Thailand has several pro-productivity institutions within key economic bodies and ministries that conduct productivity analyses and are connected to the policymaking process. However, the absence of a single analytical expert body with a clear productivity mandate leads to knowledge and data silos, analysis gaps and limits attention to productivity and its drivers among policymakers. To address these challenges, the chapter recommends that Thailand establishes a productivity council bringing together experts from the different pro-productivity institutions. The chapter also outlines steps to strengthen cooperation on data and analysis, generate more in-depth evidence on productivity dynamics and drivers and enhance the relevance and visibility of productivity-related insights for policymakers.
Strengthening Productivity Analysis for Policymaking in Thailand
Abstract
Productivity growth is the main driver of long-term economic expansion, enhancing national prosperity and living standards. It reflects how efficiently input factors are used to create output, making it an important determinant of the economy's potential growth and a key indicator of the competitiveness of the business environment and the effectiveness of policy conditions in fostering economic growth.
Productivity is multi-faceted and so are the policies and institutions that can help support productivity. This chapter focuses on the set-up and activities of Thailand’s pro-productivity institutions (Box 1.1). It first takes stock of these institutions’ functions and main roles in producing data and analysis. It examines in greater detail the scope of their activities. It then focuses on cooperation practices both among pro-productivity institutions and between these institutions and other stakeholders. Finally, it presents action-oriented recommendations to further strengthen the relevance and effectiveness of Thai pro-productivity institutions.
In this report, a broad definition is applied when discussing Thailand’s institutional landscape in the field of productivity. Under this definition, Thai pro-productivity institutions include all public entities involved in compiling productivity metrics, analysing domestic trends, or providing policy advice, guidance, or plans aimed at enhancing productivity.
In contrast, when discussing good practices for pro-productivity institutions (PPIs) in OECD countries, the report refers to dedicated expert bodies such as productivity commissions and productivity boards that focus on the wide-ranging determinants and policies shaping productivity, increasing government attention on productivity or facilitating coordinated efforts across government to design cohesive policy agendas that boost productivity growth (Cavassini et al., 2022[1]).
Thai pro-productivity institutions can be categorised into three groups. The first group consists of institutions that provide economy-wide data, indicators and, to some extent, analysis related to economy-wide productivity trends. The second group consists of pro-productivity units within ministries that specialise in gathering sector- and policy area-specific data and indicators as well as developing sector-specific productivity analysis in line with ministerial requirements. The third group comprises the central bank and some research bodies producing some expert analysis on productivity within a more general research function (Figure 1.1).
Source: OECD elaborations.
The NESDC and the NSO are the main sources of aggregate data on productivity and the NESDC also has a role in designing economic policies
The Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) and the National Statistical Office (NSO) are the two main providers of economy-wide data and indicators on productivity. Their functions differ significantly. The NESDC operates as both an analytical institution and a policymaker. On the analysis side, the NESDC supplies both government and the public with National Accounts data, macroeconomic projections as well as aggregate productivity indicators. On the policy side, it translates government development strategies relevant to productivity – most notably Thailand’s twenty-year National Strategy – into policymaking. It does this by formulating second-level plans within Thailand’s three-layered planning system (further discussed in Chapter 3). The National Economic and Social Development Plan, for which the 13th edition (2023-2027) is currently under implementation, is its central instrument (Box 3.5).
The NSO’s function in relation to productivity is to compile and maintain datasets that serve as inputs for aggregate and disaggregate productivity analyses by other institutions. This responsibility includes conducting the Labour Force Survey, the Business Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Survey and the censuses of manufacturing, service and agricultural firms. The development and maintenance of the Government Data Catalogue (GDC), a central register used by more than 200 government agencies to share data, metadata and to inform about the existence of datasets, also indirectly benefits productivity analysis conducted by other institutions. The NSO computes simple productivity indicators, mostly for internal use.
Analytical units within sector ministries collect and analyse productivity and contribute to ministerial plans
There are six analytical units within sector ministries which gather sector- and policy area-specific data and indicators related to productivity and inform policymakers with productivity analysis. These are the Office of Industrial Economics (OIE) and the Thailand Productivity Institute (FTPI) within the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Labour’s Division of Labour Economics (DLE), the Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE) within the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (hereafter Ministry of Agriculture) and the Office of National Higher Education Science Research and Innovation Policy Council (NXPO) and the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) both within the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation (MHESI).
The work conducted by these institutions focuses on a specific sector and industry and/ or specific productivity metrics. The OAE focuses on productivity in agriculture, the OIE on manufacturing and the NXPO, with support from the NRCT, on links between innovation, R&D investment and productivity. The DLE conducts productivity analysis across sectors but with an emphasis on the development of labour productivity. All these institutions use primary and secondary data for their analyses and contribute to the formulation of ministerial third-level plans, also in productivity-relevant policy areas, as detailed in Chapter 3. Despite these commonalities, their approaches differ in output format and frequency (discussed in this chapter), data handling and methodologies (Chapter 2) and the policy advice provided (Chapter 3). The FTPI differs from other inner-ministerial pro-productivity institutions as it specialises in capacity building for entrepreneurs and firms, enhancing productivity through knowledge dissemination, benchmarking, events and training.
