Public sector integrity is essential for effective governance, economic growth, and public trust. The OECD’s 2018 and 2021 Integrity Reviews of Thailand provided a comprehensive reform roadmap, contributing to the development of a National Integrity Strategy. Since then, Thailand has made progress in public service delivery, digital government, and open data. However, significant integrity challenges remain, including gaps between regulatory frameworks and implementation, high corruption perceptions, and weaknesses in key areas such as lobbying and conflict‑of‑interest management.
Advancing Public Integrity in Thailand
Recent Progress and Priorities for Reform
Abstract
Challenges to integrity in public decision-making, encompassing, but not limited to, corrupt practices, constitutes a major systemic risk. It undermines inclusive and sustainable economic growth, weakens democratic norms and values, erodes public trust in government institutions, and constrains the effective and equitable delivery of public services (OECD, 2017[1]). In this context, the 2018 and 2021 Integrity Reviews of Thailand represented the first comprehensive integrity assessments undertaken by the OECD in Southeast Asia. These reviews provided the Thai authorities with a sequenced and evidence-based roadmap of policy and institutional reforms aimed at strengthening public governance frameworks and enhancing resilience to corruption risks. A number of the recommended actions have since been implemented and have contributed to the formulation and progressive development of a National Integrity Strategy.
Similarly, since the completion of the 2018 and 2021 reviews, the institutional and policy context has evolved significantly. The commencement of OECD accession discussions and related expectations regarding alignment with OECD standards and best practices in the areas of public governance, integrity, and anti-corruption have already entailed increased scrutiny of the coherence, effectiveness, and enforceability of integrity standards across the public sector. Furthermore, the economic and fiscal environment has become more complex, shaped by heightened global change, post-pandemic recovery challenges, and structural transformation pressures. These developments have increased the scale and complexity of public spending, procurement, and regulatory activity. As a result, exposure to integrity risks has intensified, revealing vulnerabilities in oversight, accountability, and control systems. Addressing these pressures requires preventive and risk-based integrity mechanisms. Together, these developments call for a renewed assessment of Thailand’s integrity system to ensure its continued relevance, effectiveness, and alignment with OECD standards in a rapidly changing context.
Notwithstanding persistent challenges, a number of indicators point to substantial progress in recent years, reflecting Thailand’s sustained efforts to strengthen institutional capacity in support of its broader economic and development objectives. In 2024, Thailand recorded notably high levels of public satisfaction with key public services, including education and healthcare. Satisfaction with educational services reached 92%, while satisfaction with healthcare services stood at 88%, exceeding the respective Southeast Asian averages of 89% and 87%. Confidence in judicial services was reported at 69%, also exceeding the regional average of 63%, and the OECD average of 56 % (OECD, 2025[2]). Taken together, these figures suggest improvements in service delivery performance and institutional responsiveness, which are critical foundations for long-term economic competitiveness in a rapidly changing context.
Thailand has also established a leading position in the digital transformation of government, an area increasingly central to modern state capacity and economic modernisation. According to the OECD Digital Government Index (DGI), which benchmarks the design and implementation of digital government policies, Thailand achieved a score of 0.50 in 2023. This performance substantially exceeds the Southeast Asian regional average of 0.37, indicating comparatively advanced digital governance capabilities. While Thailand’s score remains below the OECD Member country average of 0.61, it nevertheless reflects the country’s relative strength within the region and its progress toward international good practices (OECD, 2025[2]).
In parallel, Thailand demonstrates strong performance in the area of open government data, which supports transparency, innovation, and evidence-based policymaking. The Open, Useful and Re-usable Data (OURdata) Index evaluates the effectiveness of open data strategies, stakeholder engagement, and data re-use across governments. In 2023, the average OURdata score for Southeast Asian countries stood at 0.22, well below the OECD average of 0.48. Thailand achieved a score of 0.43, nearly double the regional average and approaching the OECD benchmark, highlighting significant progress in leveraging data as a strategic public-sector asset (OECD, 2025[2]). Additionally, Thailand joined the Open Government Partnership in January 2026, further demonstrating its commitment to advancing reforms that promote openness, transparency, and accountability (Open Government Partnership, 2026[3]). Collectively, these developments indicate that Thailand is not only improving public service delivery and governance but also actively investing in the institutional capabilities required to support its economic ambitions, enhance policy effectiveness, and align more closely with OECD standards.
