Project proposal School for Wellbeing - English

8/8/2019 Project proposal School for Wellbeing - English

1/40

Project proposal to Thailand Research Fund (TRF)English version

Well-Being Society s cenario project

SCHOOL FOR WELLBEING STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Well-Being Society scenario project

15 September 2010 15 September 2013 (3 years)

Proposal Year I (+ outline for Year II and III)


2/40



CONTENTS

Pages

I. Introduction 3

Rationale 5

Well-Being Society scenario in comparison with two contrasting

scenarios: ourthesis 9

II. Description of Well-Being Society scenario project 11

Coordination and Synthesis; Social Innovation 11

Conceptual Research: Re-thinking Property 20

Action-research: Bridging the Urban Rural Divide 24

Sub-proposal (1)

Organic Farmers as Social Entrepreneurs.

Sustainable Agriculture: a Trend towards Community Interest

Companies? 25

Sub-proposal (2)

ICT and Well-Being Policy 31

III. Appendices 35

School for Wellbeing Studies and ResearchPatron, Advisors, Organization 35

Addresses and Contacts 37

Summary past, present and future activities 39

Communication strategy 40

2


3/40



15 September 2010 15 September 2013 (3 years)

Proposal Year I (+ outline for Year II and III)

Introduction

As one of the major results of the GNH Movement research development projectrealized with support of Thailand Research Fund and ThaiHealth/TGLIP in the period

August 2008-March 2010, the School for Wellbeing Studies and Research was

established by MOU in August 2009. Another major result of the GNH Movement

project is the formation of a coalition of research groups within the framework of the

School for Wellbeing to formulate and submit a second phase of the GNHMovement projectover the period 2010-2013, characterized by conceptual innovation

and action-research. The project proposed here by the coalition of research groups is

titled the Wellbeing Society Scenario project.

ULTIMATE AIM

of the School for Wellbeing Studies and Research

To strengthen transformation movements

towards sustainable communities

and a global wellbeing society

The founding partners of the School for Wellbeing are: the Faculty of Political

Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok; the Centre for Bhutan Studies,

Thimphu, Bhutan; and the Sathirakoses Nagapradipa Foundation. The Patron of the

School for Wellbeing is the Prime Minister of Bhutan, H.E. Jigmi Y. Thinley. A

short description of the School for Wellbeing and the list with its Advisors is attached

to this proposal.

School for Wellbeing Studies and ResearchStrategic Objective

To strengthen transformation movements towards a Wellbeing Society:

Re-shaping an intercultural Third Way supported by a Tri-Sector

Development Dialogue. The target of this emerging Tri-Sector dialogue is the

realization of sustainable and just development in the decade 2010-2020 by

improvement of participatory decision making. The major three stakeholder-

sectors in this dialogue to be initiated at all levels (rural communities, urban

centres, nations, regional and global platforms) being: 1. governments, 2.

business and 3. civil society.

3


4/40

Articulation of Well-Being Society: Impact

As much as the aims, impacts and social awareness regarding a wellbeing society-

scenario will be articulated, the application of the positive aspects of diverse systemsor scenarios, realized on the ground in unique combinations, will be enabled (see

pages 4-7). Evidence-based foresight of the impacts of the wellbeing society in

comparison to the neo-liberal and socialist alternatives will support mindful decision

making and informed public participation. The Well-Being Society scenario project

aims to innovate an academic platform and social lab where participatory decision

making can be exercised and multiplied into publicly available learning materials.

Target groups

The project aspires to extend and intensify the experiences gained in the GNH

Movement projectwith dialogue among three basic stakeholder categories:

Governments and inter-gouvernmental agencies; the business sector; and civil society.

As the aim of the Wellbeing Society Scenario projectis to raise the level of public

participation in articulating policies towards sustainable and just development, the

fourth target group consists of the education and media sectors. This fourth sector is

considered not to be a political factor on its own but a support-system, in principal

equally, serving the three major stakeholder categories identified here.

Civil society: networks of diverse NGOs (dedicated to a diversity of issues) andPOs; groups and independent leaders dedicated to engaged spirituality; religious

organizations and networks for inter-faith dialogue

Business : business owners and shareholders; urban and rural responsible business

networks; consumer groups and entities mediating between producers and consumers;

investors; managers; middle management; labour groups; co-operatives; trainers and

consultants; farmers

Governments : policy makers in ministries; government agencies; politicians, political

parties; inter-governmental agencies; advisors

Education and the Media: diversity of universities and disciplines; policy makers;

lectures, assistants, students; independent researchers and research groups; teachers

and education consultants; media policy makers; producers and journalists; media

groups

4


5/40

Well-Being Society scenario project-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rationale

The Third Way between socialism and capitalism has never matured into an

alternative in its own right. The most recent attempts to create a Third Way1,

notably by political leaders Bill Clinton and Tony Blair have resulted in compromises

between free-market and socialist systems that honoured the negative aspects of both

rather than combining the positive dimensions of each.

Parallel to this effort a comparable approach was conceived in Asia by Nicanor

Perlas, Philippines, but it never reached the mainstream like the Third Way did in

England and USA2.

The Third Way never matured into a systemic alternative realized massively and

consequently on the ground over a longer period of time.

A major obstacle towards emergence of a genuine alternative economy has been the

assassination of Mahatma Gandhi before he could start his governance experiment,

including trusteeship ruling property, and a village-based economy, in independent

India.

The emerging blend of liberalization within communist China still maintains a lighterecological footprint than that of the West, but the Chinese economy as it develops, is

not genuinely sustainable and just.

The European social-market economy, instead of carving out its own course,

increasingly followed the principles of the USA economy. It was hard hit by the

economic crisis of 2008 which revealed its unsustainable characteristics, in spite of

enormous efforts to change the course.

The co-operative movement was articulated in modern history as a potentially

alternative economic framework, for example by Robert Owen (1771-1858) in

England. The movement now includes an enormous number of co-operatives,including some of the largest enterprises, spread all over the world. However co-

operatives in general adjusted to the economic environment and the movement did

hardly offer a systemic alternative for national economies.

1The USA-British initiative of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair was advised by Anthony Giddens author of

The Third Way: the renewal of Social Democracy , 1998. After initial success the efforts were reversed

and the economies nearly collapsed in 2008.

2Shaping Globalization. Civil Society, Cultural Power and Threefoldingby Nicanor Perlas, Centre for

Alternative Development Ininitatives (CADI), 2000.

5


6/40

In Africa Julius Nyerere induced co-operatives nation-wide in Tanzania. However the

original impulse evolved towards a restrictive government-driven system. While the

inspiration towards endogenous development, including traditional forms of co-

operative business, as pioneered by Joseph Ki-Zerbo in Burkina Faso, was

marginalized.

Nearly all over the world natural resources are governed by private property-

(individuals and corporates) or public property- (the state) regimes, often maintained

from far and anonymously. In traditional, endogenous and contemporary alternative

worldviews nature is considered to be common property shared by all in a multiple

generational perspective and cared for not exploited by communities directly

involved.