The central bank and its affiliated research body conduct some productivity analysis
The Bank of Thailand provides policy-relevant productivity research through two channels. First, the Monetary Policy Group (MPG) analyses productivity on an ad-hoc basis, primarily to inform monetary policymaking, such as through potential output and output gap estimates submitted to monetary policy committee meetings. Occasionally, the MPG also engages in standalone, external research projects on productivity developments in Thailand, as further elaborated in this chapter. The second channel is the Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research (PIER), an independent research institute under the Bank of Thailand. PIER’s discussion papers, authored by both affiliated and non-affiliated researchers, cover policy-relevant determinants of productivity and may focus on all sectors of the economy depending on research question and scope. These discussion papers are often followed by the publication of policy briefs that convey the key research messages to Thai policymakers.1
Thai pro-productivity institutions engage in a broad range of productivity-related activities, including recurring and ad-hoc reports, in-house analyses and monthly productivity indicators. To assess the depth and scope of these activities, this assessment considers the level of aggregation at which productivity is analysed in the reports and papers produced by the Thai pro-productivity institutions (Box 1.2). It also considers the extent to which these activities are conducted regularly or only occasionally. Examining these activities along these dimensions helps identify “blind spots”, where relevant economic sectors are overlooked or the level of disaggregation is not sufficient.
At the most aggregated level, productivity metrics such as multifactor productivity (MFP) or factor productivity are observed for the entire economy or sectoral aggregates (agriculture, manufacturing or services). At this level, potential productivity determinants can only be examined in terms of their macro effects but not the heterogeneous effects on different agents.
The second level generates productivity insights for different industries within a given sector. At this level, it is possible to distinguish whether sectoral productivity developments are driven by productivity changes within industries (“within-effects”) or by sector composition effects driven by shifts in industry weights in the aggregate statistics (“between-effects”). The identification of industry-level productivity determinants is also possible.
Analyses at the third level enable the identification of micro drivers behind productivity changes within and between firms and industries. These drivers may be explored for their effects on intertemporal variation in firm productivity, the (re-)allocation of resources to firms with differing productivity levels and business dynamism, i.e. market entry and exit. Analyses at the third level necessitate the use of detailed micro-data on firms or other relevant entities, ideally with a panel structure.
Source: André and Gal (2024[2]).
Productivity analysis ranges from economy-wide to firm-level with a stronger focus on the whole economy
Thai pro-productivity institutions analyse productivity trends at the aggregate, industry and firm levels. However, most analyses focus on trends in the whole economy and at the level of certain industries (Box 1.3). Only a few irregular analyses explore productivity dynamics at the firm level, reflecting in part the lack or the difficulty of accessing and linking firm-level data as well as the limitations of the data itself (see Chapter 2) (Figure 1.2).
Source: OECD elaborations based on the analytical framework used by André and Gal (2024[2]).
In 2021/2022, the Office of Agricultural Economics studied aggregate productivity developments in the agricultural sector. The report investigates the long-term productivity trend at the sector level, relying on a growth accounting approach using annual secondary data. Employing econometric techniques, the report examines various determinants, including the agricultural sector development budget and the rates of change in international trade openness, the value of imported agricultural capital inputs and rainfall (OAE, 2022[3]).
Most of the analysis is conducted on an ad-hoc basis
Only two reports examine productivity trends annually: the NESDC’s Capital Stock of Thailand report (hereafter referred to as the Capital Stock report) and the OIE’s Productivity and Performance of Thai Industry report (hereafter referred to as the TFP report) (Box 1.4. ). The former indicates annual changes in MFP only at the economy and aggregate sector level and is mostly descriptive. The latter disentangles industry developments and interprets them to some degree, but only for the manufacturing sector. There is no recurring coverage of productivity trends within the agricultural and service sectors (Figure 1.3 ).
Source: OECD elaborations.
NESDC’s Capital Stock Report (annual)
The report describes annual productivity changes for the aggregate economy and the agricultural, manufacturing and service sectors. It also decomposes GDP growth into supply-side components, highlighting the contribution of productivity growth alongside changes in the production factors of capital, labour and land. Additionally, the report compares the sources of growth during the implementation periods of the last four National Economic and Social Development Plans (NESDC, 2022[4]).
OIE’s Productivity and Performance of Thai Industry Report (annual)
The report describes productivity developments for 21 manufacturing industries (TSIC 2-digit) based on primary data collected in the OIE Manufacturing Survey. The report details productivity trends at a relatively disaggregated level, also considering firm size and geographical location. Assessments in the report also rely on a broader range of key performance indicators for industrial development and competitiveness, including value-added to sales and R&D to sales ratios, e-commerce and export-to-sales ratios, the share of automation and capital deepening. Additionally, the report conducts simple analyses of within-industry productivity heterogeneity, comparing the characteristics of the most productive firms to average firms. Based on these insights, best and worst business practices are identified and recommendations for each industry are developed. Yet, the report neither systematically exploits firm-level variation for its diagnostics nor applies econometric techniques to consider policy-relevant productivity determinants (OIE, 2022[5]).
Analysis of productivity in services is limited
Analyses of service sector developments are few and sporadic. The NESDC Capital Stock report looks at services at the sector aggregate level. A series of studies by the Ministry of Labour considered labour productivity in the service sector, alongside agriculture and manufacturing (Box 1.5). PIER discussion papers only cover service sector firms when analysing the entire universe of registered Thai firms based on business registry data (see Box 1.6 and Chapter 2 below). While measuring productivity in the service sector can be challenging because of the diversity of the activities performed in the sector and the use of pertinent productivity metrics (e.g. for non-market services), the service sector accounts for the largest share of the Thai economy, representing 56.2% of value-added, more than manufacturing and agriculture combined (OECD, 2023[6]). Accordingly, understanding productivity trends and determinants in this sector is crucial for the growth of the entire economy.
