This study is about relations between the Thai state and telecommunications business during the reform between 1980 and 2000. These relations have changed from a 'Bureaucratic Polity' model before the late 1980s to partnership during the 1990s. These changes were resulted from the internal economic and political development and the external force of globalization; both bring the internationalisation of state, capital and labour. Through the reform, the business sector is gaining its influence through the implementation of liberalization policy. However, this study argues that the Thai state has been able to maintain a certain degree of autonomy in relation to the business sector during the reform. In explaining Thai state-business relations, this study applies Robert Cox's 'Mediator' State and a 'Framework for Action' and Gramsci's notion of hegemony as an analytical approach. These combined theoretical insights not only help to explain the changing relations of the Thai state and business during the reform, they also assist in addressing the relations between the Thai state and the world telecommunications order, as well as revealing conflict and co-operation among state agencies and between state-business players involved in the reform.

The thesis presents an empirical study of the telecommunications reform experience of Thailand between the mid 1980s and 2000s in an attempt to explain the effect of national institutional arrangements upon the reform process. This time period permits an exploration of the development of the reform as well as its major impediments in relation to three different political settings. The progress of reform on the three basic reform issues (privatisation, liberalisation, and regulation) is thoroughly examined to understand the consequences produced by different industry environments. An historical institutionalist study of the Thai experience identifies the political tensions among the reform's interested parties as well as the unwieldy political settings that were the dominant features that heavily influenced the reform story. The thesis places a special emphasis on the latest political regime (the hegemonic era) since it provided a different industry outlook compared to the previous two regimes (the bureaucratic and pluralistic eras), allowing substantial progress towards reform to be made. The telecommunications reform in Thailand is not complete. Thus, it may be too early to confirm the advantage of the strong politics on the reform in the long run, especially considering the possibilities of rent-seeking or the overuse of political power of the hegemonic govenunent. In any case, the Thai reform experience confirms that an institutionalist framework is helpful, and that institutional arrangements really matter in the policy-formation, policy-implementation and policy-outcome of a particular country.