Economic and development issues have been significant to the restive situation in the southern border provinces in many perspectives. This study was a survey on knowledge from written works of mainstream and secondary thoughts, academic works, along with documents from seminars, operation reports, as well as summaries of lessons from agencies or concerned organizations. The mainstream perspectives are that poverty and underdevelopment are the main causes of violence in these regions. Works created before 2004 usually described the causes of such violence to be Malay Muslims refusing to adapt to Thai society and as a result, they were perceived to have no potentials for development. Thus, most of them were poor with their economic structure being limited to careers in the agricultural sector. Hence, they were easily persuaded to join terrorist groups. This conclusion legitimized the state’s development operations in the area in order to reduce animosity toward the state itself and to prevent them from joining terrorist groups.Since 2004, the state has thus allocated significant funds for security and development of the region. However, the results have been contradictory as statistics of violence and death tolls have been steadily rising. In a sense, the state’s development and expansion of capital in the region has made the economy and the lifestyle of local people more in line with the economy outside of the farming sector. As a result, local people have been able to adapt to and survive violent events. Local businesses are growing, and the locals’quality of life is also improving. However, some groups argue that local cultures and economies are eroding due to these state’s policies and perceive state-sponsored development and capital to have negative effects on community resources as well as on ecological system and the environment. And furthermore, they proclaim that such policies destroy traditional lifestyle of local people that is based on self-dependency and sufficiency economy through agriculture. Subsequently, these factors have led to poverty and underdevelopment, ultimately leading to violent situations. Thus, this group promotes sustainable economic development based on community culture, environment, and participation. Nonetheless, the recommendations provided by this group have had limited impact as their arguments only pertain to the framework and discourse of national security rather than indicating the root causes of violence, which are rather due to problems of unequal power structure. Furthermore, they are unable to relate to local economic dynamism that is more related to the economy outside of the farming sector. Additionally, local people wish to be a part of the market economy with strong negotiation power.