Between 2021 and 2023, the Division of Labour Economics within the Ministry of Labour conducted a series of studies on industry-level labour productivity developments across the agriculture, manufacturing and service sectors. Labour productivity was selected as the ad-hoc theme for the Division's annual reports over these three years, resulting in the following outputs:
1. Approaches to Increase Thai labour productivity (MOL, 2021[7])
2. Thai labour productivity: how to move forward in an era of global change? (MOL, 2022[8])
3. Wages and labour productivity of Thai workers (MOL, 2023[9])
The first two reports describe industry-specific labour productivity trends and discrepancies and discuss them in the context of potential driving factors, such as human capital development through foundational skill formation, active labour market policies, as well as labour safety and worker well-being. The reports use qualitative analyses, descriptive statistics and simple econometric analyses based on primary data from different agencies within the Ministry of Labour (e.g. the Department of Skill Development) and secondary data from other Thai public institutions (e.g. the NSO). Based on the analyses, policy recommendations are formulated targeting specific industries, especially those with weak productivity performance, and addressed to different government institutions, such as other ministries or units within the Ministry of Labour. Recommendations are assigned different levels of priority and timelines for implementation (short- versus medium-term).
The third report does not focus on the determinants of labour productivity, concentrating instead on the relationship between labour productivity and wage dynamics. The recommendations in this edition primarily address wage-setting mechanisms, such as a minimum wage and sectoral implications.
Firm-level analysis is limited
Analyses that systematically investigate and help understand productivity developments at the firm level are rare. Currently, the most granular analyses are conducted by the Bank of Thailand and PIER, with a focus on manufacturing firms (Box 1.6). This focus is favoured by two factors. First, Thailand’s industrial transformation agenda places a strong emphasis on the emergence of new high-value-added manufacturing activity. Second, despite some limitations pinpointed in Chapter 2, firm-level data are more frequently collected for the manufacturing sector (including the Industrial Census and the OIE survey) than for agriculture and services (see Chapter 2).
Bank of Thailand’s and World Bank’s Thailand Manufacturing Firm Productivity Report
In 2020, the Bank of Thailand and the World Bank jointly examined sources of multifactor productivity growth in the Thai manufacturing sector, grouping drivers into within-firm, between-firm allocation and entry and exit, consistent with the framework applied in this report. Specific drivers investigated include indicators of openness, such as being a recipient of FDI or import and export shares, firm characteristics, such as size, age and ownership structure (including identification of SOEs), capital structure, use of skilled labour, R&D spending and indicators of competition and market power, including markups and entry and exit rates. The report relies on data from manufacturing establishments registered in the Industrial Census. The report also discusses Thailand’s policy environment in relevant areas, such as competition policy and provides comprehensive policy recommendations (World Bank and Bank of Thailand, 2020[10]).
PIER discussion papers
Several PIER discussion papers have investigated research questions related to productivity developments, reallocation, business dynamism and related determinants in Thailand. Many of the productivity-related discussion papers published since 2016 focus on the manufacturing sector, for which more firm-level data are available (as discussed in Chapter 2). These papers aim to address productivity puzzles (Paweenawat, Chucherd and Amarase, 2017[11]; Srithanpong, 2016[12]) or examine policy-related issues, such as the links between automation and productivity (Sangsubhan, Pornpattanapaisankul and Kambuya, 2023[13]), the unintended effects of SME promotion policies (Muthitacharoen, Paweenawat and Samphantharak, 2024[14]) and the effect of digital infrastructure provision and adoption on firm productivity (Nakavachara, 2020[15]). A few other discussion papers draw on business registry data covering all registered firms in Thailand (the CPFS database) to study market structure, resource allocation, business dynamism and firm investment (Banternghansa, Paweenawat and Samphantharak, 2019[16]; Limjaroenrat, 2016[17]; Apaitan et al., 2020[18]). One discussion paper analyses the productivity trend in agriculture using data from the Agricultural Census and administrative data on farms (Attavanich et al., 2019[19]). Most PIER discussion papers conclude with a discussion on policy implications and messages to policymakers.
Ad-hoc study of the Office of Industrial Economics and Fiscal Policy Research Institute
In 2022, the Office of Industrial Economics and the Fiscal Policy Research Institute published an ad-hoc study on productivity determinants of manufacturing firms across various industries. The study was released as a chapter of the annual TFP report to identify policies to enhance productivity growth within the context of constrained input factors, particularly a declining working-age population. The study examines the relationships between firm characteristics, behaviours and multifactor productivity using firm-level data from the 2018 to 2021 OIE Manufacturing Surveys. Firms are grouped into 21 industries. Nearly twenty potential productivity determinants are analysed and categorised into four groups: innovation (e.g. R&D expenditures relative to sales), input quality (share of skilled labour among staff), management (e.g. cost-to-sales and value-added-to-sales ratios) and sustainability (measured by energy and fuel consumption relative to sales). The chapter concludes with recommendations addressing policy options related to the four groups of determinants (OIE and FPRI, 2022[20]).
Productivity indicators are used for internal purposes and as a benchmarking tool for firms
Several institutions also use productivity indicators for in-house analyses or as performance indicators (the production and use of these indicators in examined more extensively in Chapter 2). The Bank of Thailand’s Monetary Policy Group follows aggregate productivity developments to inform meetings of the Monetary Policy Committee. The Office of Industrial Economics, the Office of Agricultural Economics and the Division of Labour Economics also use productivity indicators to provide updates on developments in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors and the labour market. The Thailand Productivity Institute uses industry-level productivity metrics to provide benchmarking through publicly available online dashboards on its website. These dashboards are tailored for firms, allowing them to input their KPIs and compare performance with industry-specific peer groups. Moreover, the NXPO and NRCT report uses productivity as a key performance metric for international comparisons of private sector competitiveness (NXPO and NRCT, 2022[21]). Productivity indicators are calculated based on information from the R&D survey, allowing for additional analyses on links between R&D performance and productivity.
This section explores how Thai pro-productivity institutions cooperate on data collection, analysis and policy advice, both among themselves and with stakeholders within and outside government (Figure 1.4 below). Cooperation among the institutions is limited. Some important relations exist between pro-productivity institutions and other stakeholders through bilateral channels. Strengthening and formalising cooperation could enhance the quality of analysis through better data, knowledge exchange and mutual learning. Additionally, it could raise the visibility of results and facilitate the implementation of policy recommendations by attracting greater attention from policymakers.
