Country Report: Thailand
Thailand's development has been entrenched in the elite group dominance of the military,
monarchy and business elites who influenced both Thailand’s economic and political regime
creating a hybrid semi authoritarian system. Democracy has continuously been suppressed
despite protests and inequality has deepened through economic growth leading to public
dissatisfaction, mass political mobilisation and military coups creating an unstable regime
embedded in political polarisation.
Economic development
Thailand’s economic development has been shaped by its rapid transformation from an
agricultural society to a fully capitalist economy in the global production system (Hewison,
2006:74). This transformation was greatly influenced by the United States, which emerged
as a new foreign supporter after World War II and the Cold War, seeing Thailand as an ally
against the spread of communism (Baker et al, 2014: 139). The U.S aimed to restructure
and modernise Thailand through a Western capitalist development model. This capital
friendly development strategy led to unequal growth and wealth, primarily benefitting Thai-
Chinese entrepreneurial groups who developed good relations with politicians (Baker et al,
2014: 150). New elite groups were created such as ruling generals, bureaucrats and
business elites, who exploited people and resources (Baker et al, 2014: 139). U.S guided
development and the concentration of economic power entrenched inequalities and
reinforced the dominance of elite groups which has continued to shape Thailand’s economic
development and political evolution today.
Following this development model Thailand pursued its own industrial plans, transitioning
from a low income nation to a more middle income nation through Import- Substitution
Industrialisation (ISI) in the 1960s to Export- Oriented Industrialisation (EOI) in the mid
, 1970s (Wailerdsak, 2023: 95). However, ISI was limited due to the small domestic market
and declining agricultural commodity prices, resulting in the change to EOI that focused on
manufacturing commodities for a global market and exporting rather than importing
(Hewison, 2006: 87). Thailand had an economic boom with rapid growth in foreign
investment and domestic manufacturing by the Sino- Thai banking families, until the 1997
Asian Financial Crisis (Kanchoochat et al, 2021: 738). Thailand fell into severe recession
and economic turmoil starting from the devaluation of the Thailand baht currency, leading to
mass unemployment, increased poverty and the collapse of business empires (Hewison,
2006: 95), exposing Thailand’s fragile economy. Thailand had to receive $17 billion in
funding from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and in return accept their economic
conditions, however this actually intensified the recession (Hewison 2006: 97). The crisis
exposed the structural and social inequality in Thailand as well as the weaknesses of the
neoliberal development model that was pushed on Thailand by external actors, setting the
stage for growing public dissatisfaction that led to the rise of populism in the years that
followed with the emergence of populist leader Thaksin Shinawatra.
Political development
Thailand’s political development has historically been very unstable, shaped by military
dominance, elite groups and fragile democracy. The 1932 Siamese Revolution ended
Thailand’s absolute monarchy system, however despite power no longer concentrated in the
monarchy, democracy did not strengthen due to ongoing divisions and power struggles
(Chachavalpongpun, 2020: 4). The dominance of the monarchy was not the only factor
hindering democratisation. During the Cold War era, the military and monarchy together
became the dominant political force, supported by the U.S, with the emergence of military
coups and establishment of an authoritarian regime dominated by the military (Kongkirati,
2024: 3). This military- monarchy nexus has led to the entrenchment of political power and
authority among elite military groups closely aligned with the monarchy which in turn
Thailand's development has been entrenched in the elite group dominance of the military,
monarchy and business elites who influenced both Thailand’s economic and political regime
creating a hybrid semi authoritarian system. Democracy has continuously been suppressed
despite protests and inequality has deepened through economic growth leading to public
dissatisfaction, mass political mobilisation and military coups creating an unstable regime
embedded in political polarisation.
Economic development
Thailand’s economic development has been shaped by its rapid transformation from an
agricultural society to a fully capitalist economy in the global production system (Hewison,
2006:74). This transformation was greatly influenced by the United States, which emerged
as a new foreign supporter after World War II and the Cold War, seeing Thailand as an ally
against the spread of communism (Baker et al, 2014: 139). The U.S aimed to restructure
and modernise Thailand through a Western capitalist development model. This capital
friendly development strategy led to unequal growth and wealth, primarily benefitting Thai-
Chinese entrepreneurial groups who developed good relations with politicians (Baker et al,
2014: 150). New elite groups were created such as ruling generals, bureaucrats and
business elites, who exploited people and resources (Baker et al, 2014: 139). U.S guided
development and the concentration of economic power entrenched inequalities and
reinforced the dominance of elite groups which has continued to shape Thailand’s economic
development and political evolution today.
Following this development model Thailand pursued its own industrial plans, transitioning
from a low income nation to a more middle income nation through Import- Substitution
Industrialisation (ISI) in the 1960s to Export- Oriented Industrialisation (EOI) in the mid
, 1970s (Wailerdsak, 2023: 95). However, ISI was limited due to the small domestic market
and declining agricultural commodity prices, resulting in the change to EOI that focused on
manufacturing commodities for a global market and exporting rather than importing
(Hewison, 2006: 87). Thailand had an economic boom with rapid growth in foreign
investment and domestic manufacturing by the Sino- Thai banking families, until the 1997
Asian Financial Crisis (Kanchoochat et al, 2021: 738). Thailand fell into severe recession
and economic turmoil starting from the devaluation of the Thailand baht currency, leading to
mass unemployment, increased poverty and the collapse of business empires (Hewison,
2006: 95), exposing Thailand’s fragile economy. Thailand had to receive $17 billion in
funding from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and in return accept their economic
conditions, however this actually intensified the recession (Hewison 2006: 97). The crisis
exposed the structural and social inequality in Thailand as well as the weaknesses of the
neoliberal development model that was pushed on Thailand by external actors, setting the
stage for growing public dissatisfaction that led to the rise of populism in the years that
followed with the emergence of populist leader Thaksin Shinawatra.
Political development
Thailand’s political development has historically been very unstable, shaped by military
dominance, elite groups and fragile democracy. The 1932 Siamese Revolution ended
Thailand’s absolute monarchy system, however despite power no longer concentrated in the
monarchy, democracy did not strengthen due to ongoing divisions and power struggles
(Chachavalpongpun, 2020: 4). The dominance of the monarchy was not the only factor
hindering democratisation. During the Cold War era, the military and monarchy together
became the dominant political force, supported by the U.S, with the emergence of military
coups and establishment of an authoritarian regime dominated by the military (Kongkirati,
2024: 3). This military- monarchy nexus has led to the entrenchment of political power and
authority among elite military groups closely aligned with the monarchy which in turn
