Microeconomic Analysis in Thailand’s Public Policy Decision-Making: Efficiency, Equity, and Institutional Mediation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69812/jgs.v3i2.257Keywords:
Public Policy, Microeconomic Analysis, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Policy CapacityAbstract
Microeconomic analysis offers a systematic basis for public policy decisions by clarifying scarcity, opportunity costs, incentives, externalities, distributional consequences, and fiscal implications. However, its contribution depends on the institutional conditions under which evidence is generated, interpreted, and applied. This article examines how microeconomic reasoning informs public policy decision-making in Thailand and how the country's policy-analysis institutions shape its practical application. Using a structured qualitative literature review and conceptual synthesis of 40 scholarly sources published between 2016 and 2025, the study integrates cost-benefit analysis, the Marginal Value of Public Funds, distributional assessment, behavioral responses, policy capacity, and evidence-informed policymaking. The findings indicate that economic appraisal is most effective when used to support, rather than replace, political and administrative judgment. Its effectiveness is conditioned by analytical competence, reliable data, organizational coordination, transparent assumptions, and meaningful stakeholder participation. Thailand's bureaucratic, managerial, academic, and participatory policy-analysis traditions create distinct opportunities and constraints for translating economic evidence into policy choices. In response, the article proposes a six-stage appraisal framework encompassing problem diagnosis, policy alternative development, economic assessment, institutional and stakeholder evaluation, decision transparency, and ex-post policy learning. The framework connects efficiency with equity, behavioral effects, fiscal sustainability, and implementation feasibility while explicitly accounting for uncertainty and contested public values. This approach provides a context-sensitive basis for improving the quality, transparency, and accountability of policy appraisal in Thailand without treating technical indicators as substitutes for legitimate public deliberation. It also identifies priorities for future empirical testing across specific Thai policy sectors and different levels of government.
Downloads
References
Bali, A. S., Howlett, M., Lewis, J. M., & Ramesh, M. (2021). Procedural policy tools in theory and practice. Policy and Society, 40(3), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1965379
Bastani, S. (2025). The marginal value of public funds: A brief guide and application to tax policy. International Tax and Public Finance, 32(4), 919–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-024-09860-x
Boossabong, P. (2023). History and styles of policy analysis in Thailand. In O.-O. Poocharoen & P. Boossabong (Eds.), Policy analysis in Thailand (pp. 11–27). Policy Press.
Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policy making. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4
Cairney, P., & Kwiatkowski, R. (2017). How to communicate effectively with policymakers: Combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Communications, 3, Article 37. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8
Chaichakan, C., & Khampeng, D. (2020). Public participation in decentralization policy making: A comparative study of Thailand and UK. Political Science and Public Administration Journal, 11(Suppl.), 53–76.
Chaiyapa, W., Hartley, K., & del Barrio Alvarez, D. (2021). From end-users to policy designers: Breaking open the black box of energy technocracy in Thailand. Energy Research & Social Science, 73, Article 101912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101912
Chamchong, P. (2023). Policy analysis in Thai local governments. In O.-O. Poocharoen & P. Boossabong (Eds.), Policy analysis in Thailand (pp. 67–87). Policy Press.
Chantavanich, S., & Jitpong, W. (2023). Precarity and social protection of migrant fishers in Thailand: Case studies of death and disappearance at sea. Marine Policy, 155, Article 105743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105743
Chater, N. (2024). What is the point of behavioural public policy? A contractarian approach. Behavioural Public Policy, 8(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2022.2
Durongkaveroj, W. (2025). Cash subsidies for the poor: Evaluating Thailand's State Welfare Card Programme. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, 39(2), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/apel.12452
Finkelstein, A., & Hendren, N. (2020). Welfare analysis meets causal inference. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(4), 146–167. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.34.4.146
Head, B. W. (2016). Toward more “evidence-informed” policy making? Public Administration Review, 76(3), 472–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12475
Hendren, N., & Sprung-Keyser, B. (2020). A unified welfare analysis of government policies. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(3), 1209–1318. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjaa006
Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2016). Achilles' heels of governance: Critical capacity deficits and their role in governance failures. Regulation & Governance, 10(4), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12091
