Generally speaking, the Thailand government established the Urban Community Development Office (UCDO) to address the issue of urban poverty. It recognized that the relationship between the state and low-income groups had to change for the development to occur. Critical to that change was establishing the representatives, such as accountable local civic organizations. Thus, from the beginning, UCDO’s primary purpose was to unite different groups of interest.
At first, UCDO made loans to organized communities for them to launch a range of income generation, housing, and land acquisition activities. In addition, it provided grants and technically supported various community organizations. With the eventual quantitative and qualitative growth of the savings groups involved, it became more challenging for UCDO to lend aid to individual groups and be the all-inclusive problem-solving center. To solve the scaling issue, UCDO turned separate savings groups into multi-layered networks. Additionally, it began to create networks of community organizations in particular cities and provinces. They consequently negotiated with local authorities to impact development planning or cooperate on the access to essential services, common housing problems, and livelihoods. UCDO kept providing loans to organizational and community networks, which were then distributed among member organizations. Establishing large-scale community networking managed to bring massive change to community development. These networks finally allowed UCDO to fund low-income groups directly.
The merge of UCDO with the Rural Development Fund resulted in the creation of the Community Organizations Development Institute (CODI). As the UCDO successor, CODI continued to support its programs and projects. However, since the previous UCDO’s subordination to the National Housing Authority substantially limited its options, CODI’s legal standing as an independent separate public organization allowed it to launch more ambitious projects. The merge generally provided broader linkages, greater flexibility, and extensive opportunities for funding cooperation between rural and urban groups. In addition, CODI kept the original emphasis on supporting loan and savings groups and community networks across the country.
Firstly, BMP puts poor urban community organizations and networks forward, making them the main actors in controlling the funds and managing the process. Secondly, BMP ensures to support communities that are ready to execute improvement projects. In addition, it provides them with numerous choices regarding the project features that adhere to as many community’s priorities and needs as possible. In other words, BMP is driven by the communities’ demands, not the supply it can offer. Thirdly, since community organizations are simultaneously the planners, implementers, and direct managers, BMP flexibly funds their project, not requiring specifications of physical outputs. In doing so, BMP excludes government agencies from the overall process. Fourthly, being able to design and manage physical improvements stimulates changes in the societal and organizational structure. Subsequently, poor communities acquire confidence and improve their relationships with local authorities and government.
These changes ultimately increase the low-income communities’ acceptance as legitimate participants of the city’s development process on a broader scale. In other words, it integrates poor urban communities into the city’s development framework along with their housing and local development planning. Additionally, BMP ensures that communal tenure is prioritized more than the individual one and is negotiated locally in each instance. For example, collective land purchases, land swaps, long-term lease contracts, or user rights help tenure security. Overall, BMP focuses on city-wide improvement, drawing on local resources and committing to reaching all low-income communities in fewer than five years.