Thailand remains a deeply entrenched bureaucratic state despite a growing trend for more efficient and streamlined governments, according to experts.
In the United States, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – established by President Donald Trump and overseen by tech billionaire Elon Musk – is busy slashing the federal workforce. Officials have even been asked to explain their duties in emails to DOGE.
Britain, meanwhile, aims to cut 10,000 government jobs by 2030, using AI to streamline operations and save 87 billion baht.
Closer to Thailand, communist Vietnam has unveiled plans to slash its government workforce by 100,000 from the current 2 million to eliminate redundant bureaucracy and enhance efficiency.
Thailand must follow suit to leverage the competitive advantages from cutting red tape, said Dr Olarn Thinbangtieo, deputy dean of the Burapha University’s Faculty of Political Science and Law.
“If we don’t reform our bureaucracy, our country will face increasingly complicated problems, including trade and investment issues,” Olarn said.
He warned that foreign investors would hesitate to invest in Thailand if dealing with authorities took three to four months. And these bureaucratic hurdles create room for corruption or official inaction, he added.
Thailand’s murky and complex bureaucracy system also attracts shady investors, he said.
Meanwhile, it tends to favour those in power, as officials are more focused on advancing their careers than on serving the people.
“Under the current system, provincial governors are more interested in visits by the interior minister to their areas than in providing public services,” Olarn stated.
Asst Prof Dr Nuttakorn Vititanon, who teaches at the Chiang Mai University’s Faculty of Political Science and Public Administration, commented that key performance indicators by which bureaucratic departments’ efficiency is measured do not adequately reflect public needs.
Thailand’s outdated bureaucracy
Olarn said the core of Thailand’s current bureaucratic system had changed little since its introduction nearly 100 years ago. He added that the system has grown too large, cumbersome, and centralised.
“Our society, economy and politics have changed a lot, but our bureaucratic system has not kept up,” he said.
In Nuttakorn’s opinion, the size and capabilities of authorities have failed to keep up with fast-changing circumstances, even becoming an obstacle when the public needs to access state services.
More than three million people now work in Thailand’s public sector, which covers not just government agencies but also state enterprises.
The government’s wage bill for state workers this fiscal year tops 800 billion baht – up from 785 billion baht last year. The largest share is taken up by the Education Ministry, which receives over 210 billion baht annually to pay teachers and related staff.
However, the country’s educational quality remains poor overall, as evidenced by annual international rankings such as PISA.
An article by the independent 101 Public Policy Think Tank (101pub.org) reveals that in 2022, the Thai government’s personnel budget, including hidden costs, accounted for 42% of total government spending – more than double the international average of 19.4%.
Meanwhile, Thailand’s performance in terms of government effectiveness is unimpressive, with the World Bank consistently rating it below 60% – or less effective than at least 40% of countries assessed.
Downsizing difficulty
Olarn said the 1997 Constitution, known as the “People’s Charter”, mandated bureaucratic reform, which was carried out during the Thaksin Shinawatra government. The reform not only merged ministries to reduce their size but also decentralised power.
As local administrations such as provincial administrative organizations and municipalities blossomed, provincial governors and the central government felt their power had weakened.
“After a while, we saw efforts to centralise power again, through kamnans and village heads,” he continued.
Olarn gave the example of Pattaya, which despite being nominally under central government control as a special administrative region, in practice, it comes under the jurisdiction of more than 100 local authorities.
The post-coup junta again sought to centralise power and reduce the independence and influence of local administrations.
“Their independence has been curbed by 50%,” Olarn estimated. “When they need to solve local problems, they are still subject to various complicated regulations.”
The Office of the Public Sector Development Commission has been pushing for bureaucratic reform and decentralisation since it was established in 2002. However, progress has been too little, according to Olarn.
For example, while the law advocating decentralisation requires that local administration should be granted a 35% share of revenue compared with central government by 2006, data for the years 2015 to 2021 show the figure never reached even 30%.
Nuttakorn pointed out that while Phuket generates huge income as a popular tourism destination, it must hand over that money to central government and wait to be allocated budget later. As a result, its infrastructure has not developed as it should have.
“Powers-that-be feel they benefit from the current structure, so they have no motivation to decentralise power,” the academic commented. “This structure gives them too much bargaining power.”
Bureaucratic reform needed
Olarn said Thailand should streamline its bureaucracy and review its system of provincial administration. As for local administration, he recommended it be handed more power.
“Thailand is currently criticised as a bureaucratic polity that is fettered by too many regulations, rules and traditions. This has generated too much red tape,” he said.
Reform should focus on new public management whereby the bureaucratic system functions as an efficient public-focused service with a decentralised work process, he added.
“Let’s end top-down management and focus on thriving though development partnerships,” Olarn said.
Onfa Vejjajiva, secretary-general of the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission, stated that her agency was pushing for three key bills to improve government effectiveness.
One bill aims to improve processes to grant permits and deliver public services. Another is designed to make it easier to overhaul bureaucracy in the future.
For example, an executive decree – rather than an act – will be enough to abolish a ministry or a department considered to be ineffective or redundant. The third bill focuses on developing the future of government through sandbox initiatives and by engaging the private sector and civil society to tackle national problems.