Cooperation across pro-productivity institutions is limited
Data collection and sharing
In the area of data, the NESDC and the NSO collaborate by sharing economy-wide data and indicators. Most data points and indicators, including National Accounts, aggregate statistics from the census, labour and business surveys are publicly available, allowing pro-productivity institutions to use them freely without making requests. This public data forms the backbone of many simple productivity analyses conducted by pro-productivity institutions located in sector ministries. As the data is publicly available, its format, structure and level of detail are not always tailored to the needs of the receiving institutions. Through the Government Data Catalogue, the NSO also acts as an intermediary between other data-sharing and data-using institutions. Beyond publicly available data, the NSO can share firm-level data, such as the Industrial Census, with other government and official institutions upon request.
At the level of sector ministries, data cooperation is common within the ministry but remains limited with external institutions, including other ministries. For primary data collection, both the OAE and NXPO receive in-house support from other entities. In the case of the OAE, regional offices collect data from farmers based on production surveys. The NXPO, in turn, relies on the NRCT for conducting the R&D Survey. Within the Ministry of Industry, the OIE shares productivity indicators based on the Manufacturing Survey with the FTPI, which uses them for its dashboards available to the public. Sometimes, the institutions are also granted access to non-public datasets maintained by other parts of the ministries. For its annual reports and the ad-hoc study on labour productivity, the DLE accessed data from various departments, such as results from skill development programmes gathered by the Department of Skill Development (DSD). Under the Bank of Thailand, no formal data cooperation is reported between the Monetary Policy Group and the affiliated PIER.
There appears to be little inter-ministerial cooperation on data among the pro-productivity institutions. The DLE indicates having worked with the NXPO and NRCT’s R&D Survey, but this data was most likely accessed at an aggregate level via public channels. None of the four ministries reports sharing their survey-based datasets with other ministries regularly. Even if more data were shared, challenges would arise in merging datasets from different institutions (further elaborated in Chapter 2). No data cooperation is reported between the ministries and the institutions under the Bank of Thailand.
Joint productivity analysis
Thai pro-productivity institutions mostly conduct their analyses relying on their own capacity and resources. The cooperation between NXPO and NRCT, which goes beyond data collection to include the joint review of the R&D survey, is a notable exception (NXPO and NRCT, 2022[21]). Some institutions are expressing interest in conducting joint work. NXPO aims to initiate a policy research project in collaboration with analytical entities affiliated with other ministries, the Bank of Thailand or research institutes. The study is expected to deepen both academic and policy understanding of the impact of innovation, research and development on productivity within focus industries, which are yet to be determined.
Policymaking
Within a ministry, analyses conducted by one of the analytical units described above can inform ministerial decisions. For example, insights on productivity trends from the OIE’s TFP report helped develop the Ministry of Industry’s five-year Industrial Productivity Plan (new edition from 2024). However, it is unclear to what extent the policy advice is further shaped or elaborated through in-house consultations between providers and recipients. Formal procedures for ad-hoc or regular consultations are largely missing in this domain. Similarly, there are no specifications on how productivity insights need to be considered in planning.
Some cooperation on productivity insights for policymaking also exists between institutions, but mostly on an informal ad-hoc basis. In the DLE’s ad-hoc studies, recommendations call for cooperation between entities in the Ministry of Labour and other ministries concerned with productivity, including the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) and the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research, and Innovation (MHESI) (MOL, 2021[7]; MOL, 2022[8]). Topics included the development of programmes for informal sector workers (with MHESI) and adjusting guidelines to encourage the private sector to provide more on-the-job training (with MoF). However, there is no indication that these calls for cooperation at the policy level resulted in follow-up or policy action. There is no well-established cooperation between the sector ministries’ pro-productivity institutions and the NESDC. Such cooperation could serve to incorporate sector- and policy area-specific productivity insights for the development and monitoring of second-level plans that are key to driving the national productivity agenda.
Some cooperation exists between pro-productivity institutions and other government and non-government bodies, mostly at the sector level
Thai pro-productivity institutions cooperate with some other bodies outside their institutions on data sharing and analysis.
Data collection and sharing
PIER and some analytical institutions within sector ministries rely on data inputs and support for data collection from other ministries that are not primarily engaged in productivity analyses. In the past, PIER could access the Corporate Profile and Financial Statement Dataset (CPFS), maintained by the Ministry of Commerce’s Department of Business Development to conduct firm-level studies on the full population of registered firms in Thailand. The OAE uses aggregated statistics, including on agricultural exports, maintained by the Ministry of Commerce for some of its analyses. The Fiscal Policy Research Institute (FPRI) under the Ministry of Finance supports the data gathering for the OIE Manufacturing Survey to inform the TFP report. This inter-ministerial cooperation for data collection is a unique practice among Thai institutions.
Some data also come from non-governmental bodies and sources. For its benchmarking dashboards (Benchmarking for Business Excellence Service of Thailand), FTPI relies on data from companies that are publicly listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand to construct a domestic peer group and on data from the Asian Productivity Organisation (APO) to compare Thailand to regional peers. The DLE also accessed data from publicly available business surveys for its series of ad-hoc studies, such as the Future of Jobs Report by the World Economic Forum and the Digital Transformation Survey by Deloitte Thailand (WEF, 2020[22]; Deloitte, 2023[23]).
Conversely, NXPO makes data from the R&D survey accessible to researchers upon signing a memorandum of understanding. This has, for instance, facilitated the creation of a recent research paper on innovation and productivity in the Thai service sector. Based on the survey data, the paper studies the relationship between R&D activity, innovation output and productivity on the firm level, as well as firms’ propensity to invest in R&D based on firm characteristics and behavioural factors (Charoenporn and Choksawatpaisan, 2024[24]).