Despite notable progress, Thailand continues to lag in the integrity domain, underscoring the need not only for stronger regulatory frameworks but also for more robust institutions and implementation capacity to translate rules into practice. The Public Integrity Indicators (PII) present a mixed picture (Figure 1.1), revealing persistent gaps between regulation and practice. This implementation gap is not unique to Thailand, but reflects a broader challenge also observed across many OECD Members (OECD, 2024[4]). Based on the PII datasets currently available for Thailand, covering lobbying, conflict of interest, political finance, and public information, a differentiated pattern emerges. In lobbying, Thailand’s regulatory framework is less than half the OECD average (20% versus 44%), while implementation is entirely absent (0% compared to 37% in the OECD), pointing to a critical enforcement vacuum. In conflict of interest, although regulation is broadly aligned with OECD standards (78% versus 80%), weak implementation (11% compared to 39%) severely undermines effectiveness. Political finance shows the opposite pattern: regulation remains underdeveloped (40% versus 75%), yet implementation is relatively stronger (57%), marginally exceeding the OECD average (56%). Finally, in public information, Thailand significantly underperforms in regulation (33% versus 72%), and while practice is closer to OECD levels (42% versus 62%), the gap remains significant.
How to read: For conflict of interest, Thailand has a score of 78% for regulation and 11% for practice compared with the OECD 2025 average of 80% for conflict-of-interest regulation and 39% for practice.
Source: OECD (2025[5]), OECD Public Integrity Indicators, https://oecd-public-integrity-indicators.org/.
Similarly, perception of corruption in Thailand remains high. The 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranked Thailand 116th out of 182 countries, with a score of 33 out of 1001. Although this represents only a slight decline from 2024 (34 points), it continues a broader downward trend observed since 2012, underscoring persistent challenges (Transparency International, 2025[6]). Among ASEAN countries, Thailand sits below Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia on CPI scores. Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer shows that 88% of people in Thailand believe corruption in government is a major problem, well above the regional average of 74 percent (Transparency International, 2020[7]). Finally, corruption remains persistently cited as a problematic factor for doing business in Thailand (Government of the UK, 2023[8]; Government of the USA, 2024[9]; UN Global Compact Network Thailand, 2025[10]). These indexes suggest that indeed, corruption is a visible and ongoing concern, contributing to weaker trust in institutions and potentially affecting investment and governance outcomes.
As Thailand continues to face challenges in both the public and private sectors, strengthening anti-corruption and integrity policies and practices is essential to reinforcing the country’s integrity system. This follow-up review was developed under the Thailand Country Programme-Phase 2 for 2023–2025 and separately from Thailand’s accession process. The following chapters take stock of Thailand’s implementation of the recommendations from the 2018 and 2021 Integrity Reviews, respectively. They identify key achievements and remaining areas for improvement and formulate proposals for further action. Recommendation have been tailored to help Thailand deliver a strategic approach to public integrity, close legislative gaps and improve policy frameworks across government and society.
References
[8] Government of the UK (2023), Guidance Overseas Business Risk: Thailand, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overseas-business-risk-thailand/overseas-business-risk-thailand?.
[9] Government of the USA (2024), Thailand Country Commercial Guide - Market Challenges, https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/thailand-market-challenges.
[2] OECD (2025), “Government at a Glance: Southeast Asia 2025: Thailand”, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/government-at-a-glance-southeast-asia-2025_7c75464c-en/thailand_4abe6cbf-en.html.
[5] OECD (2025), OECD Public Integrity Indicators, OECD, Paris, https://oecd-public-integrity-indicators.org/.
[4] OECD (2024), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/968587cd-en.
[1] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity, OECD/LEGAL/0435, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0435.
[3] Open Government Partnership (2026), “Thailand Joins the Open Government Partnership”, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/news/thailand-joins-the-open-government-partnership/.
[6] Transparency International (2025), CPI Results and Trends, https://images.transparencycdn.org/images/CPI2025_Results.xlsx.
[7] Transparency International (2020), Global Corruption Barometer, https://www.transparency.org/en/gcb/asia/asia-2020.
[10] UN Global Compact Network Thailand (2025), Anti-Corruption Compliance Challenges and Case Studies: Findings from the Thai Private Sector, https://baselgovernance.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/ACCA%20Challenges%20and%20Case%20Studies%20Report.pdf.
← 1. A country’s score is the perceived level of public sector corruption on a scale of 0-100, where 0 means highly corrupt and 100 means very clean. A country's rank is its position relative to the other countries in the index.