Socio-political crisis-ridden Thailands struggle to comply with sufficiency economy,and the positive charisma surrounding the newly constituted democracy Bhutan with

its Gross National Happiness, offer two possible important social labs for exploring

new combinations that include elements of capitalist and socialist systems but aboveall could draw their guidance towards a new direction in development, from a possible

third scenario: the wellbeing society.

In order to facilitate countries and above all civil societies to determine their own

unique mix of development philosophy and economic theory guiding practice, it is

important to give the wellbeing society a stronger, transformative, profile.

The wellbeing society should not be seen as a compromise between neo-liberal and

socialist systems but as a development path based on a distinct vision, worldview and

authentic, intrinsic values.

Bhutan launched its Gross National Happiness philosophy as a new development paradigm. Whether it really can make a difference will be determined within a

decade3. Thailand is exploring avenues beyond ritual towards a genuine

sufficiency economy and since the political crisis of May 2010, no longer can escapefrom facing the challenge to bridging the gap between rich and poor. A new

development paradigm, however, may as much emerge from efforts to bridging the

urban-rural divide, as from focusing on wealth distribution, though not at all

ignoring the urgent need for economic justice.

Best practices gathered in the framework of this project from both agriculture and ICT(Information and Communication Technology) undertakings, as well as

contemplation on property regimes will offer analytical material to test this

assumption: skillfully addressing the urban-rural divide has strong transformational

impact. The relevant pioneering minority in agriculture being the organic agriculture

movement. And within the world of ICT this is the creative commons approach.

Not only will this assumption be tested by means of academic dialogue but as well in

simulation of decision making regarding the policy dilemmas involved. Assessing and

re-thinking Food Security policies provide a challenging framework for this exercise.

3As stated by H.E. Prime Minister Jigmi Y. Thinley of Bhutan at several occasions.

6


7/40

Thailand and Bhutan offer two exemplary opportunities to co-create unique

development pathways. Both countries have their complex problems as well as their

unique cultural capital. From Thailand-Bhutan interaction in this perspective, links

can be established to regional (Mekong countries, S.E. Asia), continental (Asia

Pacific) and global networks operating in the same field of articulating an alternative,

new Third Way economy, an economy of sharing.

In addition to secular initiatives, a new generation Buddhist Economics is being

explored and may offer new windows to alternative development4.

Common denominators to be revealed among this diversity of alternatives unique

but in many ways representative for other unique cultures in Asia could provide the

foundations of a wellbeing society - perspective.

If common ground can indeed be found and given a strong profile, this would

strengthen the contributions of movements in Thailand and in Bhutan to the debate onre-thinking economic performance and social progress

5in South-East and in South

Asia6.

The discourse could influence the new role of Asia in shaping progress towards

appropriate global governance, including interaction with initiatives evolving from

other continents7.

The construction of a wellbeing society scenario is intended to provide a framework

for dialogue at various levels. The purpose is to engage the government, business and

civil society sectors as equal partners in a common effort to shape development. Forthis reason the concept deserves an exploration into more depth.

4 See the Buddhist Economics Research platform e.g. the academic papers of Apichai Puntasen,

Thailand, and the practitioners exchanges within the International Network of Engaged Buddhists

(INEB) guided by Japanese economist Nakamura Hisashi.

5See the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission Report on Measurement of Economic Performance and

Social Progress.

6 Thailand and Bhutan are engaged respectively in the political frameworks ASEAN and SAARC.

Neighbouring countries of Thailand are bound together in the Mekong-region network the Mekong

river springs from the Tibetan plateau north of Bhutan while Bhutan is an independent country at the

core of the Himalayan region, neighboring India and China. Both Thailand and Bhutan are involved in

the BIMSTEC regional framework and UN-ESCAP, the regional UN Social and Economic

Commission for Asia-Pacific .

7Asia-Europe is formalized in the ASEM (Asia-Europe Meeting). The first ASEM was held in

Bangkok, 1995. Example of a NGO-driven intercontinental network is Asia-Africa collaboration was

initiated in the Bandung conference which commemorates its 55th anniversary in Indonesia, October

2010.

7


8/40

Participatory decision making in policy development can be exercised by modes of

simulation games with backing of academic research, forecasting the impacts of

alternate decisions. The design, experimentation and evaluation of the informed

simulation offers material for a multi-media communication project which brings

decision-making on contemporary global dilemmas into the direct face-to-face human

sphere, and beyond mere intellectual exchange. The simulated decision making process can possibly be shared with the public, including by means of social

networking.

The School for Wellbeing Studies and Research aims to provide a platform for

exchanges and debate on wellbeing-driven policy development. The School

intends to be an independent think-tank in this field.

8


9/40

Well-Being Society scenario in comparison with two contrasting

scenarios: our thesis

General characteristics

All three scenarios have both good and bad characteristics and impacts.

Development reality will always result in a unique mix of systems. However, for

right choices to make, principles have to be clearly distinguished so that synergies

indeed enable the achievement of intended results.

Assumption

Local diversity will lead to optimal holistic added value, if global networks serve a

common cause determined by consensus building. This common cause is tentatively

perceived as the global well-being society: well-being for all.

Scenario Scenario towards

wellbeing societies

Socialist scenario Neo-liberal scenario

Systemic characteristic Wellbeing society Welfare state Free market abundance

Responsibility Common responsibility

in social systems

Collective

responsibility

Individual

responsibility

Indicators of progress Wellbeing; happiness;

altruism

(Basic) income;

Equality

Profit; wealth;

individual success

Major actors Major actor is civilsociety

Major actor is the state Major actor is privatebusiness

Governance focus Community spirit and

localized regulation;

global inter-cultural

networking

Collectivism and state

regulation; state-driven

global governance

Individualism and de-

regulation; global

governance dominated

by multinational

corporations

Governance mode Democratically

supported consensus-

building mechanisms

Multi-party democracy

(in communist system:

single party); majority

rule

Money- (lobby-ism)

and media- manipulated

democratic system;

security

Core values

underpinningWorldview

Solidarity Justice Freedom

Ethics Responsibility towards

the common good and

shared values

Duty towards collective

aims and equal rights

Freedom to conquer

individual success;

competition

Social security system;

education; health care

Co-responsibility of

civil society (families,

communities, religious

and ethics-based

organizations), the state

and the business sector.

