Regulatory reform is an urgent priority in restoring growth to Thailand’s emerging economy. Rigid rules and excessive red tape have become significant structural barriers to private sector development. Evidence from several key industries demonstrates how outdated and fragmented legislation continues to constrain competitiveness. 

In innovation and high-technology industries, for example, capital and talent matter most. Yet Thailand’s regulations make it hard to attract both. While the manufacturing sector is relatively open to foreign investment, services remain restricted under the Foreign Business Act. Limitations on foreign ownership discourage investors and frequently result in nominee arrangements that are difficult to supervise effectively. 

At the same time, Thailand faces a shortage of skilled workers, regulations governing the entry and employment of foreign nationals remain complex and fragmented. Even highly skilled professionals must navigate overlapping procedures involving visa approvals under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Bureau, as well as work permit requirements under the Ministry of Labour. 

Previous studies indicate that applicants are required to submit approximately 25–35 documents. Coordination among agencies remains cumbersome. Although online systems and one-stop service centres have been introduced, limited data integration and insufficient inter-agency coordination continue to undermine their effectiveness. In practice, regulatory burdens remain substantial. In some cases, foreign applicants are compelled to hire legal consultants, at an average cost of approximately 25,000 baht per person. 

Even in industries where Thailand has already demonstrated strong performance but seeks to move up the value chain into higher-value segments, regulatory obstacles continue to hinder progress. Such obstacles limit the ability of businesses to upgrade, innovate, and move up the value chain.  

For example, one of Thailand’s potential industries—the pet food sector—the country ranks as the world’s second-largest exporter, reflecting its strong and expanding position in global markets. In 2025, the domestic pet food market was valued at 46 billion baht, representing 12 percent growth from the previous year. Significant export potential remains, particularly in the United States and the European Union.  

However, regulatory rigidity continues to constrain further expansion. Licensing procedures are slow and inflexible, and high- and low-risk products are subjected to the same administrative requirements. Even minor documentation errors can result in export delays lasting several months. To illustrate, registration for controlled animal feed (pet food) under the Animal Feed Quality Control Act B.E. 2558 (2015) requires an average of two to three months, and in some cases up to six months when documentation revisions are required. Such delays directly affect business operations. Certain requirements also appear impractical, including strict three-day advance notification rules for exporting pet food. 

In the service sector—often described as a potential new growth engine—legal obstacles are encountered at nearly every stage. A notable example is wellness tourism, a strategic industry in which Thailand possesses strong growth potential. Yet the regulatory framework remains fragmented and burdensome. No dedicated visa category exists for wellness tourists. Hotel operators, in some cases, may be required to obtain up to 17 licenses from seven different agencies. Even facilities such as gyms and swimming pools are subject to extensive regulatory requirements. 

The complexity of the regulatory framework has particularly adverse effects on small service providers. This is especially evident in the case of Thai massage, which enjoys global recognition. However, many trained practitioners face significant difficulties in obtaining licenses due to complex and burdensome procedures. As a result, access to formal employment is restricted, and overall service quality is undermined. Simultaneously, the absence of clear and consistent standards poses risks to consumers and may affect Thailand’s international reputation. 

To reduce regulatory barriers and establish a framework conducive to industrial transformation and enhanced competitiveness, at least four key reforms merit consideration. 

(1) Adopting an Integrated Thematic Review Approach 

Legislative review in Thailand has traditionally been conducted on a law-by-law basis by individual agencies. Such an approach often leads to fragmented reforms, limited systemic coherence, and the risk of overlapping or contradictory provisions. As a result, opportunities to improve overall regulatory quality are frequently missed. 

An integrated Thematic Review approach should therefore be adopted. Under this model, multiple laws addressing the same policy objective are reviewed collectively to assess coherence, identify gaps, and eliminate inconsistencies. This approach has been implemented in other jurisdictions, including thematic reviews of tobacco regulation in Australia and legal gender recognition frameworks in the European Union. 

In the Thai context, this would involve shifting from isolated legal amendments toward coordinated thematic reviews—for example, reviewing hotel-related regulations across building, public health, and environmental legislation simultaneously. Such a holistic approach would enhance regulatory coherence and reduce redundancy. 

(2) Updating Necessary Industry Standards 

While outdated or conflicting regulations should be removed under the Thematic Review approach, regulatory gaps must also be addressed. In sectors such as health and services like the Wellness Tourism example mentioned above, the absence of clear and modern standards undermines consumer protection and creates uncertainty for businesses. Standards should be developed through structured consultation with industry stakeholders to ensure that public interests be maintained while not imposing excessive compliance costs on regulated parties.. 

(3) Introducing a Super License System 

Once unnecessary regulatory burdens have been reduced and essential standards clarified, licensing systems must also be streamlined. Time-consuming processes involving multiple agencies should be replaced with a Super License framework, whereby a single license covers multiple related activities, and the approval of the main license deems equivalent to receive all related secondary licenses 

For example, a hotel license could encompass associated facilities such as gyms, swimming pools, and restaurants. Effective implementation would require closer collaboration between regulators and industry to ensure that regulatory design reflects operational realities. 

(4) Establishing a Regulatory Reform Subcommittee under “REINVENT THAILAND” 

Comprehensive reform cannot be achieved by government alone. Under the  REINVENT THAILAND concept, this initiative aspires to build the platform aiming to shift from traditional policy-making toward a public–private partnership model that positions the private sector as a key driver of economic transformation. The joint committee, comprising the Bank of Thailand, NESDC, and private sector representatives, could co-design reform strategies In the area of regulatory reform, a dedicated subcommittee could lead systematic legal reviews, benchmark international standards and engage stakeholders to modernize outdated regulations while reducing compliance burdens and foster economic inclusive resilience. 

South Korea provides a useful example. During the 1997 financial crisis, a regulatory reform committee (RRC) with substantial private sector participation was established. The RRC consisted of 20 members, of whom only seven represented government agencies. The remaining 13 members were drawn from the private sector, civil society, academia, and the broader public. Importantly, the committee was co-chaired by the Prime Minister and a representative from outside the government, underscoring the central role of non-state stakeholders in the reform process. Within one year, nearly half of unnecessary regulations were eliminated under RRC. 

This institutional design reflected a genuine commitment to inclusive and participatory regulatory reform, ensuring that businesses, scholars, and citizens were meaningfully involved in reshaping the country’s regulatory framework. 

Ultimately, regulatory reform will succeed only if a “strong political commitment” from the high-level is demonstrated.. Without clear leadership and determination, meaningful reform of regulatory frameworks and bureaucratic procedures is unlikely to materialise. 

Note: Kiratipong Naewmalee , PhD, is a senior research fellow and Phumjit Sri-Udomkajorn is a resercher of the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI). This article is an edited version of his keynote speech at TDRI’s Annual Conference on Reimagining Thailand’s Development Model, held on November 17. TDRI’s policy analyses appear in the Bangkok Post on 25 Febuary 2026.