Unlocking participation: What drives Bangkok residents to join the 50:50 Co-Payment Scheme?
คำสำคัญ:
50:50 Co-Payment Scheme, Attitude towards government, Project returnsบทคัดย่อ
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted the global economy, including that of Thailand. To mitigate these effects, the Thai government launched the 50:50 Co-Payment Scheme, aiming to stimulate domestic consumption by sharing expenses equally between citizens and the government. While the initiative has attracted substantial public interest, participation levels are influenced by various factors that shape individual decision-making. This research investigates the factors influencing the decision to participate in the 50:50 Co-Payment Scheme among Bangkok residents, an essential measure to boost economic activity during the pandemic. A survey research method was employed, collecting data from 92 Bangkok residents aged 18 and above, selected through simple random sampling, with the sample size determined using the G*Power formula. Data analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis. The findings indicate that attitudes toward the government of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha (ATT) and perceived benefits of the 50:50 Co-Payment Scheme (BENE) are significant predictors of participation (DP), with both factors showing a statistically significant influence at the 0.001 level. The regression model explains 78.70% of the variance in participation decisions, with attitudes toward the government being the most influential factor (Beta = 0.096), followed by perceived benefits (Beta = 0.107). Other variables, such as ease of application use (CON), project promotion (PR), and family influence (FI), did not significantly affect participation. These findings provide insights into the motivations and expectations of participants, offering guidance for policymakers to enhance the effectiveness of such schemes in the future.
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved 20 January 2024 from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
Babbie, E. (2020). The practice of social research (15th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Bank of Thailand. (2021). Thailand economic monitor. Bangkok: Bank of Thailand.
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Hansen, D. (2016). The impact of policies on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 100-109.
Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (2016). Public management and governance (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Bronstein, L. R., Gellis, Z. D., & Trawver, K. R. (2020). Family-centered social work practice: Theory, application, and practice guidelines. Oxford University Press.
Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2017). Designing public participation processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23-34.
Burton, P. (2009). Conceptual, theoretical and practical issues in measuring the benefits of public participation. Evaluation, 15(3), 263-284.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Dalton, R. J., Welzel, C., & Inglehart, R. (2021). The civic culture transformed: From allegiant to assertive citizens. Cambridge University Press.
Department of Provincial Administration. (2022). Population statistics in Bangkok.
Edelman, M. (2016). Political language and public participation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(2), 2-11.
European Union. (2018). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Retrieved 20 January 2024 from https://gdpr-info.eu/
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(2), 226-243.
Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66, 66-75.
Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513-522.
International Monetary Fund. (2021). Fiscal monitor: Database of country fiscal measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Washington, DC: IMF.
Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.
Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2016). Citizen participation and public trust in government: The case of South Korea. Journal of Politics and Law, 9(2), 1-14.
Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2020). Understanding public engagement: The mediating role of transparency in the relationship between online citizen participation and trust in government. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(2), 243-261.
Miller, W. L., & Rahimi, M. (2019). Political deliberation within families: A literature review. Political Communication, 36(3), 413-428.
Mills, B. F., & Whitacre, B. E. (2020). The impact of internet access on civic engagement: A field experiment. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 88-103.
Ministry of Finance. (2020). Thailand’s fiscal measures to mitigate COVID-19 impact. Bangkok: Ministry of Finance.
Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford, J. (2018). Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major U.S. cities. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 537-547.
Newton, K. (2018). Family and community: Connections that shape civic life. Journal of Civil Society, 14(2), 187-201.
Ostrom, E. (2019). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
Porumbescu, G. A. (2017). Linking transparency to trust in government and voice. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(5), 520-537.
Resnik, D. B. (2018). Research ethics: A philosophical guide to the responsible conduct of research. Springer.
Roberts, N. (2019). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(5), 519-535.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), 3-29.
Selker, R., Love, J., & Dropmann, D. (2019). Jamovi: A flexible statistical software package for social science research. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(41), 1130.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
Thomas, J. C. (2017). Citizen, customer, partner: Engaging the public in public management. Routledge.
van Ingen, E., & Bekkers, R. (2015). Generalized trust through civic engagement: Evidence from five national panel studies. Political Psychology, 36(3), 277-294.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5), 328-376.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (2017). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
Walker, R. M., James, O., & Brewer, G. A. (2018). Public management and performance: Research directions. Cambridge University Press.
World Bank Group. 2020. Thailand Economic Monitor: Thailand in the Time of COVID-19. World Bank, Bangkok.
World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191-2194.
Yang, K. (2016). Creating public value and enhancing public participation: A public managers' perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(5), 400-411.
Downloads
เผยแพร่แล้ว
How to Cite
ฉบับ
บท
หมวดหมู่
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ronnakorn Toysoontorn, Waiphot Kulachai
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.