Joint productivity analysis
OIE and FPRI conducted joint analyses for the 2022 ad-hoc study on the drivers of multifactor productivity in the manufacturing sector, published as a chapter of the 2022 TFP report (OIE and FPRI, 2022[20]). The Bank of Thailand’s MPG and PIER both cooperate with non-government stakeholders, albeit in very different formats. In 2020, the MPG joined forces with the World Bank to produce the manufacturing firm productivity report (World Bank and Bank of Thailand, 2020[10]). This collaboration combined the expertise of a Thai institution familiar with the Industrial Census and the capacity of an international organisation with experience in advanced productivity analysis. Engagement was also necessary for the World Bank to access firm-level data. PIER, on the other hand, cooperates with researchers to ensure access to academic excellence and talent for its research projects. To facilitate this collaboration, it offers research funding and visiting fellow- and scholarships, allowing young researchers, including PhD students, to conduct policy-relevant economic research with good access to data infrastructure and the institute's knowledge pool. However, it has reportedly been difficult for PIER to attract scholars to conduct productivity research.
Policymaking
Cooperation of Thai pro-productivity institutions with third parties in the area of policymaking mostly focuses on attempts to directly engage with the private sector. One of the two main channels is the provision of recommendations, annually by the OIE at the industry level, and ad-hoc by the DLE. The second channel involves FTPI engaging directly with businesses and social partners through its capacity-building programmes for business, comprising benchmarking via its online dashboards, workshops and events. The effectiveness of this direct engagement is unclear. Without clear incentives, the dissemination of recommendations to businesses does not automatically translate into management action. Moreover, FTPI reports that the use of its dashboards by business is relatively low.
Source: OECD elaborations.
Activating and enhancing the network of existing pro-productivity institutions
Thailand has several analytical institutions within key economic bodies and sector ministries that conduct a wide range of productivity analyses and are connected to the policymaking process. However, the absence of a single expert body with a clear productivity mandate to link these different institutions leads to knowledge and data silos and gaps in productivity analysis and policy advice. Attention to productivity within the high-level policy agenda is diluted.
Better connecting the rich network of Thai pro-productivity institutions will help to strengthen analysis and reinforce policymakers' attention to the productivity implications of policies. The National Reform Plan, a structural and administrative reform initiative with a comprehensive agenda to boost Thailand’s competitiveness and productivity, implemented between 2018 and 2022, highlighted the need to reform institutions in the areas of productivity promotion (NESDC, 2020[25]). However, the plan did not lead to significant reforms and cooperation across existing pro-productivity institutions has remained limited (see Chapter 3). In the context of recent work on productivity concepts and measurement, the NESDC points out the persisting need to strengthen cooperation among the numerous Thai public institutions involved in productivity-related analysis and planning (NESDC, 2024[26]). Faced with structurally weak productivity growth for several decades and a sharp slowdown during the pandemic, Thailand should strengthen its network of pro-productivity institutions to provide deeper analytical insights into productivity determinants and offer suitable policy advice to revive its growth.
OECD countries have taken different approaches to setting up productivity expert bodies, which Thailand could consider to better connect its existing institutions. These approaches range from stand-alone commissions with inquiry and evaluation responsibilities, such as in Australia and Chile, to expert councils within the president’s or prime minister’s executive office, such as the US Council of Economic Advisors, to boards and councils that bring together experts and advisers from different government bodies and ministries as well as academics, such as in Belgium and Ireland (Box 1.7).
Following these examples, Thailand should introduce an expert body (referred to as ‘productivity council’ or simply ‘council’ in this report). The productivity council would connect experts from existing pro-productivity institutions to strengthen cooperation on data, the analysis of productivity trends and determinants and the formulation of policy advice for decision-making bodies. The productivity council could take the form of a new, dedicated sub-committee under the National Economic and Social Development Council. This setup would provide the flexibility to extend membership to the relevant pro-productivity institutions and to focus the mandate on expert analysis and advice. A productivity expert body would represent a novelty in Thailand’s institutional landscape complementing and enhancing the work of existing committees that have broader mandates and decision-making power, such as the National Competitiveness Development Committee, a currently inactive national-level steering board, and the Competitiveness Enhancement Sub-Committee, which makes recommendations to the cabinet and reviews and approves third-level administrative and ministerial plans.
Recommendation 1: Set up a council with experts and advisers from the existing pro-productivity institutions.
The council would be composed of senior advisers and experts from the analytical institutions that are currently conducting productivity analysis. This could include the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council, the Bank of Thailand, including the Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, the National Statistical Office, the Division of Labour Economics, the Office of National Higher Education Science Research and Innovation Policy Council, the National Research Council, the Office of Industrial Economics, the Thailand Productivity Institute and the Office of Agricultural Economics. The council would initially meet to set up a regular calendar of meetings, with the initial objective of taking stock of ongoing and planned analysis and research. Building on this stock taking, it could identify opportunities for joint work across the different institutions. The council could be chaired by one of the senior advisers from the member institutions on a rotating basis or, similarly to the Irish National Competitiveness and Productivity Council, by a lead academic that could help bridge policymaking and research (Box 1.7).
Belgian National Productivity Board
The Belgian National Productivity Board (NPB) (Conseil National de la Productivité/Nationale Raad voor de Productiviteit) was established as an advisory council in 2019. The NPB is tasked to conduct diagnoses and analyses of changes in productivity and competitiveness in Belgium, analyse political issues related to productivity and competitiveness and evaluate political options and measures. The Board is composed of twelve members, representing federal institutions (Federal Planning Bureau, National Bank, Central Economic Council) and the three regions (Brussels-Capital, Flanders and Wallonia). The National Productivity Board is headed by a “Bureau” which is composed of three members of the NPB including a chairman, nominated by the secretariat of the Central Economic Council, and two vice-chairmen, one nominated by the National Bank of Belgium and the other by the Federal Planning Bureau (Belgium National Productivity Board, 2024[27]; Cavassini et al., 2022[1]).
