Home āļŦāļąāļ§āļ‚āđ‰āļ­āļ”āļļāļĐāļāļĩāļ™āļīāļžāļ™āļ˜āđŒ āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļīāļ—āļ˜āļīāļœāļĨāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ™āđ‚āļĒāļšāļēāļĒāđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ§: āļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļāļĢāļ“āļĩāļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ”āļ•āļēāļ

Main Menu

āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļīāļ—āļ˜āļīāļœāļĨāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ™āđ‚āļĒāļšāļēāļĒāđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ§: āļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļāļĢāļ“āļĩāļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ”āļ•āļēāļ PDF Print E-mail

āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļīāļ—āļ˜āļīāļœāļĨāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ™āđ‚āļĒāļšāļēāļĒāđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ§: āļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļāļĢāļ“āļĩāļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ”āļ•āļēāļ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

āđ‚āļ”āļĒ

 

āļ™āļēāļĒāļŠāļĢāļĢāļžāļŠāļīāļĢāļī  āļ­āļĢāļŠāļąāļĒāļžāļąāļ™āļ˜āđŒāļĨāļēāļ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

āļ”āļļāļĐāļŽāļĩāļ™āļīāļžāļ™āļ˜āđŒāļ™āļĩāđ‰āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļŠāđˆāļ§āļ™āļŦāļ™āļķāđˆāļ‡āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļāļēāļĢāļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļ•āļēāļĄāļŦāļĨāļąāļāļŠāļđāļ•āļĢāļĢāļąāļāļ›āļĢāļ°āļĻāļēāļŠāļ™āļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāļ”āļļāļĐāļŽāļĩāļšāļąāļ“āļ‘āļīāļ•

āļ„āļ“āļ°āļĻāļīāļĨāļ›āļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāđŒ āļĄāļŦāļēāļ§āļīāļ—āļĒāļēāļĨāļąāļĒāđ€āļāļĢāļīāļ

āļž.āļĻ. 2553

Effectiveness of Migrant Workers Policy: A Case Study of Tak Province

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By

 

Mr. Suppasiri  Orachaipunlap

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Doctor of Public Administration

Faculty of Liberal Arts

Krirk University

2010

āļŦāļąāļ§āļ‚āđ‰āļ­āļ”āļļāļĐāļŽāļĩāļ™āļīāļžāļ™āļ˜āđŒ                        āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļīāļ—āļ˜āļīāļœāļĨāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ™āđ‚āļĒāļšāļēāļĒāđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ§: āļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļāļĢāļ“āļĩāļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ”āļ•āļēā

āļŠāļ·āđˆāļ­āļœāļđāđ‰āļ§āļīāļˆāļąāļĒ                                     āļ™āļēāļĒāļŠāļĢāļĢāļžāļŠāļīāļĢāļī  āļ­āļĢāļŠāļąāļĒāļžāļąāļ™āļ˜āđŒāļĨāļēāļ 

āļŦāļĨāļąāļāļŠāļđāļ•āļĢ/ āļ„āļ“āļ°/ āļĄāļŦāļēāļ§āļīāļ—āļĒāļēāļĨāļąāļĒ          āļĢāļąāļāļ›āļĢāļ°āļĻāļēāļŠāļ™āļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāļ”āļļāļĐāļŽāļĩāļšāļąāļ“āļ‘āļīāļ•/ āļĻāļīāļĨāļ›āļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāđŒ/ āļĄāļŦāļēāļ§āļīāļ—āļĒāļēāļĨāļąāļĒāđ€āļāļĢāļīāļ

āļ­āļēāļˆāļēāļĢāļĒāđŒāļ—āļĩāđˆāļ›āļĢāļķāļāļĐāļēāļ”āļļāļĐāļŽāļĩāļ™āļīāļžāļ™āļ˜āđŒ         āļĢāļ­āļ‡āļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāļēāļˆāļēāļĢāļĒāđŒ āļ”āļĢ.āļŠāļĄāļĻāļąāļāļ”āļīāđŒ  āļŠāļēāļĄāļąāļ„āļ„āļĩāļ˜āļĢāļĢāļĄ

āļ›āļĩāļāļēāļĢāļĻāļķāļāļĐāļē                                   2552    

 

āļšāļ—āļ„āļąāļ”āļĒāđˆāļ­

 

āļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļˆāļąāļĒāđ€āļĢāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ‡  āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļīāļ—āļ˜āļīāļœāļĨāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļ™āđ‚āļĒāļšāļēāļĒāđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ§: āļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļāļĢāļ“āļĩāļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ”āļ•āļēā āļĄāļĩāļ§āļąāļ•āļ–āļļāļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļ‡āļ„āđŒ 2 āļ›āļĢāļ°āļāļēāļĢ āļ„āļ·āļ­ 1) āđ€āļžāļ·āđˆāļ­āļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļ–āļķāļ‡āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļīāļ—āļ˜āļīāļœāļĨāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļāļēāļĢāļ™āļģāļ™āđ‚āļĒāļšāļēāļĒāđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ§āđ„āļ›āļ›āļāļīāļšāļąāļ•āļī āđƒāļ™āļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ”āļ•āļēāļ 2) āđ€āļžāļ·āđˆāļ­āļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļ–āļķāļ‡āļ›āļąāļˆāļˆāļąāļĒāļŠāļģāļ„āļąāļāļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāđˆāļ‡āļœāļĨāļ•āđˆāļ­āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļīāļ—āļ˜āļīāļœāļĨāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļāļēāļĢāļ”āļģāđ€āļ™āļīāļ™āļ™āđ‚āļĒāļšāļēāļĒāđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ§ āđƒāļ™āļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ”āļ•āļēāļ

āđƒāļŠāđ‰āļ§āļīāļ˜āļĩāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļˆāļąāļĒāđ€āļŠāļīāļ‡āļ„āļļāļ“āļ āļēāļžāļĢāđˆāļ§āļĄāļāļąāļšāļ§āļīāļ˜āļĩāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļˆāļąāļĒāđ€āļŠāļīāļ‡āļŠāļģāļĢāļ§āļˆ āđ‚āļ”āļĒāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ—āļģāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļąāļĄāļ āļēāļĐāļ“āđŒāđāļšāļšāđ€āļˆāļēāļ°āļĨāļķāļāļœāļđāđ‰āđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ‚āđ‰āļ­āļĄāļđāļĨāļŠāļģāļ„āļąāļ āļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™ 8 āļāļĨāļļāđˆāļĄ āđ„āļ”āđ‰āđāļāđˆ  āđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ§ 6 āļ„āļ™ āđ€āļˆāđ‰āļēāļŦāļ™āđ‰āļēāļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāļģāļ™āļąāļāļ‡āļēāļ™āļˆāļąāļ”āļŦāļēāļ‡āļēāļ™āļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ”āļ•āļēāļ 2 āļ„āļ™ āļœāļđāđ‰āļ›āļĢāļ°āļāļ­āļšāļāļēāļĢ 5 āļ„āļ™ āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļēāļŠāļ™āđƒāļ™āļ—āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļ–āļīāđˆāļ™ 6 āļ„āļ™ āđ€āļˆāđ‰āļēāļŦāļ™āđ‰āļēāļ—āļĩāđˆāļ•āļģāļĢāļ§āļˆāļ āļđāļ˜āļĢ 3 āļ„āļ™ āđ€āļˆāđ‰āļēāļŦāļ™āđ‰āļēāļ—āļĩāđˆāļ•āļģāļĢāļ§āļˆāļ•āļĢāļ§āļˆāļ„āļ™āđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđ€āļĄāļ·āļ­āļ‡ 3 āļ„āļ™ āđ€āļˆāđ‰āļēāļŦāļ™āđ‰āļēāļ—āļĩāđˆāļ§āđˆāļēāļāļēāļĢāļ­āļģāđ€āļ āļ­ 3 āļ„āļ™ āđāļĨāļ°āđ€āļˆāđ‰āļēāļŦāļ™āđ‰āļēāļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāļēāļ˜āļēāļĢāļ“āļŠāļļāļ‚ 3 āļ„āļ™  āļŠāļģāļŦāļĢāļąāļšāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļˆāļąāļĒāđ€āļŠāļīāļ‡āļŠāļģāļĢāļ§ā āđƒāļŠāđ‰āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļąāļĄāļ āļēāļĐāļ“āđŒāļ•āļēāļĄāđāļšāļšāļŠāļ­āļšāļ–āļēāļĄāļ—āļĩāđˆāļĄāļĩāđ‚āļ„āļĢāļ‡āļŠāļĢāđ‰āļēā āļāļĨāļļāđˆāļĄāļ•āļąāļ§āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™ 3 āļāļĨāļļāđˆāļĄ āđ„āļ”āđ‰āđāļāđˆ āđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ§āļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™ 337 āļ•āļąāļ§āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēā āļœāļđāđ‰āļ›āļĢāļ°āļāļ­āļšāļāļēāļĢāļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™ 157 āļ•āļąāļ§āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡ āđāļĨāļ°āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļēāļŠāļ™āđƒāļ™āļ—āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļ–āļīāđˆāļ™āļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™ 290 āļ•āļąāļ§āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡

āļœāļĨāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļˆāļąāļĒ āļžāļšāļ§āđˆāļēāļāļēāļĢāļ›āļĢāļ°āđ€āļĄāļīāļ™āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļīāļ—āļ˜āļīāļœāļĨāđƒāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ™āļģāļ™āđ‚āļĒāļšāļēāļĒāđ„āļ›āļ›āļāļīāļšāļąāļ•āļī āļžāļšāļ§āđˆāļē āļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāđƒāļ™āļĢāļ°āļ”āļąāļšāļ•āđˆāļģāļ—āļąāđ‰āļ‡ 5 āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ™ āļ„āļ·āļ­ 1) āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļˆāļ”āļ—āļ°āđ€āļšāļĩāļĒāļ™āđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ§ 2) āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļāļģāļāļąāļšāļ•āļīāļ”āļ•āļēāļĄāļ”āļđāđāļĨ  3) āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ„āļļāđ‰āļĄāļ„āļĢāļ­āļ‡āđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ§  4) āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ™āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļ­āļ”āļ„āļĨāđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļąāļšāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļēāļĢāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļœāļđāđ‰āļ›āļĢāļ°āļāļ­āļšāļāļēāļĢ āđāļĨāļ° 5) āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ›āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļąāļ™āļœāļĨāļāļĢāļ°āļ—āļšāļ”āđ‰āļēāļ™āļĨāļš

āļŠāļģāļŦāļĢāļąāļšāļ›āļąāļˆāļˆāļąāļĒāļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāđˆāļ‡āļœāļĨāđƒāļŦāđ‰  āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļīāļ—āļ˜āļīāļœāļĨāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļāļēāļĢāļ”āļģāđ€āļ™āļīāļ™āļ™āđ‚āļĒāļšāļēāļĒāđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ§āļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāđƒāļ™āļĢāļ°āļ”āļąāļšāļ™āđ‰āļ­āļĒ āđ„āļ”āđ‰āđāļāđˆ 1) āļ™āđ‚āļĒāļšāļēāļĒāđāļĢāļ‡āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ”āđ‰āļēāļ§āļ‚āļēāļ”āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļąāļ”āđ€āļˆāļ™āđāļĨāļ°āđ„āļĄāđˆāļŠāļ­āļ”āļ„āļĨāđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļąāļšāļ›āļąāļāļŦāļēāđāļĨāļ°āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļ•āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļēāļĢāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļāļĨāļļāđˆāļĄāđ€āļ›āđ‰āļēāļŦāļĄāļēāļĒ  2) āļŦāļ™āđˆāļ§āļĒāļ‡āļēāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļ™āļģāļ™āđ‚āļĒāļšāļēāļĒāđ„āļ›āļ›āļāļīāļšāļąāļ•āļīāļ‚āļēāļ”āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļžāļĢāđ‰āļ­āļĄāļ”āđ‰āļēāļ™āļ‡āļšāļ›āļĢāļ°āļĄāļēāļ“ āļāļģāļĨāļąāļ‡āļ„āļ™ āđāļĨāļ°āļ§āļąāļŠāļ”āļļāļ­āļļāļ›āļāļĢāļ“āđŒ  āđāļĨāļ° 3) āļ›āļąāļˆāļˆāļąāļĒāļ”āđ‰āļēāļ™āļāļēāļĢāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāđˆāļ§āļĄāļĄāļ·āļ­āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļœāļđāđ‰āļĄāļĩāļŠāđˆāļ§āļ™āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļŠāđˆāļ§āļ™āđ€āļŠāļĩāļĒ (āļ„āļ·āļ­ āļœāļđāđ‰āļ›āļĢāļ°āļāļ­āļšāļāļēāļĢ āđāļĨāļ°āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļēāļŠāļ™āđƒāļ™āļ—āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļ–āļīāđˆāļ™) āļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāđƒāļ™āļĢāļ°āļ”āļąāļšāļ™āđ‰āļ­āļĒ

 

Dissertation Title                                       Effectiveness of Migrant Workers Policy: A Case Study of Tak                                                        Province                                                                                                       

Auther’s Name                          Mr. Suppasiri  Orachaipunlap

Program/ Faculty/ University         Doctor of Public Administration/ Liberal Arts/ Krirk University

Dissertation Advisor                  Associate Professor Dr. Somsak  Samukkethum

Academic Year                                         2009

 

Abstract

 

                    This research entitled Effectiveness of Migrant Workers Policy: A Case Study of Tak Province, has two objectives: 1) to study the effectiveness of migrant workers policy implementation in Tak province; 2) to study important factors leading to the effectiveness of migrant workers policy implementation in Tak province.

                    The study utilized both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Eight groups of key informants – six migrant workers, two officials of Job Searching Office in Tak, five entrepreneurs, six local people, three immigration police, three district officials and three health officials – were interviewed. Additionally, three types of structured questionnaires were used for collecting three groups of samples – 337 migrant workers, 157 entrepreneurs, and 290 local people.

                    The study divides the migrant workers policy effectiveness into five components – registration of migrant workers, monitoring of migrant workers, protection of migrant workers, response to entrepreneurs’ needs, and prevention of negative effects. It finds that all of these five components of the policy effectiveness are low.

                    The important factors leading to low level of the migrant workers policy effectiveness are as follows: 1) the migrant workers policy is not clear and not suitable to stakeholders’ problems and needs; 2) the organizations being responsible for policy implementation are lack of budget, manpower and materials; and 3) the stakeholders’ coordination is low.      

 

 

 

 

Designed by:
SiteGround web hosting Joomla Templates
SiteGround web hosting Joomla_Templates