Diplomatic Rivalry (Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsan Malaysia, 1977), ch. 4, especially pp. 223–230.Google Scholar

63. Ibid., p. 223.Google Scholar

64. Article 3 of the convention obliges “His Majesty the King of Siam not to grant, cede or let any special privilege or advantage whether as regards land or trade within the above specified limits [i.e., Siamese territories or islands lying to the south of Muong Bang Tapan] either to the Government or to the Subjects of a third Power without the written consent of the British Government.” This article was not intended to provide Britain with any special privileges, but “rather to prevent foreigners from obtaining special leases of land and special trading rights as a means to an end”—the end being, of course, to eventually acquire political control over these territories. Numnonda, Thamsook, “The Anglo-Siamese Secret Convention of 1897,” Journal of the Siam Society 53 (part 1) (1965): 54–55.Google Scholar

65. Ibid. p. 55.Google Scholar

66. SarDesai, , British Trade and Expansion in Southeast Asia, 1830–1914 , p. 273.Google Scholar

67. Sayre, Francis B., “The Passing of Extraterritoriality in Siam,” American Journal of International Law 22, no. 1 (1928): 78.Google Scholar

68. France nevertheless gained land in exchange for handing over jurisdiction over their Asiatic subjects: as part of the agreement Siam ceded the provinces of Battambang, Siam Riap, and Sisophon to France.Google Scholar

69. On July 21, 1909, the minister of agriculture announced that British subjects would enjoy the right to full land ownership on equal footing with the Siamese. See “Prakat Phoemtoem Phraratchabanyat Thidin Wa Duai Khon Nai Bangkhap Angkrit Kho Thü Kammasit Thi Din” [Additional declaration regarding land law on British subjects requesting land ownership], in National Archives K 1/724 (1909).Google Scholar

70. Sayre, , “The Passing of Extraterritoriality in Siam,” p. 80. This was the last of Siam's territorial concessions. Siam “lost” 456,000 square kilometers of territory—“nearly half the area that had been under Bangkok's suzerainty” in 1850; Wyatt, David K., Thailand: A Short History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), p. 208.Google Scholar

71. It was noted at the time that the secret convention could be judged as a success only if it had been the desire of its drafters “almost wholly to exclude foreigners and foreign enterprise from the Siamese Malay States.” Foreign Office, “Memorandum. The Abrogation of the Secret Convention of 1897 and Substitution of an Undertaking of a Political Nature. Inclosure in Mr. Paget to Sir Edward Grey. Bangkok, February 27, 1908,” in Further Correspondence Respecting the Affairs of Siam 1908 (1909).Google Scholar

72. “Colombet to Chulalongkorn, 15 August,” in National Archives R5 Kh 4.4/10 (1909).Google Scholar

73. “Kalayan to Rabi. 26 June,” in National Archives R6 T2/4 (1912).Google Scholar

74. See Larsson, , “Capitalizing Thailand”; Larsson, Tomas, “Intertextual Relations: The Geopolitics of Land Rights in Thailand,” Political Geography 26, no. 7 (2007): 775–803.Google Scholar

75. Feeny, , Political Economy of Productivity , p. 96.Google Scholar

76. Peel, Arthur, Beckett, W. R. D., and Crosby, J., “Annual Report on Siam for the Year 1911.” In Nish, Ian, ed., British Documents on Foreign Affairs: Reports and Papers from the Foreign Office Confidential Print. Part 1, Series E, Asia, 1860–1914, volume 27, Southeast Asia: Siam, Malaya and Indochina, 1856–1914 (Frederick: University Publications of America, 1914), pp. 271–272.Google Scholar

77. Peel, Arthur, Lyle, T. H., and Crosby, J., “Annual Report on Siam for the Year 1913.” In ibid., p. 326.Google Scholar

78. Ibid. Google Scholar

79. Peel, Arthur, “Memorandum. Bangkok, 15 October 1913. Inclosure in Peel to Grey, 5 December 1913.” In Nish, Ian, ed., British Documents on Foreign Affairs: Reports and Papers from the Foreign Office Confidential Print (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1913), p. 343.Google Scholar

80. Giles, F. H., “Note on Labour Question,” in National Archives Kh 0301.1.30/13 (1913).Google Scholar

81. For more on the diplomatic endgame, see Larsson, , “Capitalizing Thailand,” ch. 4: “Intertextual Relations.” Google Scholar

82. Auslin, , Negotiating with Imperialism , p. 10.Google Scholar

83. Morris-Suzuki, Tessa, Re-Inventing Japan: Time, Space, Nation (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1998), pp. 25–27; Winichakul, Thongchai, Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994).Google Scholar

84. In the case of Siam, a similar process started only after much delay, 100 years after the Meiji Restoration, as Siam faced the threat of communism. See Larsson, , “Capitalizing Thailand,” ch. 5.Google Scholar

85. Jones, Francis Clifford, Extraterritoriality in Japan and the Diplomatic Relations Resulting in Its Abolition, 1853–1899 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1931), pp. 141, 151.Google Scholar

86. Reischauer, Robert Karl, “Alien Land Tenure in Japan,” Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan 13 (Second Series) (1936): 127.Google Scholar

87. Kohli, Atul, State-Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).Google Scholar

88. Feeny, , “Competing Hypotheses of Underdevelopment”; “The Demand for and Supply of Institutional Arrangements” “The Development of Property Rights in Land” “The Coevolution of Property Rights Regimes.” Google Scholar

89. Anderson, , “Studies of the Thai State”; Doner, Ritchie, and Slater, , “Systemic Vulnerability.” Google Scholar

90. Bledsoe, David, “Can Land Titling and Registration Reduce Poverty?” In Bruce, John W. et al., eds., Land Law Reform: Achieving Development Policy Objectives (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006), pp. 152, 155, 172; de Soto, Hernando, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else (New York: Basic Books, 2000), p. 169; Larsson, , “Capitalizing Thailand,” ch. 2; World Bank, World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 44; World Bank, World Development Report 2005: A Better Investment Climate for Everyone (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 80–83.Google Scholar