Irish National Competitiveness and Productivity Council
The National Competitiveness and Productivity Council (NCPC) was established by the Irish government in 1997 as an independent non-statutory body aimed at coordinating policymaking across departments and agencies. The NCPC reports to the Prime Minister and the government through the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Chair and members are appointed by the Minister, with the Chair being a renowned academic who bridges government affairs and academic expertise. In addition to the Chair, the Council comprises fourteen individuals, including experts from agencies concerned with competitiveness, foreign direct investment and innovation, as well as representatives from enterprises, employers, trade unions and international organisations. The Council also benefits from the input of advisors from twelve government departments facilitating the development of actionable and feasible policy recommendations (NCPC, 2024[28]).
Strengthening capacity for productivity analysis
There is strong technical expertise within Thailand’s pro-productivity institutions. However, this expertise is spread thin across many bodies. The preparation of analysis often relies on a few lead experts. When these experts leave the institution, relevant expertise is lost and entire workstreams die out. At the same time, cooperation and knowledge exchange between the different pro-productivity institutions is limited. Building some stable capacity to back up the work of pro-productivity institutions is an issue also for OECD countries. Whereas stand-alone bodies have budgets and permanent staff, productivity boards and councils tend to have fewer resources and often rely on existing government bodies and officials dedicating only some of their time to support the work of the productivity board and council. Thailand can build on its rich network of existing institutions, mutualise their expertise and resources, and expand collaboration with academic experts to enable the recommended council to produce analytically rigorous and policy-relevant productivity analysis sustainably.
Recommendation 2: Create a secretariat drawing on experts from the different pro-productivity institutions to support the productivity council’s programme of work and outputs.
The secretariat of the council could be housed in one of the pro-productivity institutions as in the case of the Irish NCPC (Box 1.8). Moreover, it could integrate permanently or periodically technical experts from other economic institutions as well as academics, as done by the United States Council of Economic Advisers (Box 1.8). The secretariat would be responsible for supporting the programme of work and realising the planned outputs of the council (see recommendation 3 below).
Irish National Competitiveness and Productivity Council
The NCPC relies on a small secretariat of seven staff members, located within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Department’s Enterprise Strategy, Competitiveness, and Evaluation Division provides the NCPC with analytical capacity and a research and analysis function, enabling the development of key outputs such as annual reports and thematic bulletins. The secretariat consists of four people in research and analysis functions (including its chair), two administrative staff and one person for secretarial support. Chaired by a Principal Officer, an experienced economist and senior civil servant, the secretariat has strong expertise and a comprehensive understanding of the policymaking process (NCPC, 2024[29]). This positions it to consult directly with the Department and other government institutions, ensuring its advice reaches decision-makers effectively.
United States’ Council of Economic Advisers
The US Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) is an analytical expert body that draws on the expertise of academics and a secretariat composed of staff from various expert institutions. Located within the Executive Office of the President, its role is to provide economic policy advice to the President. The remit of the CEA extends beyond productivity. Its mandate includes analysing economic developments, interpreting economic trends and providing policy recommendations that serve the broader interests of the American public. Its Annual Report often features an in-depth analysis of productivity trends and policy drivers affecting them (The White House, 2024[30]).
The Council is composed of three members, including a chair appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate, along with two other members also appointed by the President. Both the chair and the members are typically respected economists with strong academic credentials. The Council is supported by a secretariat, which includes a chief economist, a dozen senior economists, staff economists, statisticians and various support roles (CEA, 2024[31]). The secretariat comprises both full-time employees and experts affiliated with other institutions, such as the Federal Reserve System, the US Census Bureau, international financial institutions and universities.
Enhancing the relevance, scope and visibility of productivity analysis
Thai pro-productivity institutions currently produce several analyses and reports. However, since most work is carried out by individual institutions, resources for in-depth analysis are limited and only a few studies explore productivity dynamics at the firm level. These limitations are in part the consequence of difficulties in accessing and linking firm-level data as well as limitations of existing datasets (see recommendations related to data and analysis in Chapter 2). Fragmented responsibilities for productivity analysis also lead to "blind spots," such as the lack of recurring analysis of productivity trends in the service sector. Many reports are produced for internal use within ministries or even without a clearly defined recipient, reducing their visibility across the government. In some cases, reports receive little attention even within the institutions that produce them.
Thailand can build on the analytical foundation of existing work and strengthen future analyses by reinforcing cooperation across pro-productivity institutions. This cooperation should aim at a more in-depth analysis of productivity dynamics and potential determinants, systematic examination of key sectors to close gaps in the analysis scope and linking analytical insights to specific and tailored policy advice to strengthen productivity growth. Once the council has well-established working modalities and capacities, consolidating different workstreams in joint productivity reports, potentially on an annual basis, could help fast-forward efforts on data sharing and integration and focus actions on priority policies.
Recommendation 3: Develop a programme of work to steer the analytical agenda on productivity. Phase it in gradually to allow the council to develop working modalities and capacities.
The programme, to be developed by the secretariat of the council, would outline the requirements for the ongoing and future work of pro-productivity institutions and introduce ambitions for joint efforts at the council level in the short term and medium term. As successfully pursued by Ireland’s NCPC and Australia’s Productivity Commission (Box 1.9), planned work at the council level could follow high-frequency and in-depth research work cycles, producing tailored outputs for different objectives:
A high-frequency work cycle, focusing on short bulletins providing interpretations of productivity trends and data releases, concise ad-hoc analyses of productivity determinants for decision-makers and conceptual and methodological guidance to member institutions (e.g. on the proposed analytical framework). For example, one of these bulletins could build on the Capital Stock report prepared annually by the NESDC, interpret the data and draw key implications for productivity.