Education and health

care owned by civil

society

Rights-based social

security arranged by

state and taxation of

business and private

persons; state education

and health care

Social security

determined by market

mechanism; private

education and

privatized health care

Equitable economic Multi-stakeholder Wealth distribution by Regime that suppresses

9


10/40

development dialogue between civil

society- government-

business- sectors

leading to bridging the

gap between rich and

poor; bridging the

urban-rural divide

taxation; governance

by the masses

conflict between rich

and poor; balanced by

philanthropy

Scientific orientation Holistic science Historic materialism Pragmatism

Property Emphasis on common

property

Emphasis on public

property

Emphasis on private

property

Agriculture system and

Food security

Community based

small-scale organic

farming and natural

resources management;

bio-diversity and fair

trade through local and

international networks;

food sovereignty

Collective and large-

scale farming under

government

regulations; state

distribution

Large scale farming;

land, seeds, processing

and marketing channels

owned by private

business; free market

mechanism

Information and

communication

Networks of creative

commons; responsibleand participatory

media; equal efforts

and customized service

catering urban and

rural participants

ICT sector in hands of

state enterprises;government sector

primary customer;

censorship

Private sector driven,

commerciallystructured services and

products; purchasing

power of urban

customers drives

product development

and services; free

expression

Description Well-Being Society scenario project

10


11/40

Coordination and Synthesis; Social Innovation

The Coordination Team will be responsible for aligning the various research projects

and to enable synthesis. The Coordination Team intends to innovate conceptual and

action-research progress towards new insights and experimentation.

WELL-BEING SOCIETY SCENARIO PROJECT

Sharpening Evidence by Simulated Decision Making

The Well-Being Society scenario as drafted above (pages 9-10) will be graduallyfine-tuned during the 3 years project, based on academic evidence and

Scenario Comparison

Re-thinking Property

ICT creativecommons for Well-

Being Policies

Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide

From HIA to Wellbeing Impact Assessment?

Organic Farmers asSocial Entrepreneurs

11


12/40

forecasting, and in comparison with the socialist and neo-liberalist scenarios.

The comparison will focus on Re-thinking Property and Bridging the Urban-

Rural Divide as two critical factors defining the Well-Being Society scenario.

Academic evidence will be gathered (within the limitations of this project) guided

by the Health Impact Assessment (HIA)- approach. The HIA- approach will begradually developed towards a Well-Being Assessment approach.

Rationale of selecting Re-thinking Property and Bridging the

Uraban-Rural Divide as the core areas of research

The core issue proposed to be studied in order to understand the current economic

system and its impact on the wellbeing of people is the notion of property. Much

attention has been given to monetary turn-over, indicators to monitor it like Gross

Domestic Product (GDP), and critique on GDP as a misleading measurement ofwellbeing.

In contrast new indicators of wellbeing like Gross National Happiness in Bhutan have

been explored and have guided us towards in-depth research on utility, contentment

and altruism as manifestations of happiness or wellbeing (Amartya Sen, Matthieu

Ricard) and how a shift in producer-consumer orientations from this point of view

could result in new approaches to economics (Apichai Puntasen).

However, during the GNH-movement platform on Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide

the diversity of (often conflicting) property regimes as uphold by different

stakeholders was highlighted, mainly as an obstacle for transformation towards

sustainable development. A leading traditional notion of property, the commons

(Vandana Shiva), has been almost wiped out by the primacy of state ownership in

communist systems, and is at present overruled by a neo-liberal monoculture of

private property claims.

In order to find windows towards re-setting the economy as the backbone of the

future wellbeing society, it is necessary to gain full understanding of this factor that

programmes society and to find sources for bringing about alternative approaches:

re-defining property.

It is a challenging research question whether and in what ways property regimes

correlate with the perceived urban-rural divide; and how insights can help to bridging

this divide. One assumption is that traditional notions of common property arerevitalized in regenerative rural development and that this movement resonates with

new approaches to intellectual property, notable the creative commons movement in

the area of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) a typically urban-

driven response to the supremacy of mainstream private and public property regimes.

A further rationale for selection of the theme Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide for

this research project is provided in that section.


12


13/40

Part I: Administrative Information

1.1. Names: Wallapa van Willenswaard, Co-Manager School

forWellbeing Studies and Research

Jarin Boonmathya, Process Coordinator

Patcharee Chonmamat, Project Coordinator

Hans van Willenswaard, Project Director

1.2 Organization: Suan Nguen Mee Ma social enterprise, Project

Management on behalf of the School for Wellbeing

Studies and Research

1.3 Title of Project: Wellbeing Society Scenario project

1.4 Starting Date: 15 Septemeber 2010

1.5 Duration: 3 years;

first stage one year (15 Sept. 201015 Sept. 2011)

1.6. Coalition

School for Wellbeing coalition of research groups

Faculty of Political Science, School for Wellbeing Studies and Research,

Chulalongkorn University

Centre for Ethics of Science and Technology, Chulalongkorn University

(CEST) Healthy Public Policy Foundation (HPPF)

Suan Nguen Mee Ma social enterprise Project Management, on behalf

of the School for Wellbeing Studies and Research

The Researchers (supervisors) of each group will meet bi-monthly, while Research

Assistants to be appointed will meet one day every two weeks, coordinated by the

Project Management.

Part II: Project Description

13


14/40


2.1 Rationale See pages 5-8

2.2 Aim and Objectives

Wellbeing Society scenario development and capacity building by means of

simulation of participatory decision making processes and a multi-media project.

1. Activating a network to construct and assess a Wellbeing Society

scenario and comparing the impacts to neo-liberal and socialist

scenarios.

2. To support development of a Wellbeing Impact Assessment approach,

taking experiences with the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and

capital approach (Decharut Sukkumnoed) as the starting point. With

input from the GNH Index as developed by the Centre for Bhutan

Studies, Bhutan; and towards National Wellbeing Accounting by the

Centre for Wellbeing, New Economics Foundation (nef), U.K. and

other agencies.

3. To guide, coordinate and synthesize in-depth conceptual- and action-

research concerning aspects critical to the Wellbeing Society scenario

to be implemented by research groups of the coalition: Re-thinking

Property and Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide (Regenerative

Agriculture and ICT for Well-being policies).

4. To prepare a multi-media project in which the impacts of the diverse

scenarios will be clarified with academic support (forecasting) and by

means of an intensive process of simulated participatory decision

making. [The multi-media project to be implemented in phase 2 and 3].

5. To evaluate and share the lessons learned from this exercise, in

particular in the perspective of capacity building and transformative

learning. To prepare dissemination in phase 3.

6. To improve public participation in giving direction to the developmentof Thailand ~ enabled by articulation of the wellbeing society

scenario ~, in the perspective national reform efforts and international

movements to shape sustainable and just development.

2.3 Conceptual Framework Process Development

14


15/40

The scenario is developed and tested by simulation. The simulation is presented as amedia event and educational tool. The impact of the media event on publicparticipation is evaluated and continuous feed-back provides new input in scenariodevelopment and recommendations for policy makers.

Year I Year II Year III

Developing an alternative Exercising informeddecision making to test

alternatives

Sharing experiences;capacity building;

dissemination

Coordination and Synthesis;Social Innovation

1. Conceptual Research

Re-thinking Property

2. Best practices

Bridging the Urban-RuralDivide

2.1. Regenerative OrganicAgriculture

2.2. ICT and Wellbeing policydevelopment

Televised Simulation Gamewith academic researchbacking

Dialogue, Synthesis andAdvanced Research

Production of SimulationGame for educationalpurpose and publicdistribution

Curriculum Development

2.4 Activities

15


16/40

Where relevant together with the Researchers, the Coordination Team will

intensify the network build-up as a result of the GNH Movement project, and extend

it with new stakeholder representatives and expertise. In a joint effort the wellbeing

society scenario will be given profile in comparison with other scenarios.

