Power on a Plate: Thai Agricultural and Food Policies as Political Instruments under the 8th–12th National Economic and Social Development Plans
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article aims to analyze the role of agricultural and food policies under the 8th–12th National Economic and Social Development Plans, using a power dynamic within the food system to understand that food is not merely an economic issue, but a political space reflecting power struggles between the state, capital, and the public. Through document and policy analysis, the study found that: (1) Structurally, the state uses policies concerning land, water, seeds, and credit as mechanisms to control access to resources, resulting in small-scale farmers becoming dependent on the state and having limited bargaining power under the burden of debt and reduced arable land; (2) In terms of price and income measures, the rice pledging scheme, income insurance, and debt moratorium play a role in reducing short-term risks while also serving to build political capital and connect rural voters with the government; and (3) Institutionally, production standards, quality certifications (GAP/ Q-GAP/ GMP), agricultural contracts, and bureaucratic mechanisms become institutional barriers that benefit large capital, while small-scale farmers are reduced to mere implementers. This article therefore reflects that Thai agricultural policies remain centralized in decision-making by the state and capital groups, and it proposes that farmers reduce their structural dependence and create a power balance in the food system to ensure the security and sustainability of Thailand's agricultural and food systems. It is necessary to protect farmers' right to access resources. Decentralize regulatory power to local authorities and develop mechanisms to fairly connect producers and consumers.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
- The copyright for this article belongs to the Social Research Institute at Chulalongkorn University. However, the views and content within are solely those of the authors.
- The views and opinions expressed in the articles published in the Journal of Social Research and Review, Social Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University, are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the views or responsibilities of the editorial board of the Journal of Social Research and Review, Social Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University. The editorial board does not reserve the rights to reproduction but requires proper citation for referencing.
References
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2023). Market overview: Thailand. Government of Canada.
Agricultural Land Reform Office. (n.d.). System of the Agricultural Land Reform Office (ALRO). [ระบบข้อมูลงาน
การปฏิรูปที่ดินเพื่อเกษตรกรรม (สปก.)] https://opendata.alro.go.th/ (in Thai)
Amekawa, Y., Hongsibsong, S., Sawarng, N., Yadoung, S., & Gebre, G. (2021). Producers’ perceptions of public good agricultural practices standard and their pesticide use: The case of Q-GAP for cabbage farming in Chiang Mai Province, Thailand. Sustainability, 13(11), 6333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116333
Chandoevwit, W. (2003). Thailand’s grass roots policies. TDRI Quarterly Review, 18(2), 3–16. Thailand Development Research Institute. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237594395_Thailand%27s_Grass_Roots_Policies
Chandoevwit, W., & Ashakul, B. (2008). The impact of the village fund on rural households. TDRI Quarterly Review, 23(2), 9–16. Thailand Development Research Institute.
Chiengkul, D. (2018). The political economy of the agri-food system in Thailand. In R. Varkey (Ed.), Critical perspectives on food sovereignty: Global agri-food systems and local food movements (pp. 153–169). Routledge. https://doi:10.1111/aspp.12379
Department of Agriculture. (2022). Report on the implementation results of the large-scale farming promotion system project under the Department of Agriculture for fiscal year 2021. [รายงานผลการดำเนินงานโครงการระบบส่งเสริมการเกษตรแบบแปลงใหญ่ ในส่วนของกรมวิชาการเกษตร ปีงบประมาณ 2564.] Group for Utilization Analysis of Research Results, Planning and Academic Division, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. (in Thai)
Dwiartama, A., Kelly, M., & Dixon, J. (2023). Linking food security, food sovereignty and foodways in urban Southeast Asia: Cases from Indonesia and Thailand. Food Security, 15(2), 505–517. https://doi:10.1007/s12571-022-01340-6
Hewison, K. (2014 a). Considerations on inequality and politics in Thailand. Democratization, 21(5), 846–866. https://doi:10.1080/13510347.2014.