An in-depth research cycle, providing more profound insights into productivity developments, determinants and policy implications, taking the form of joint reports, potentially on an annual basis.
The programme of work could be implemented in two phases. Phase 1 refers to the short term and, given the important role of planning in Thai policymaking, could be aligned with the implementation period of the 13th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2023-2027). Phase 2 refers to the medium term and could begin with the preparation of the next planning cycle:
Phase 1: During this phase, the council could adopt an analytical framework to help plan and structure outputs, analysis and policy advice (more details in recommendation 4 on analysis at the macro level, recommendation 10 on analysis at the micro level and recommendation 12 on linking analytical insights to policies) and set up its high-frequency work cycle producing thematic bulletins. The first bulletin could take stock of the recurrent reports and recent ad-hoc studies of Thai pro-productivity institutions to draw policy implications and identify unanswered questions and missing analytical productivity insights (improvements to data, methodologies and analysis that could be driven by the council are described in Chapter 2, recommendations 4-11). Another bulletin could present the main features of the analytical framework to help inform the planned work of the pro-productivity institutions, similar to the Irish NCPC which introduced its new analytical framework via its productivity bulletin (Box 1.10). The release of these two bulletins should be coordinated and timed with the release of the recurrent reports of the NESDC and the OIE to facilitate the initial application of the council’s analytical framework. Another bulletin could formulate priority policy actions for boosting productivity, to be considered for the preparation of the 14th National Economic and Social Development Plan, coming into force in 2027/2028. The formulation of these priority policy actions could be informed by various relevant research and assessments (see recommendations 10 and 15).
Phase 2: The council could initiate its in-depth research cycle with a medium-term horizon, pursuing joint work on productivity, including through the production of annual reports. The substance and scope of the report could be developed by consulting the analytical framework and the expert judgement of council members on priority areas. The joint productivity reports could make more advanced use of productivity indicators, metrics and analytical methods (see recommendations in Chapter 2). The reports could also cover productivity dynamics in Thailand’s services sector and provide a more comprehensive overview across sectors and industries which cannot be currently produced by sector-focused pro-productivity institutions. Analysis of service sector productivity at the council level could build on and extend ongoing analytical work by member institutions (e.g. the PIER) and efforts to strengthen key datasets that include service sector firms, in particular the Corporate Profile and Financial Statement (CPFS) dataset and the Business Trade and Service Census (further discussed in Chapter 2). Pro-productivity institutions in some OECD countries have conducted dedicated work on the service sector to develop a better understanding of productivity dynamics and their determinants (Annex 1.A). At the same time, as part of the high-frequency work cycle, productivity bulletins could be published continuously to provide snapshot analyses on productivity-related topics. This could entail the examination of a particular productivity determinant, like the business environment, or interpretation of important data releases, building on the experience of the Irish NCPC or the Australian Productivity Commission (Box 1.9).
Australian Productivity Commission
The Australian Productivity Commission (APC) follows a programme of work that informs government decisions and provides advice encompassing all levels of government, economic sectors as well as social and environmental issues (APC, 2024[32]). In the area of productivity, the APC releases outputs through short-term and long-term work cycles. It regularly provides updates and commentary on productivity statistics and trends, publishing dedicated quarterly and annual productivity bulletins (APC, 2024[33]) (see Box 1.10 for more information on the bulletins). Additionally, the APC conducts thematic ad-hoc analyses investigating the sources and determinants of productivity trends, such as a study on service sector productivity (APC, 2021[34]) (see also Annex 1.A) and forthcoming work on productivity in the housing construction sector (APC, 2024[35]). Taking a more long-term character, the Commission has conducted two extensive five-year reviews of Australia’s productivity performance in response to government inquiries. It published the most recent report in 2023 and a previous one in 2017. The 2023 inquiry report includes a comprehensive, actionable roadmap for productivity-enhancing reforms, detailed across nine volumes (APC, 2023[36]).
Ireland’s National Competitiveness and Productivity Council
The programme of work of Ireland's NCPC is designed to showcase challenges to national competitiveness and ways to enhance it, with the ultimate objective of improving living standards and quality of life in Ireland. Competitiveness is considered to be strongly intertwined with the productivity of the economy, both of which are co-determined by a variety of drivers. To ensure these drivers are fully considered in the NCPC’s analysis and advice, it uses a holistic analytical framework model that guides the themes and focus of the institutions’ recurring outputs (see Box 3.3 for more details).
The NCPC’s flagship publication is the annual Ireland’s Competitiveness Challenge report, which focuses on a prioritised set of medium- and long-term competitiveness and productivity challenges facing the Irish economy. It is policy-oriented and formulates a limited set of recommendations, which are brought directly to the attention of policymakers in a formalised procedure (see Box 3.3 for more details on the NCPC’s consultation practices) (NCPC, 2024[37]). The Competitiveness Challenge 2024 report highlighted addressing the cost of doing business, managing demographic pressures and investment needs in critical infrastructure (NCPC, 2024[38]). At a higher frequency, the Council periodically publishes Competitiveness Bulletins, which address specific competitiveness issues (see Box 1.10 for more insights on the bulletins). To inform its assessment and diagnosis of the country’s competitiveness development, the Council uses a Competitiveness Scorecard, which compiles and interprets economic indicators across the different dimensions of the analytical framework and compares Ireland’s performance to that of international peer countries (NCPC, 2023[39]).
Ireland’s National Competitiveness and Productivity Council
The NCPC regularly publishes bulletins with an ad-hoc focus on specific competitiveness or productivity-related issues. The bulletins provide interpretation of sector and policy-related challenges, data or indicator releases or offer conceptual insights into the NCPC’s analytical work. Bulletins are published several times a year, depending on relevant occasions. They usually have a policy brief format, a concise length of less than ten pages and sometimes include high-level recommendations.