Preparations will be made to make the step from exchanges and exploration toexercising informed decision making by simulation. By undertaking interviews and

organizing an innovation process, participation in seminars and conferences, co-

organizing events and exchanging research results.

Overview of examples:

Name Organization

Patron, Partners and Advisors;

resource persons and

participants in GNH Movement

project (see: Appendix)

School for Wellbeing Studies and Research

Universities in Thailand and abroad

Sufficiency Economy network

CSR networks (including Global Compact)

Social Quality network / ISS The Hague

Quality of Life network

Buddhist Economics network

International Network of Engaged Buddhists

(INEB) / Buddhist Economics working groupInterfaith networks working on development,

wellbeing, happiness

World Future Council, Germany

Right Livelihood Award, Sweden

World Social Forum

World Economic Forum

Thai and international experts on scenario writing(government, business, civil society sectors) and

monitoring

Experts in transformative education, in particular

working with simulation games and role play

16


17/40


18/40

2.6 Expected Outputs and Outcomes

Outputs

Synthesis Report : In this report the results of conceptual and action-research

undertaken by the partners of the research-coalition will be presented and

integrated as a contribution towards the re-formulated wellbeing society

scenario.

Conferences and Dialogues: at the beginning of the first and secondyear

conferences will be organized to share results and research questions. If

additional sponsorship can be found an international conference onRe-thinking Property will be held and a series of dialogues between internationaland Thai experts will be organized.

Multi-media database : the partners will gather and produce materials that will

be systematically stored and made available for the second and third stages of

the project, future research, media productions and capacity building

Outline for Wellbeing Impact Assessment methodology : starting from the

example of the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) approach steps will be

explored towards development of an inter-disciplinary Wellbeing Impact

Assessment approach

Outline for Wellbeing Society s cenario : a reworked version of the WellbeingSociety Scenario will be presented including the links to bodies of knowledge

and research groups able to help test the scenario in simulated decision making

and as a tool supporting policy development

Design for Decision Making Simulation Game; operational team for multi-

media programme (publications, social networking, t.v. series, public

dialogue): based on academic debate and dialogue with stakeholders a

simulation game will be designed enabling testing of the impacts of decisions

based on the various scenarios; a partnership with media-groups and experts

will be forged which can implement the game in year 2 and can produce

educational material for broad dissemination in year 3

Outcomes

Strengthened network (Thailand, international) of School for Wellbeing

Studies and Research: continuous contribution as an independent think tank

towards reconciliation, social transformation and the shaping of a sustainable

and just society

New tools for capacity building and participation in public policy

development; strengthening informed decision-making towards wellbeing

18


19/40


20/40

Conceptual research : Re-thinking Property


1.1 Name: Surat Horachaikul

1.2 Organization: Faculty of Political Science, School for Wellbeing

1.3 Title of Project: Re-thinking Property. Towards a conceptual framework

enabling social transformation

1.4 Starting Date: 15 September 2010

1.5 Estimated Duration: 12 months (15 Sept. 201015 Sept. 2011)

2.1 Rationale

Re-thinking Property. Towards a conceptual framework enabling social

transformation.

It is difficult to deny that the nations present development follows a similar

direction as the stream emphasizing the economic growth dogma: the neo-liberalism

paradigm. This, in the words of Jan Nederveen Pieterse8, is neo-liberal globalization.

From empirical evidence, we can see that the turning point towards neo-liberal

development began in 1970s when the US faced an economic crisis of stagflation (ahigh inflation rate coupled with a high unemployment rate).

The crisis presented the opportunity for economists from the Chicago School

lead by Milton Friedman to attack the mixed-market development idea leaning

towards Keynesianism. Eventually it evolved into a clear-cut neo-liberal development

paradigm.

Currently, neo-liberal development together with globalization or neo-liberal

globalization, for a period of 40 years, has built up the status of an almost universal

development pattern. Privatization, deregulation, and GDP-driven economic

development can be seen all over the world. Neo-liberal globalization is thus both a

process/means and a phenomenon/end of worldwide homogenization.

Neo-liberal development has caused concerns among many groups ofdevelopment practitioners and academics alike. This is due to the evidence based on

many pieces of research that under neo-liberal development there are numerous

negative impacts. These include increasing absolute poverty in various places, ever

widening socio-economic disparity, environmental degradation caused by over-

exploitation of natural resources, and epidemics of infectious diseases. At the same

time, prevention and treatment have not been able to forge collective cooperation

amidst, though military conflicts and interstate wars are declining, peoples conflicts

8Development Theory. Deconstructions/Reconstructions, Jan Nederveen Pieterse, London 2001.

20


21/40

are growing. Access to and possession of weapons of mass destruction become easier.

All these actions are amounting to what Ulrich Beck calls the Risk Society9.

These negative impacts have prompted people to look for a way out or an

alternative to neo-liberal development. The motivating alternative is a balance

between capitalism and extreme socialism, or a transformation to a society where an

alternative is to be implemented. A new balance or alternative can only be achievedwhen the understanding of the concept of property is clear. Because within either

extreme capitalism, radical socialism, a balance between the two ideologies, or an

alternative, the property regime is obviously the indication of the guidingdevelopment principle. For example in neo-liberal development, possession of

property by private entities is seen as righteous. Therefore it is not surprising that

emphasis on private property not only leads to a push for turning almost everything

into private properties, but it also creates a fierce competition for property rights.

Public property is emphasized in socialist regimes. While common property

has nearly lost its meaning10

.

Consequently the heart of development rests at the concept of property.Because various approaches to possession, to property rights, are indicators of

development regimes. Without understanding property, the search for the harmony of

living together happily will not lead to completion.

In the politico-economic situation of neo-liberal globalization, the study of

property is crucial since properties in the present day have wider boundaries than in

the past. It therefore should be called the new property regime which also includes

intellectual property rights.

The new property regime thus covers both the old properties familiar to mostpeople and the new properties as intellectual property, not only unfamiliar to many

but also posing threats to humanity, directly and indirectly. Obvious examples of this

are agriculture products, including designer seeds and a new regime calledGenetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

The new property regime inevitably relates to global politics. Numerouspieces of empirical evidence point to the USA as the creator and supporter of this

regime. Those studies also reveal that this property regime connects profoundly to the

profits of transnational corporations which are considered directly benefitting the

USA. Therefore studies about property regimes have to look into the dimension of

international political economy, and principles of unilateralism, bilateralism, and

multilateralism applied to scrutiny through various international agencies.

It is undeniable that throughout the global economic evolution which supports

the neo-liberal development, there still are societies and communities striving to hold

on to the traditional development or create new development alternatives as a way out

of neo-liberal development. These societies are trying to find a balance between

development extremes and create a contextualized development towards

sustainability.