Imani, R. A. G., Sari, N. P., & Wulandari, S. P. (2024). SWOT analysis of Indonesian public health policy using PCA method. Journal Governance Society, 1(2), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.69812/jgs.v1i2.72
Kantamaturapoj, K., Chanchitpricha, C., Hongsuwan, P., Suebsing, P., Thaweesuk, S., & Wibulpolprasert, S. (2023a). A framework of stakeholder analysis for public participation in EIA process: A case study of Thailand. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 41(6), 444–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2261748
Kantamaturapoj, K., Chanchitpricha, C., Hongsuwan, P., Suebsing, P., Thaweesuk, S., & Wibulpolprasert, S. (2023b). Contextual attributes associated with public participation in environmental impact assessments in Thailand: Perspectives obtained from authorities and academics. Heliyon, 9(11), Article e21786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21786
MacKillop, E., & Downe, J. (2023). What counts as evidence for policy? An analysis of policy actors' perceptions. Public Administration Review, 83(5), 1037–1050. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13567
Migone, A., & Howlett, M. (2023). Assessing policy analytical capacity in contemporary governments: New measures and metrics. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 82(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12564
Nam, I. (2024). The uneven state: Center and periphery in shaping state capacity in Thailand. World Politics, 76(1), 38–87. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2024.a916341
Newman, J., Patmisari, E., & Widianingsih, I. (2022). Policy analytical capacity and “Eastern” styles of policy analysis: Evidence from West Java Province, Indonesia. Policy Sciences, 55(3), 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09470-6
Nikomborirak, D. (2020). Thailand's policy challenges. Asian Economic Policy Review, 15(2), 284–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.12293
Nurmi, V., & Ahtiainen, H. (2018). Distributional weights in environmental valuation and cost-benefit analysis: Theory and practice. Ecological Economics, 150, 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.021
Oliver, K., & Cairney, P. (2019). The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: A systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Communications, 5, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0232-y
Pengsuwan, P., & Choonhaklai, S. (2019). Paradigms of public administration and development of Thai modern bureaucracy over five decades. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 40(1), 105–112.
Pensute, C. (2023). Political parties and policy analysis. In O.-O. Poocharoen & P. Boossabong (Eds.), Policy analysis in Thailand (pp. 203–218). Policy Press.
Peters, B. G. (2018). Policy problems and policy design. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Phumma, N., & Vechsuruck, T. (2022). Economic paradigm and demand-side populist policies in Thailand. TRaNS: Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia, 10(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/trn.2021.23
Poocharoen, O.-O., & Boossabong, P. (Eds.). (2023). Policy analysis in Thailand. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.46692/9781447367109
Poocharoen, O.-O., Jongruck, P., Chattragul, P., & Khumsupa, M. (2023). The role of expert policy advisory boards, consultants and think tanks in policy analysis. In O.-O. Poocharoen & P. Boossabong (Eds.), Policy analysis in Thailand (pp. 170–185). Policy Press.
Santhitiwanich, A. (2023). Methods of policy analysis in Thailand: Bureaucratic, managerial, academic and participatory orientations. In O.-O. Poocharoen & P. Boossabong (Eds.), Policy analysis in Thailand (pp. 28–46). Policy Press.
Setthasuravich, P., & Pukdeewut, A. (2024). Policy capacity: A scoping review of definitions, conceptual frameworks, applications, and future research directions. Local Administration Journal, 17(2), 261–294.
Sudhipongpracha, T. (2023). Parliamentary committees, legislative supporting agencies and policy advice. In O.-O. Poocharoen & P. Boossabong (Eds.), Policy analysis in Thailand (pp. 155–169). Policy Press.
Teerawichitchainan, B. (2021). Expansion of Thailand's social pension policy and its implications for family support for older persons. International Journal of Social Welfare, 30(4), 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12481
Ungsuchaval, T. (2023a). Non-traditional policy studies in Thailand. In O.-O. Poocharoen & P. Boossabong (Eds.), Policy analysis in Thailand (pp. 286–302). Policy Press.
Ungsuchaval, T. (2023b). Policy analysis in central government. In O.-O. Poocharoen & P. Boossabong (Eds.), Policy analysis in Thailand (pp. 49–66). Policy Press.
Ungsuchaval, T., & Ariyasirichot, W. (2023). The role of the community sector and civil society in policy analysis. In O.-O. Poocharoen & P. Boossabong (Eds.), Policy analysis in Thailand (pp. 230–247). Policy Press.
Whangmahaporn, P. (2023). Policy analysis instruction in Thailand. In O.-O. Poocharoen & P. Boossabong (Eds.), Policy analysis in Thailand (pp. 273–285). Policy Press.
Zakaria, M. R., Rahmawati, F., & Sulaiman, N. F. C. (2025). The effect of education expenditure, health expenditure, Islamic bank financing, and economic growth on the Human Development Index in Indonesia. Journal Governance Society, 2(3), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.69812/jgs.v2i3.195
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Tsabita Tahta Aurelia Syaifudin, Marza Syalsa Adzani, Apri Molica Sihombing, Cahaya Angel Sagala
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
