Crisis Governance in Public Infrastructure: A Political Philosophy Analysis from the Thai State

บทคัดย่อ

This study aimed to examine crisis governance in the context of public infrastructure collapse through a political philosophy perspective of the Thai state. The objectives of the study were: (1) to examine how the Thai state exercised crisis governance in response to the collapse of the Office of the Auditor-General’s building, particularly in terms of coordination, decision-making, and crisis communication; (2) to analyze the roles, interactions, and authority structures among key actors involved in the crisis governance process; and (3) to identify institutional implications for strengthening crisis governance and public infrastructure management within the Thai state. This study employed a qualitative research design grounded in interpretive and analytical inquiry. Data were collected through documentary analysis, semi-structured interviews, and field-based observations. Key informants were selected through purposive sampling and consisted of government officials and administrators, policy experts and scholars, practitioners and professionals, and disaster response volunteers involved in crisis management and public infrastructure governance. The data were analyzed using descriptive and interpretive analysis to examine governance processes, institutional dynamics, and crisis response practices.

The findings revealed that crisis governance in the Thai state evolved through a dynamic transition from fragmented governance to adaptive institutional integration. First, crisis governance was initially characterized by fragmented coordination, dispersed decision-making, and inconsistent communication, but gradually developed into a more integrated and adaptive governance structure under conditions of uncertainty. Second, the interactions among actors demonstrated that authority structures and institutional roles were not fully predetermined, but emerged through adaptive coordination and negotiation during the crisis process. Third, the study found that institutional capacity should be understood as a dynamic and process-oriented phenomenon rather than a fixed attribute of the state. The crisis also revealed the fragility of state legitimacy and the importance of governance processes in maintaining public trust during conditions of institutional disruption.