It is as a result important to understand what property regimes these societies

and communities have because this understanding will bring about realization of the

attitudes and cultures in management of economy valuing sharing and not stressing

only GDP growth rates. However before making efforts to understand alternative

9Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Ulrich Beck, London 1992:10

Earth Democracy. Justice, Sustainability, and Peace, Vandana Shiva, 2005.

21


22/40

property regimes, it is absolutely necessary to grasp the details of the neoliberal

property regime. These details should cover

(1.) History of property regimes from liberalism to neo-liberalism

(2.)The differences between old and new property regimes

(3.) The process of gaining recognition of the new property regime(4.) The impacts of the new property regime on human wellbeing

The understanding of the new property regime or the neo-liberal property

regime is necessary since it makes us appreciate the ideas and the challenges of

alternative societies and communities challenged by a neo-liberal context. The

comprehension of conceptual and practical models of these communities will present

a concrete pathway to development that is sustainable, fair to people and nature, lower

in-justice, and supportive to sharing towards a wellbeing society.

2.2 Objectives

To clarify how neo-liberalism emerged from liberalism and how neo-

liberal globalization influences current property regimes

To analyze the conceptual foundations of the neo-liberal property regime;

recognition of alternative concepts

To explore pathways to the development of alternative property regimes,

essential for a possible wellbeing society scenario, and the impacts on

human wellbeing

2.3 Scope of Research

A number of scholars and practitioners (some from abroad) and some

emerging groups are asked to write papers, share their experiences and perspectives

on how to define and re-think property: what changes in property regimes will be

needed to support transformation towards sustainable and just development. Examples

are given in the list below:

Name Perspective

Human Rights approach

Philosophy of Law; diversity of legal systems and

International LawThe Neo-liberal paradigm; corporate law in USA

Co-operative Movement; its emergence and

present status

The commons movement

Community forestry movement in Thailand

Common property in Bhutan

The Land Reform Movement in India

Evolution of property regimes in China

22


23/40

Intellectual property and ICT: the creative

commons

Property of living nature (seeds, species, genes):

ethical considerations

Property regimes and corresponding world views,

including perceptions of wellbeing and happiness.

2.4 Action Plan

Step 1: Literature review; methodology sharing seminar

Step 2: Data collection: in depth interviews with experts and series of

papers

Step 3: Decoding and synthesizing process; conceptual synthesis paper

Step 4: International conference Re-thinking Property Step 5: Building multi-media database (for year II and III); ongoing

Step 6: Preparing simulation game through team process (for year II

and III)

ProcedureTimeline*) (2010-2011: 12 months); year II and III

Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Year II III

Literature review and

conceptual paper

In depth interviews with expertsand papers

International conference

Decoding and synthesizing

process

Multi-media database

Methodology development

Simulation game development

*) to be adjusted to delayed start per 15 September 2010


Outputs

Collection of papers and Synthesis Paper: Re-thinking Property.(Book

publication as part of multi-media project in year II)

International conference: co-sponsored

Multi-media database: material for multi-media project in year II and III

23


24/40

Decision making simulation game: contribution to design process from the

perspective of producing educational material and new ICT-supported inter-

active learning approaches for political science studies at various levels

Outcomes

New perspectives on common, private and public property as foundation fordevelopment towards a wellbeing society scenario

Overview of academic views and governance practices regarding property

regimes and the way these influence wellbeing

Action-research: Bridging the Urban Rural Divide

Rationale for selection of Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide as amajor theme of the Wellbeing Society Scenario project

The urban-industrial complex is characterized by application of materialist

science and reductionism, and technology enabling mass production which has

pushed the rural-based, human-scale economies and culture to a minority

position, even though at least still half of the population in Thailand is living

in rural settings, despite growing migration to the mega-cities.

Even the agriculture sector is now almost completely defined by industrial

applications, as well as by the neo-liberal property regime (land ownership,

seeds, fertility, technology, specialized knowledge and intellectual property). An attempt will be made to produce a balance sheet of urban and rural

contributions to the Wellbeing Society scenario, applying the Wellbeing

Impact Assessment approach (to be developed) as a tool.

Selection of organic agriculture movement and ICT creative

commons as strategic impulses towards innovating urban-rural

bridges and towards social transformation

Both within the agriculture and industrial sectors, strategic initiatives and best

practices are identified that carry a promise towards bridging the urban-rural

divide (conflict of interest can be transcended by common purpose and

adjustments of lifestyle) and therefore to the articulation and realization of the

wellbeing scenario.

The assumption is that within the agriculture sector regenerative agriculture

or the organic agriculture movement contributes most to the realization of

the Wellbeing Society scenario. This assumption will be tested by providing

evidence based on comparison of various seed technologies, using the HIA-

and capital-approach as evaluation tool. This process of gathering evidence

also will serve as an exercise to develop a Wellbeing Impact Assessment-

approach applicable to the Wellbeing Society scenario as a whole and

comparison with other scenarios. More in depth information on ICT creative commons and related urban

24


25/40

movements will be gathered by interviews and workshops with independent

persons, groups and networks that operate along these lines.

It will be explored how these initiatives can be brought together in platforms

like the Thai Green Market Networkin order to formulate common interest inrealizing the vision of a Wellbeing Society. And how (agriculture and ICT)

services and products can be catered to the real needs of urban and ruralpopulations in pilot models of an economy of sharing.

During Year II in particular by means of a series of sessions of a simulation

game, it will be experimented how these groups can influence decision making

while interacting with a broader group of actors representing the three basic

stakeholder categories: governments, business sector and civil society.


Sub-Proposal (1)

Organic Farmers as Social Entrepreneurs. Sustainable Agriculture:

a Trend towards Community Interest Companies?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1.1 Researchers: Buddhina Nuntavorakarn

Duangjai Rungrojcharoenkit1.2 Projects Advisor: Decharut Sukkumnoed

1.2 Organization: Healthy Public Policy Foundation (HPPF)

1.4 Title of Project: Sustainable Agriculture: a Trend towards Community

Interest Companies?

1.5 Starting Date: 15 September 2010

1.6 Duration: 12 months (15 September 2010 August 2011)

Part II Project Description

Rationale

The Green Revolution after the World War II has changed the production pattern,

market system and consumption behaviours world wide including Thailand. Increased

productivity in the agricultural sector helped us initially towards better achievements

on food security. But these achievements have to be traded off with the deterioration

of natural resources and the environment as well as higher social (and cultural) costs.

Farmers could not harvest the benefit of increased yields as expected while they are

pushed into the debt-cycle leading to poverty and poor health. Consumers are

confronted with the higher risks of chemical contamination in their food. These

factors together put into question whether food security is guaranteed in the long term.

25


26/40

In the late 1970s, the movement of sustainable and organic agriculture was formed in

Thai society by NGOs with the belief that it would be a solution helping farmers from

the vicious cycle of chemical agriculture. With obvious evidence on adverse impacts

of chemical agriculture such as poor health, degradation of ecosystem and less self

reliance, sustainable agricultural practices have gradually been accepted by some

farmers and civil servants as alternative to unhealthy modes of production. However,the sustainable agriculture movement is not (yet) strong enough to re-direct

mainstream agricultural development at both farm and policy levels.

