The objective of this research is to study 1) the implementation process of the public policy to promote and develop the quality of life of the disabled in Thailand as carried out by the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security. The findings are as follows: 1.) The implementation process of the public policy concerning disabled persons (or persons with disabilities) has to follow specific bureaucratic procedures of the Royal Thai Government including those specifically of the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security. It has been found, however, that concrete support from the relevant “political” circle is of some importance, e.g. as regards amount of budget allocation and through the upgrading of certain personnel, particularly those involved directly in the implementation process, since higher rank means higher authority to get things done for the disabled 2.) The success in implementing the policy depends on the administrative skills as well as attentive dedication of various units of the official bureaucracy and those of the private sector, particularly in various organizations of the disabled 3.) Bureaucratic mechanism puts much emphasis on hierarchical line of control and detailed regulations. To follow strictly such rigid line and rules would naturally impede the policy implementation in the interest of the disabled. Thus certain conscientious officials to discreetly resort to alternative ways which work but to be sure, does not strictly follow the letters of officially prescribed procedures, albeit not glaringly illegal 4.) The implementation process is more than simplistically following written bureaucratic procedures. It has been found that due to limitations of resources, e.g. “Man, Money, and Material” the Management i.e. implementing officials, “street-level bureaucrats”, to use Pressman and Wildavsky’s (1979) key phrase, have at times to resort to their own particular way of adapting to the circumstances in order to come up with certain measures of success and report practical problems to the higher authorities for future remedial measures and 5.) Despite a variety of obstacles in the implementation efforts the outcome has been on the plus side, e.g. as regards higher percentages of those who officially registered as “disabled” or “persons with disabilities” which legally entitles them to be beneficiaries of the policy of the Royal Thai Government in allotting opportunities, things and services in fulfillment of the quality of life of those with different categories of disabilities, in urban or rural areas, male or female, young or elderly in significant number to be eligible for proper service toward their better standard of living.

1. Attewell, P., & Gerstein, D. R. (1979). Government policy and local practice. American Sociological Review, 44(2), 311-327. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094513
   
2. Australian Government. (1986). Disability services act. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/Hvhc4E
   
3. Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   
4. Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2008). Public administration: An action orientation. New York, NY: Wadsworth Publishing.
   
5. Dewey, J. (1959). Philosophy. In E. R. Seligman & A. Johnson, (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the social science (pp. 118-128). New York, NY: MacMillan.
   
6. Edwards, G. C. (1984). Public policy implementation (vol. 3). London, UK: Jai Press. PMCid:PMC557581
   
7. Gouldner, A. W. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. New York, NY: The Free Press.
   
8. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row. PMid:5459825
   
9. Nakamura, R. T., & Smallwood, F. (1980). The politics of policy implementation. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
   
10. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1979). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. PMCid:PMC1457930
    
11. Sebring, R. H. (1977). The five-million-dollar misunderstanding: A perspective on state government-university inter organizational conflicts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(3), 505-523. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392186
    
12. Sorg, J. D. (1983). A typology of implementation behaviors of streetlevel bureaucrats. Review of Policy Research, 2(3), 391-406. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1983.tb00725.x
    
13. Tagaki, M. (2011). Men’s short-term experience of acquired physical disabilities in Japan. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(2), 319-344. https://dx.doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v31i2.1592
14. United Nations Escap. (2009). Disability at a glance 2010: A profile of 36 countries and areas in Asia and the Pacific. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/GxO8Pi
    
15. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: The Free Press.
    
16. World Health Organization (WHO). (1980). International classification of impairment disabilities and handicaps. Geneva, Switzerland.

Sriboonyaponrat, P. (2016). The implementation process of the public policy to promote and develop the quality of life of the disabled in Thailand. International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 2(6), 198-202