Phuket Bets on Culture: Can Identity Fuel Thailand’s Economic Boom?
Phuket, Thailand, is probably not where you expect to find a real-world test of Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach to development. Yet, nestled within the glossy headlines of a Bangkok Post article, a fascinating experiment is unfolding. The Thai Ministry of Justice, led by Pol Col Tawee Sodsong, is explicitly linking economic growth with investments in the cultural and religious identities of its Muslim population. The initiative, which focuses on language training, ethical education, and support for Islamic finance, might seem like a localized project. But it speaks to a much deeper question: Can intentional cultural policy be a lever for inclusive economic development, or is it destined to become just another form of well-intentioned social engineering?
The immediate goals are clear: bolster youth employment prospects with multilingualism (English, Arabic, Malay) and instill strong moral values. The minister emphasizes the Muslim community’s contribution to Phuket’s tourism economy. Moreover, the plan supports Islamic finance and halal industries. The overarching aim, however, moves beyond the purely transactional. It’s an acknowledgement that cultural identity, often sidelined or even suppressed in the pursuit of economic progress, is actually a resource.
Pol Col Tawee stressed that genuine economic progress is driven by human capital, not solely financial structures, and he pledged fair interest-free financial services to all.
This approach contrasts sharply with the assimilationist tendencies that have plagued development strategies globally. Consider the French policy of laïcité, exported to its colonies, that subtly (and not so subtly) denigrated local religious practices in favor of a secular, republican ideal. Or the push in post-Soviet states to rapidly adopt Western-style capitalism, often at the expense of existing social safety nets and cultural norms. Minister Tawee is essentially arguing that these omissions aren’t merely ethically dubious, they’re economically inefficient, leaving untapped potential on the table.
The broader trend is the rise of impact investing. Islamic finance presents a unique intersection of finance, culture and ethics. Scholar Rodney Wilson, for example, has argued that Islamic finance, with its emphasis on ethical considerations, can promote “stability and sustainable growth” in a way that conventional finance often fails to achieve. This isn’t just about piety; it’s about resilience. Studies have shown that Islamic financial institutions weathered the 2008 financial crisis better than their conventional counterparts, due in part to their risk-averse principles. Thailand, a nation with a significant Muslim minority, is wagering that leveraging these assets can be a potent source of growth.
But there are risks. Can the state authentically support religious identity without instrumentalizing it, turning faith into a mere tool for economic advancement? Will the focus on economic returns overshadow the intrinsic value of cultural preservation, leading to a kind of curated authenticity? The danger lies in reducing a complex cultural reality to a mere input in a GDP calculation. This would be the old mistake, reframed with the language of inclusion — a kind of Potemkin village of diversity.
The Thai experiment is crucial not because it’s guaranteed to succeed, but because it forces us to re-examine the fundamental assumptions underlying economic development and, more broadly, the relationship between culture and capitalism. It challenges the notion that progress requires cultural homogenization, revealing the implicit biases baked into so much of what we call “modernization.” Instead, it suggests that the path forward might lie in embracing the very diversity that was once seen as a barrier, and asking whether economic models themselves can be adapted to fit diverse cultural contexts. If Phuket can prove that cultural preservation and economic growth are not mutually exclusive, it could offer a blueprint for a more inclusive and sustainable future, not just for Thailand, but for a world grappling with the homogenizing forces of globalization. The question isn’t just whether it works, but what it reveals about the limits of our existing economic paradigms.