According to the research titled CEO of the Field: Health impact assessment of the

transition to sustainable agriculture by Duangjai Rungrojcharoenkit and Buddhina

Nuntavorakarn, farmers have limited capital (defined in a multi-dimensional

perpective) due to socio-economic pressures. Therefore providing them with organic

agriculture skills is not enough to support them adequately. What is needed, according

to the research, are the skills of managing capitals for health ~ including human

capital, nature capital, physical capital, financial capital and social capital11

. The

skills of assessing, and mobilizing these capitals helps the farmers pass through

socio-economic difficulties during the transition period towards organic agriculture

production and marketing. This finding addresses the challenge that the role of

farmers has to be regenerated not only as the producer but also as the entrepreneur

who highly pays attention to risk management, cost effective investment in tackling

their own constraints, and in the green marketing of their products.

Attention will be given to the use of ICT-applications in green marketing efforts.

Although, health capital management is an essential skill encouraging farmer to step

out from the debt cycle and to move into the organic world, it seemed that fewfarmers could successfully manage their capitals towards a balance of socio-

economic, and environment development. Recently, there are several efforts to

support farmers in reaching that goal and the development of Community InterestCompanies (CIC) as proposed by the researchers is one of such efforts. The CIC-

approach aspires to be a key mechanism towards bridging producers and consumers

interests through mindful market efforts. The aim of the proposed CIC-approach

is to encourage small scale farmers to take up the role as social entrepreneurs who can

manage the complexity of health (in the broad sense of well-being) capitals in

productive and effective ways. At the same time, CICs are working closely with

market and consumers leading to the expansion of environmentally and socially

responsible consumers-networks. Therefore, the emergence of the CIC-approachmay become a factor of hope in strengthening the sustainable agriculture movement.

This research project aims to decode the concept and experiences of CICs taking up a

significant role in bridging farmers and consumers interests through various

approaches to innovative marketing and capital management such as strategies in

mobilizing capitals, resource allocation etc. This research will explore how the CIC-

approach can encourage farmers and consumers in tackling their constraints which

11 Birley, M.H. "A review of trends in health impact assessment and the nature of the evidence used."

Journal of Environmental Management and Health, 2002. Martin Birley was one of the authors of theReport of the World Commission on DamsDams and Development a new framework for decision

making, 2000.

26
http://www.birleyhia.co.uk/Publications/hia%20and%20evidence.pdfhttp://www.birleyhia.co.uk/Publications/hia%20and%20evidence.pdf


27/40

then will lead to healthy supply chains as a consequence. In addition, the survival in

terms of self finance will be synthesized. This will lead to the assessment and

consequent recommendations for the practical realization of the CIC-approach in

Thai society.

When such a concrete movement in sustainable agriculture at operation level willemerge, this may induce changes at the policy level. The development path of

sustainable agriculture at present is given less confidence due to the concerns on food

security in a short term perspective, the adaptation in the severe environment like

global warming and the productive sector boosting economic growth. Comparisons

between sustainable agriculture and agrobusiness technologies such as conventional

farming, hybrid and GMOs usually do not fully take into account externalities (costs

not directly visible) and inherent value unveiled by the multiple capital approach as

in HIA.

Therefore, this research will conduct Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of a variety of

seeding technologies such as conventional, hybrid, GMOs and farm-saved seeds withthe aims to address the positive and negative consequences of applying each

technology. The results of this assessment will be applied as important input for

decision makers in formulating healthy agriculture policies. And well-being policies

in general, including the aim of bridging the urban-rural divide.

The findings from the decoding of CIC best practices and HIA of Seed

Technologies will be an input for the research team in designing the model of

property regime which liberate the society from the dominance of neo liberalism. The

expected outcome of new concept of property regime is recognized as critical

mechanism to move toward well-being economy.

Objectives

1. To decode the capital management of Community Interest Company (CIC)

recognized as a key mechanism accelerating the transition from chemical

to sustainable agriculture and the expansion of socially and

environmentally responsible consumers-networks

2. To assess whether sustainable agriculture is the best option under the

socio- economic and environmental challenges through applying HealthImpact Assessment of Seed Technologies as case study

3. To adapt the perspective of Health Impact Assessment towards the

initiative of Well-being Impact Assessment in relation to efforts to

bridging the urban-rural divide

4. To synthesize findings as critical input for a new model of property regime

moving toward well-being society

27


28/40

Conceptual Framework

MechanismChallenges Goal

CIC-approach bridging

consumers and small scale farmers

12 Case Studies

Decoding Issues

Social goal and mission of CICs

Multi-capital management achieving

the social goal and the survival of

independent CICs

Outcome of CIC in the supply chain:

empowered farmers and socially and

environmentally responsible

consumers (+role of ICT)

Challenges at operational level

Socio-economic pressure on

small-scale farmers

The weakness of socially andenvironmentally responsible

consumers

Concerns

Is sustainable agriculture a

practical option under the

socio-economic pressures

and dynamics?

Output

The missing link in thesupply chain supporting

sustainable agriculture

movement

The catalysts promoting

CIC in Thai society

especially CIC in thesustainable agriculture

movement.

Challenges at policy level

Environmental challenges

like global warming

Socio-economic pressures

under intensified capitalism

Concerns

Food security (well-being of

consumers)

The survival of small scale

farmers

HIA of Rice Seed Technologies

Conventional, Hybrid, GMOs and

Farm saved seeds

Impact Assessment

Economic security in terms of

productivity

Social security in terms of social

structure

Environmental security in terms of

efficient use of resources

Output

Evidence as critical input

for the direction of

agriculture policies,

resulting in increased food

security and better

livelihood of small-scalefarmers

Input for the model

of property regime

and bridging the

urban-rural divide

toward the Well-

Being Society

28


29/40

Action Plan

Step 1: Literature review

Step 2: Data collection: in depth interviews and HIA field work

Step 3: Decoding and synthesizing process

Step 4: Database preparation

Step 5: Input for Game Simulation through expert dialogues

ProceduresTimeline (Sep. 2010- Aug 2011: 12 months)

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Apr Jun Aug

Literature review

HIA Training

Data collection: In depthinterview and HIA field work


process

Database Preparation

Input for Game Simulation

Key Informants assumed to represent best practices of the CIC approach

CIC developed from NGOs1. Vitoon Panyakul Green Net, Bangkok

2. Wallapa van Willenswaard Suan Nguen Mee Ma, Bangkok: Green Market

Network

3. Chomchuan Boonrahong ISAC, Chiangmai

CIC developed from the private sector

4. Yuthakarn Makpun Khamsad Resort, Kanjanaburi

5. Waritsorn Rakpun Chumporn Cabana, Chumporn

CIC developed from peoples organizations

6. Klaew Boonrod Phon Yang Kham Coooperatives, Sakhonnakorn7. Thamrong Saengsuriyachan Organic Farming Network of Thailand, Santi

Asoke, Bangkok

CIC developed from community networks

8. Raweewan Srithong CSA, Suphanburi

9. Phoonpithak Luengsriorn Sanamchaiket, Chachoengsao

10. Amphorn Thanikrut Community Network on Agro-tourism,

Chumporn

11. Somboon Srisubut Organic Farmer Network, Chumporn

12. Vijit Boonsoong Fair Trade Organic Rice Network, Yasothorn

29


30/40

Case studies (HIA of Seed Technologies)

Conventional Seed Rice Department and Farmers in Pathumthani

Hybrid Seed Farmers in Khampangpetch

Farm Saved Seed Kao Kwan Foundation, Suphanburi

GMO Seed Rice Department


Outputs

Paper on Health Impact Assessment of Rice Seed Technologies

Paper on Community Interest Company: Decoding capital management to

strengthen sustainable agriculture movement

Outcomes

Strengthen Community Interest Company as critical mechanism in sustainable

agriculture movement.