Hewison, K. (2014 b). Thai-style populism and the politics of redistribution. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 44(3), 413–418. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=rpTrsH0AAAAJ&citation_fo
r_view=rpTrsH0AAAAJ:Bg7qf7VwUHIC
Holt-Giménez, E., & Shattuck, A. (2011). Food crises, food regimes and food movements: Rumblings of reform or tides of transformation? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(1), 109–144. https://doi:10.1080/03066150.2010.538578
Isvilanonda, S., & Bunyasiri, I. (2009). Food security in Thailand: Status, rural poor vulnerability, and some policy options. Kasetsart University.
Jaiari, S. (2022, September 9). Agricultural Map for Adaptive Management: Agri-Map) [แผนที่เกษตรเพื่อการบริหารจัดการเชิงรุก] [PowerPoint slides]. Department of Land Development. https://www.nectec.or.th/ace2022/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/SS9-01%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%A3.%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%96%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%A3_compressed.pdf (in Thai)
Lilavanichakul, A. (2025). Sustainable Agri-Food System and Resilience in Thailand: Exploring technology-driven solutions for a resilient future. Asian Productivity Organization. https://doi.org/10.61145/GTHI4179
Maneesiri, P., Phlainoi, N., Makarabhirom, P., & Srijantr, T. (2024). Generosity development model of an organic food community in Thailand. Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Studies, 24(1), 120–131. ThaiJo. https://doi.org/10.69598/hasss.24.1.260763
Marks, D., Baird, I. G., & Jirasatthumb, N. (2024). Thailand's Contract Farming Act at a crossroads: Impacts, shortfalls, and the need to better protect smallholders. Critical Asian Studies, 56(3), 350–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2024.2365872
McMichael, P. (1992). Tensions between national and international control of the world food order: Contours of a new food regime. Sociological Perspectives, 35(2), 343–365. https://doi.or g/10.2307/1389383
Soimart Rungmanee et al. (2016). Food sovereignty: People shaping the future of the global food system. [อธิปไตยทางอาหาร: ประชาชนกำหนดอนาคตระบบอาหารโลก] (Translated by Soimart Rungmanee et al.). Torch Publishing Project. (n.d.). (in Thai)
McMichael, P. (2016). Food regimes and agrarian questions. Fernwood. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-Mcmichael/publication/343402169_Global_developments_in_the_food_system/links/65490089ce88b87031ce0747/Global-developments-in-the-food-system.pdf
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. (2023). Minister Nareumon Brings Together Public and Private Sectors to Sign an MOU on Promoting Coffee Cultivation. [รมว.นฤมล" ดึงภาครัฐ-เอกชน ลงนาม MOU ส่งเสริมการปลูกกาแฟ]. https://www.moac.go.th/news-preview-471391792906 (in Thai)
Mongsawad, P. (2010). The philosophy of the sufficiency economy: A contribution to the theory of development. Asia-Pacific Development Journal, 17(1), 123–143. https://doi:10.18356/02bd5fb3-en
Namchaidee, K. (2017). Policy corruption: A case study of Thailand’s rice-pledging scheme (master’s thesis, University of Tasmania). University of Tasmania. https://doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.10930.40649
Na Nan, S. (2022). Inventing seeds beyond neoliberalism? Small‐scale farmers in a nexus of socio‐environmental movements in Nan Province, Northern Thailand. Thammasat Review, 17(1), 92-121. https://sc01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tureview/article/view/40721
