The processes of internationalization and political economic transformation described in the previous chapters help explain the specific character of recent industrial development in Thailand. Capital accumulation in Thailand has been centred heavily on Bangkok and has favoured a stratum of ruling elites who are disproportionately represented in the capital. The Bangkok-centric political economy has been tightly linked—indeed, over a very long period of time—with broader regional and international processes of capital accumulation, and the Thai elites have been successful at using international connections to buttress their social positions and control. Bangkok elites, in particular, have been able to utilize international support to strengthen a project of Bangkok sub-imperialism, which has in turn brought various local elites from outside Bangkok into national and international coalitions. All of this has consequences for the results of economic growth and industrial transformation in Thailand. Until the economic meltdown that began in 1996, Thailand’s GDP growth record was one of the most impressive in the world since World War II, and the country was included by the World Bank among the ‘miracle’ economies of East Asia (World Bank 1993), while being lauded by others as ‘the Fifth Tiger’ (Muscat 1994) and as a new entrant into the ranks of the NICs (Jansen 1991). At the same time, Thailand has become one of the more inegalitarian countries in the world, in terms of income distribution (Medhi 1996; Voravidh 1996) and displays a dramatic spatial skew in the distribution of economic activities. There have also been numerous social and environmental problems connected with industrial development in Thailand, along with various political indignities to the general population (Bello, Cunningham, and Poh 1998)—problems that can be seen alternatively as ‘the strains of success’ (UNIDO 1992) or as symptoms of ‘maldevelopment’ (Suthy 1991). To some extent, each of these images of success and failure correspond to a definite reality of the complex development process, neither of which by itself adequately summarizes the totality. What I focus on in this chapter, however, is not the multifaceted complexity per se but rather the connections between what are regarded as the success and failure stories.