The policy proposal advocating healthy agricultural policy

The approach applying HIA in the initiative of Well-being Impact Assessment

30


31/40


Sub-Proposal (2)

ICT and Wellbeing Policy

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Names: Soraj HongladaromParkpume Vanichaka, Research Assistant

Organization: Center for Ethics of Science and Technology,

Chulalongkorn University (CEST)

Title of Project: ICT and Wellbeing Policy

Starting Date: 15 September 2010 Duration: 12 months (15 Sept. 201015 Sept. 2011)

Part II Project Description

2.1 Rationale

This section of the proposal on the Well-Being Society scenario project

focuses on the role played by information and communication technologies (ICTs)

for development, especially as they are concerned with what is known as sustainable

development as well as the philosophies behind His Majesty the King of ThailandsSufficiency Economic Principles and Bhutans Gross National Happiness

programs.

It is undeniable that ICTs are playing very important roles in our lives

nowadays. The question is how to harness the power of the technologies for real and

lasting benefits to the worlds population. Most policy proposals regarding ICTs and

development tend to subscribe to technological determinism, which argues that the

direction of development is a function of technological infusion and development

within the area where the development is to take place. In other words, the

technological determinists believe that providing technologies is sufficient in causing

economic development. A recent study by the World Bank, which argues that there

will be as much as 1.3 percent increase in economic growth rate if broadband internet

technologies are introduced to a country, is a case in point12

. The thinking behind this

is that technology determines development. However, many studies have shown that

it is far too simple to maintain that technological infusion alone will result in

economic development. Many factors are always involved which are difficult to

predict and fully control. For example, the level of education, awareness and

acceptance of technology by the population is also very important. What would

happen if, for example, broadband technology is introduced to Thailand but the

population in general are not exactly ready for it? Simply giving the people a mobile

phone connected to the Internet or notebook computers would not magically create an

12Telecommunications and Economic Growth Qiang, Christine Zhen-Wei, 2009 (World Bank,

unpublished paper)

31


32/40

advanced, mature economy. There needs then to be a study that investigates these

contextual factors so that the path from technology to development is a workable one.

Furthermore, the issue of development itself is also contentious. The ideas

behind the alternative development concepts of Thailand and Bhutan are that simply

accumulation of wealth and material gain by themselves should not be taken as the

goal of development. For there are many more dimensions of development than justwealth accumulation. The economist Amartya Sen is of the same idea when he

introduces the notion of the capabilities approach which measures economic growth

and well-being in terms of realization of human potentials, what a human being could

be in accordance with his or her vision of what humans could indeed become in a

situation of perfect freedom. Capabilities are construed in terms of the freedoms

people have reason to value limited by the choices they can make in reality. Certainly

material wealth and its limited access is one factor in that vision, but it is clearly not

wealth alone. In order to create a more well-rounded perspective of development, a

re-think and dialogue are necessary. Hence the main question for the project here is:

Given the power and ubiquity of information and communication technologies in

todays world, what can the technologies do in order to effect the kind of more wellrounded development of human society and individuals, one that promotes their wellbeing rather than mere accumulation of wealth?

The project proposes to answer this question through a research program and a

series of activities described below. More specifically, the proposed project here aims

at providing policy recommendations that will bridge the existing gap between the

rural and urban areas in Thailand. It will identify the factors that are involved in

creating the gap and suggest ways to combat them. In other words, even though

technological infusion alone is not enough, the project will identify other factors

which when added to the technology will result in information and communication

technologies become sufficient for the desired development.

2.2 Objectives

To engage in research designed to answer the question of how best

information and communication technologies could foster visions of

alternative development in Thailand and Bhutan aiming at goals that go

beyond mere economic growth

To become a part in the overall project of the School for Wellbeing Studies

and Research and contribute to positioning it as an independent think tank

Exploring the possibilities (with the support of information andcommunication technologies applied by groups who pioneer social

networking and open sourcing) of developing a multi-media project

recording a decision making simulation game that clarifies the impact of

choices for well-being driven policy alternatives

To provide workable and effective policy recommendations to stakeholders

including local and national authorities on ICT policy and policy development

in related areas

2.3 Best practices

32


33/40

A number of successful social entrepreneurs and civil networks as well as

some emerging groups in the ICT and media sector (including some foreign groups)

are resource persons sharing their experiences and the perspectives on how to manage

ethical and participatory ICT as well as common intellectual property practices, in

achieving the benefit of wellbeing driven development. Some examples:

Name Organization

Soraj Hongladarom

Pattarasinee Bhattarakosol

Center for Ethics of Science and Technology,


Thai PBS/Thailand Change

Thailand Creative Commons

Michel Bauwens P2P Foundation

Suan Nguen Mee Ma publishers

Social Venture Network

Budika Non Violent Peace network

Paul Hawken (author ofBlessed Unrest)initiated

database and website

New Economics Foundation (nef)

Roger Torrenti Sigma Oriones (France), Paradiso project

Wikiprogress of OECD

2.4 Action Plan

33


34/40

Step 1: Literature review; methodology sharing seminar

Step 2: Data collection: in depth interviews, meetings and e-networking

Step 3: Decoding and synthesizing process; paper

Step 4: Building multi-media database (for year II and III); ongoing

Step 5: Preparing simulation game through team process (for year II and III)

ProcedureTimeline *) (2010-2011: 12 months); year II and III

Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Year II III

Literature review and report

Data collection: In depth

interviews


processMulti-media database

HIA Methodology development

Simulation game development

*) to be adjusted to delayed start per 15 September 2010


Outputs

1. Report: ICT and media supporting participatory Well-Being policy

development

2. Multi-media database: material for multi-media project in year II and III

3. Simulation game approach: draft of working procedures and pooling of

expertise to involve

Outcomes

1. Strengthen the movement of creative commons as a leading factor of a

Well-Being Society scenario

2. Policy recommendations on how best to utilize ICT for economic and wellbeing development

3. Initiating and guiding a development process towards a simulation decision

making game in which the impact of scenarios can be compared, focused on

the Well-Being society scenario

34


35/40

The School for Wellbeing is an independent think-tank being shaped byan international network of dedicated academics from diverse

disciplines, practitioners and policy makers, primarily inspired by theconcept of Gross National Happiness. By common effort the School for

Wellbeing offers a creative learning space for a diversity of stakeholders

inducing cross-cultural studies in happiness, wellbeing and quality of life.The School for Wellbeing nurtures an evidence-based research-platformguided by critical holism in order to explore alternative developmentparadigms. It enables (young) researchers to undertake related action-research initiatives.