National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards. (2019). Annual Report of the National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards, 2019. [รายงานประจำปี สำนักงานมาตรฐานสินค้าเกษตรและอาหารแห่งชาติ 2562]. Bangkok: ACFS. (in Thai)
National Farmers Council. (2019). National Farmers Council Reveals the Impacts of the Agricultural Contract Farming Law. [สภาเกษตรกรฯ เผยผลกระทบจากกฎหมายเกษตรพันธสัญญา]. https://www.nfc.or.th/content/8728
Office of the Council of State. (2010). National Farmers Council Act, B.E. 2553 (2010). Royal Gazette, Vol. 127, No. 57 Kor, pp. 1–16. [พระราชบัญญัติสภาเกษตรกรแห่งชาติ พ.ศ. 2553. ราชกิจจานุเบกษา เล่ม 127 ตอน ที่ 57 ก, 1–16]. (in Thai)
Office of the Council of State. (2017 a). Agricultural Contract Farming Act, Contract Farming Promotion and Development Act, B.E. 2560 (2017). Royal Gazette, Vol. 134, No. 39 Kor, p. 23. [พระราชบัญญัติส่งเสริมและพัฒนาระบบเกษตรพันธสัญญาเกษตร พ.ศ. 2560. ราชกิจจานุเบกษา, เล่ม 134 ตอนที่ 39 ก, 23]. (in Thai)
Office of the Council of State. (2017 b). Agricultural Contract Farming Act, Contract Farming Promotion and Development Act, B.E. 2560 (2017). Royal Gazette, Vol. 134, No. 29 Kor, pp. 1–8. [พระราชบัญญัติส่งเสริมและพัฒนาระบบเกษตรพันธสัญญาเกษตร พ.ศ. 2560. ราชกิจจานุเบกษา เล่ม 134 ตอนที่ 29 ก หน้า 1–8]. (in Thai)
Office of National Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy Council. (2019). The Bio-Circular-Green (BCG) Economy Model: Bioeconomy, Circular Economy, and Green Economy. NXPO. [โมเดลเศรษฐกิจ บีซีจี: เศรษฐกิจชีวภาพ เศรษฐกิจหมุนเวียน และเศรษฐกิจสีเขียว (Bio-Circular-Green Economy). สอวช.] https://www.nxpo.or.th/th/bcg-economy/ (in Thai)
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board. (2017). The national economic and social development plan. twelve (2012–2016). [แผนพัฒนาเศรษฐกิจและสังคมแห่งชาติ ฉบับที่ 12 (พ.ศ. 2560–2564).] Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, Office of the Prime Minister. (in Thai)
Office of Agricultural Economics. (2020). Annual report 2020. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand. https://www.opsmoac.go.th/saraburi-dwl-files-422891791994
Pancharoen, S. (2023). Food Innovation Policy: Arenas of Collaboration, Policy Contestation, and Network Governance (Ph.D. Dissertation in Political Science) [นโยบายนวัตกรรมอาหาร: สนามแห่งความร่วมมือ การต่อสู้ทางนโยบาย และการจัดการปกครองเครือข่าย. (วิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญารัฐศาสตรดุษฎีบัณฑิต).] Chulalongkorn University. (in Thai)
Patel, R. (2013). Stuffed and starved: The hidden battle for the world food system. Melville House. https://doi:10.1007/s10460-022-10309-2
Paulson, A. L., & Townsend, R. M. (2005). Financial constraints and entrepreneurship: Evidence from the Thai financial crisis. Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 34–48. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=PwFkMewAAAAJ&citation_for_view=PwFkMewAAAAJ:uWiczbcajpAC
Peschard, K., & Randeria, S. (2020). ‘Keeping seeds in our hands’: the rise of seed activism. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(4), 613-647. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1753705
Phongpaichit, P., & Baker, C. (2008). Thaksin. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.
Phuaphongsakon, N., & Pantakua, K. (2022). A Study of Farmers’ Needs and the Feasibility of Using Digital Technologies to Enhance Agricultural Productivity: Policy Options for Investment in Digital Agricultural Ecosystems and Infrastructure. [การศึกษาความต้องการของเกษตรกรและความเป็นไปได้ในการใช้เทคโนโลยีดิจิทัลเพื่อเพิ่มประสิทธิภาพการผลิตของเกษตรกร: ข้อเสนอทางเลือกนโยบายลงทุนในระบบนิเวศและโครงสร้างพื้นฐานด้านเทคโนโลยีดิจิทัลการเกษตร.] Office of Agricultural Research Development (Public Organization).