The focus of the School for Wellbeing is on empowering people who areengaged in a much needed shift towards wellbeing-driven public policy

development.

Patron

H.E. Jigmi Y. Thinley, Honble Prime Minister of Bhutan

Executive Committee

Dasho Karma Ura, President, Centre for Bhutan Studies, Bhutan

Dean, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand

President, Sathirakoses Nagapradipa Foundation, Thailand

Advisors (Bhutan)

Dasho Kinley Dorji, Secretary, Ministry of Information and Communication

Karma Tshiteem, Secretary, Gross National Happiness Commission

Lam Gembo Dorji, Dratshang Lhentshog, Central Monastic Body

Daw Penjo, Foreign Secretary of Bhutan, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Aum Sangay Zangmo, Secretary, Ministry of Education

Phuntsho Wangdi, Editor, Kuensel Corporation

Advisors (Thailand)

Sulak Sivaraksa, Founder, Sathirakoses Nagapradipa Foundation

35


36/40

H.E. Surapong Jayanama, former Ambassador; Director Saranrom

Institute for Foreign Affairs (SIFA)

Phra Paisal Visalo, Abbot Wat Pa Sukkhato

Dr. Uthai Dulyakasem, Rector, Silapakorn University

Ven. Dhammananda Bhikkuni, Buddhasavika Foundation, formerProfessor, Thammasat University

Prida Tiasuwan, Chairman Pranda Group; Advisor Social Venture NetworkAsia (Thailand)

Assoc. Professor Surichai Wungaeo, Director Centre for Peace and Conflict

Studies, Chulalongkorn University

Advisors (International)

Vandana Shiva, Navdanya and Bija Vidyapeeth, India

Peter Hershock, East-West Centre, Hawaii, USA

Ronald Colman, Genuine Progress Index for Atlantic Canada (GPIAtlantic),

Canada Satish Kumar, Schumacher College and Resurgence, U.K./India

Susan Andrews, Instituto Visao Futuro, Brazil/USA

Benedikt Haerlin, Foundation on Future Farming, Germany

Helena Norberg Hodge, ISEC and Global Ecovillage Network,Australia/Ladakh/Sweden

Shen Hao, 21st Century News Group, P.R. China

Judith Simmer-Brown, Naropa University, USA

Harsha Navaratne, Sewalanka Foundation and International Network of

Engaged Buddhists (INEB), Sri Lanka

Cheah Vannath, independent development expert, Cambodia

Sombath Somphone, PADETC, Laos

Habib Chirzin, Islamic Forum on Peace and Human Security, Indonesia Ross MacDonald, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Nic Marks, Centre for Wellbeing, New Economics Foundation (nef), U.K.

Jean Timsit, lawyer/photographer, France

Takayoshi Kusago, Kansai University, Japan

Jan Nederveen Pieterse, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA/theNetherlands

Robert Biswas-Diener, Positive Psychology Services, LLC, USA

Darwis Khudori, Universite Le Havre; Centre Lebret; Bandung 55,

France/Indonesia

Management Committee

Surat Horachaikul Director; Assistant Professor, Faculty of Political

Science, Department of International Relations, Chulalongkorn University

Vira Somboon, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Political Science,


Wallapa van Willenswaard-Kuntiranont Co-Manager; Managing Director,

Suan Nguen Mee Ma social enterprise (Garden of Fruition); CouncilMember, Sathirakoses Nagapradipa Foundation

Somboon Chungprampree Co-Manager; Director, Sathirakoses

Nagapradipa Foundation; Spirit in Education Movement

Dorji Penjore Co-Manager; Senior Researcher, Centre for Bhutan Studies Sangay Thinley Researcher, Centre for Bhutan Studies

36


37/40

Jarin Boonmathya Process Coordinator

Patcharee Chonmanat Project Coordinator

Hans van Willenswaard Project Director, Well-Being Society scenario

project


www.schoolforwellbeing.org

THAILAND

Academic CentreFaculty of Political ScienceChulalongkorn UniversityHenri-Dunant RoadBangkok 10330Contact: Surat Horachaikul

E-mail: [email protected]: (66) 81-613 1414* During the reconstruction of the Faculty 2010-2013 please

contact the Secretariat

School for Wellbeing SecretariatGarden of Fruition social enterprise and publishers77-79 Fuang Nakorn RoadOpposite Wat RajabopitBangkok 10200Tel: (66-2) 622 0955, 6220966

Fax: (66-2) 622 3228Contact:

Wallapa van Willenswaard-KuntiranontE-mail: [email protected]: (66) 81-406 2260Patcharee ChonmanatE-mail: [email protected]: (66) 82-331 1305Hans van WillenswaardE-mail: [email protected]

Development Office

Sathirakoses Nagapradipa Foundation666 Charoen Nakorn, Klongsarn,

Bangkok 10600Tel: (66-2) 438 9331-2, 860 1277Fax: (66-2) 860 1278Contact: Somboon Chungprampree (Co-Manager, Finance)

E-mail: [email protected]: (66) 81-667 3366

Ratawit OuaprachanonE-mail: [email protected]

Mobile: (66) 81-560 4587

BHUTAN

37
http://www.schoolforwellbeing.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schoolforwellbeing.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


38/40

The Centre for Bhutan StudiesPost Box 1111ThimphuBhutanTel: (975-2) 321 005, 321 111Fax: (975-2) 321 001

Contact: Dasho Karma Ura, PresidentE-mail: [email protected]

Dorji PenjoreE-mail: [email protected]

Sangay ThinleyE-mail: [email protected]

Websites: www.bhutanstudies.org.btwww.grossnationalhappiness.com

38
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.bhutanstudies.org.bt/http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.bhutanstudies.org.bt/http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/


39/40


40/40

In 2010 a series of dialogues successfully took place with Dr. Robert Biswas-Diener,

Dr. Vandana Shiva with launching of the Thai edition of her bookEarth

Democracy and Helena Norberg Hodge.

Organized by the School for Wellbeing Studies and Research

Major sponsor: SIFA

Readings in International Relations, June September 2010; November

2010 March 2011 and ongoing

Module (in English) on Happiness and Wellbeing at the Faculty of Political Science,

Department of International Relations, Chulalongkorn University developed and

conducted by Surat Horachaikul

Major sponsor: Chulalongkorn University

Chart from final report GNH movement project:

Proposed Communication Strategy:

Project proposal School for Wellbeing - English

Documents

Transcript of Project proposal School for Wellbeing - English