Prachachatthurakit. (2023). Ministry of Agriculture Reviews the FY 2024 Budget, Pledging to Increase Farmers’ Incomes by at Least 10 Percent Annually. [เกษตรฯ ถกงบฯ ปี’67 ลั่นรายได้เกษตรกรต้องเพิ่มไม่น้อยกว่าร้อยละ 10 ต่อปี.] Prachachat Thurakit. https://www.prachachat.net/economy/news-1178159
Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research. (2023). A New Perspective on Thailand’s Household Debt through Credit Bureau Big Data: What We Still Do Not Know about Nationwide Individual Debt and Non-Performing Loans. [มุมมองใหม่หนี้ครัวเรือนไทย ผ่าน Big Data ของเครดิตบูโร: มีอะไรที่เรายังไม่รู้เกี่ยวกับสถานการณ์หนี้และหนี้เสียรายคนทั่วประเทศ.] ThaiPublica. https://thaipublica.org/2023/09/pier-on-farmer-debt-moratorium/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (in Thai)
Rattanaworarak, L., & Chantharat, S. (2023). Lessons Learned from Thailand’s Farmer Debt Moratorium Measures: Do They Really Help Farmers?Understanding the Impacts of 13 Debt Moratorium Programs over Nine Years toward Sustainable Solutions to Farmers’ Debt. [ถอดบทเรียนมาตรการพักหนี้เกษตรกรไทย: ช่วยเกษตรกรไทยได้จริงหรือ? เข้าใจผลกระทบของ 13 มาตรการพักหนี้ใน 9 ปี สู่การแก้ปัญหาหนี้เกษตรกรอย่างยั่งยืน.] Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research (PIER). https://www.pier.or.th/abridged/2023/18/ (in Thai)
Renting, H., Schermer, M., & Rossi, A. (2012). Building food democracy: Exploring civic food networks and newly emerging forms of food citizenship. The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 19(3), 289–307. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234719392_Building_Food_
Democracy_Exploring_Civic_Food_Networks_and_Newly_Emerging_Forms_of_Food_Citizenship Schreinemachers, P., Schad, I., Tipraqsa, P., Williams, P. M., Neef, A., Riwthong, S., Sangchan, W,. Grovermann, C., (2012). Can public GAP standards reduce agricultural pesticide use? The case of fruit and vegetable farming in northern Thailand. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(4), 519–529. https://doi:10.1007/s10460-012-9378-6
Shenoy, A. (2018). Do agricultural debt moratoriums help or hurt? Evidence from India. Journal of Political Economy, 126(5), 1741–1789. https://www.pier.or.th/files/dp/pier_dp_195.pdf
Staple, S. (2006). The political economy of food production in the global South. In J. Clapp & D. Fuchs (Eds.), Corporate power in global agrifood governance (pp. 115–132). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2019.112
National Institute of Development Administration. (2023). BCG Series EP:4 Thai–Isan Farmers, sowing the seeds of food security. NIDA Digest. Retrieved December 21, 2025, from https://nida.ac.th/en/bcg-sufficient-sowing-seeds-food-security/
The Active. (2023, October 18). Converting ALRO 4-01 Land Use Rights into Title Deeds: “P-Move” Warns of Nominee Risks Undermining Genuine Farmers’ Land Use. [เปลี่ยน ส.ป.ก. 4-01 เป็นโฉนด ‘พีมูฟ’ ห่วงเกิด นอมินี ใช้ประโยชน์ที่ดินจากเกษตรกรตัวจริง.] The Active. https://theactive.thaipbs.or.th/news/economy-20231018-2 (in Thai)
UNDP. (2007). Thailand human development report 2007: Sufficiency economy and human development.
https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/thailand2007en.pdf
Via Campesina. (2022). Thailand: Building Food Sovereignty through Solidarity!.
https://viacampesina.org/en/2022/03/thailand-building-food-sovereignty-through-solidarity/
Wangsatchachok, W. (2018). Politics of Theorizing Food Security: A Survey Research on Defining Food Security in the Governmental, Private, and Civil Society Aspects in Thailand. [การเมืองว่าด้วยกรอบความมั่นคงทางอาหาร บทสำรวจการให้ความหมายความมั่นคงทางอาหาร ในกรอบของภาครัฐ ภาคเอกชน และภาคประชาสังคมในประเทศไทย.] Journal of Social Research and Review, 41(1), 51–92. https://cusri.chula.ac.th/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/02Weera_Final.pdf
Wittman, H. (2023). Food sovereignty: An inclusive model for feeding the world and cooling the planet. One Earth, 6(5), 474–478. https://doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2023.04.011
Wongprawmas, R., Canavari, M., & Waisarayutt, C. (2015). A multi-stakeholder perspective on the adoption of good agricultural practices in the Thai fresh produce industry. British Food Journal, 117(9), 2234-2249. https://doi:10.1108/BFJ-08-2014-0300
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Sage.