The scope of relevant subjects is guided by the NCPC’s Competitiveness and Productivity Framework (further described in Box 3.3). The application of the framework ensures that thematic analysis always connects to questions of competitiveness and productivity impacts. Notably, the new analytical framework itself was introduced and elaborated in a bulletin.
Three examples of recent Bulletins illustrate the scope of topics covered in this format:
Ireland’s performance in the IMD World Competitiveness Ranking 2024: This bulletin comments on Ireland’s performance relative to previous years and peer countries. It decomposes the country’s trend, examining its performance across various dimensions of the ranking, including economic performance, government and business efficiency and infrastructure (NCPC, 2024[40]).
Firm Dynamism and Productivity in Ireland: The bulletin focuses on a decline in business dynamism and obstacles to resource reallocation in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It analyses data on firm entry and exit and discusses trends in the context of macroeconomic and structural policies. The bulletin also reviews recent literature on potential contributing forces and concludes with policy implications aimed at strengthening the entry of viable firms (NCPC, 2021[41]).
New Competitiveness and Productivity Framework (analytical framework model): The bulletin introduces the NCPC’s new analytical framework (NCPC, 2024[42]) (see Box 3.3 on details of the framework).
Australian Productivity Commission
The APC publishes concise quarterly and annual productivity bulletins that describe and interpret productivity statistics released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
The quarterly bulletin analyses labour productivity developments at different levels of aggregation, covering the entire economy, market sector vs. non-market sector and various activities and industries within these categories. It relates productivity trends to other variables such as labour input and growth in gross value added and also comments on other labour market dynamics, including employment (APC, 2024[43]).
The annual bulletin offers a retrospective analysis of industry-level trends in labour productivity, as well as labour and capital inputs and multifactor productivity. It highlights the key industries driving aggregate developments, decomposes labour productivity to show the role of capital deepening and relates productivity developments to other policy-relevant variables, such as wage growth (APC, 2024[44]).
Although similar in length to the NCPC’s bulletins, the APC’s publications are descriptive and do not discuss policy implications. Their publication is accompanied by an appendix containing supporting data, explanations and definitions.
Service productivity research by the Australian Productivity Commission
The Australian Productivity Commission produces a publication series titled Productivity in the Service Sector, the first edition of which, Things You Can’t Drop on Your Feet: An Overview of Australia’s Services Sector Productivity, was released in 2021 (APC, 2021[34]). The report provides a comprehensive overview of the Australian service sector, trends in productivity growth, challenges in measuring productivity and policy implications.
Productivity is measured across sixteen service industries using two main indicators: multifactor productivity (MFP) and labour productivity. Labour productivity is calculated as total dollars of output divided by total labour input, measured as total hours worked and adjusted for labour quality using the educational achievement and experience of the workers. For estimating productivity as a residual of both labour and capital in the MFP calculation, capital input is estimated using the total quantity and price of capital used in providing the service (ABS, 2021[45]; ABS, 2023[46]).
The service sector analysis relies on data compiled from different sources across Australian public institutions, including the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the Australian System of National Accounts (ASNA), the Census of Population and Housing and the Labour Force Survey. The measurement approach follows the standard growth accounting framework recommended by the OECD (OECD, 2001[47]).
The report elaborates on the challenges of measuring productivity in the service sector, mentioning factors such as the intangible and heterogeneous nature of services (e.g. value created by free ICT services, which is not captured in productivity statistics), quality improvements in personal services (such as accounting, architecture and cleaning), and non-market services (such as healthcare and education), which often lack meaningful market prices due to their highly subsidised nature.
It tackles the estimation of productivity trends by disaggregating the sector into four industry groups: business, personal, distribution and utilities and construction services. This disaggregation reveals that distribution services have experienced significant productivity growth, surpassing that of the goods sector, whereas personal, business and utilities services have seen persistently low productivity growth due to high labour intensity and non-standardised output, limiting opportunities for automation and economies of scale.
Moreover, the report examines indicators for potential drivers of productivity growth in the service sector. It analyses time series on human capital development, measured as the skills and experience of the workforce, research and development (R&D), measured as the investment in labour-augmenting technology, remote deliverability, measured as the proportion of services that can deliver the end product remotely, and “offshorability”, measured as the ability to produce some components of the service remotely (i.e. what proportion of work in an industry can be outsourced). While not establishing causal inference, the report shows that deliverability and offshorability were positively correlated with MFP growth in the service industry over ten years, providing some indication of potential drivers and a starting point for more in-depth research.
Service productivity research by the Research Institute of the Finnish Economy
The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA), in cooperation with the Jönköping International Business School in Sweden and the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and funded by Business Finland, is conducting a three-year research project on digital and business environment transformation in the Finnish private service sector (ETLA, 2024[48]). The objective is to examine the impact of these developments on the productivity of service sector firms, labour and capital allocation, business model adaptation and outsourcing decisions. As of April 2025, three research outputs have been published:
1. The working paper “An Analysis of Digitalisation and Firm Performance in Finland's Private Service Industries” explores how digital maturity affects firm revenue, labour productivity and multifactor productivity (MFP), as well the firm characteristics determining digital maturity (Kuosmanen, Pajarinen and Heshmati, 2024[49]). The researchers construct a dataset of over 5,000 Finnish firms by merging financial statements, multiple vintages of the Finnish IT in Enterprise Surveys, and linked employer-employee data. Firm digital maturity is calculated using the Eurostat Digital Intensity index (Eurostat, 2025[50]). Descriptive statistics point to considerable variation in digital maturity across different service industries. Using annual OLS regressions and controlling for various firm characteristics, higher digital maturity is found to be positively correlated with revenue and productivity. The researchers further investigate the drivers of digital maturity using a similar OLS approach. Various firm characteristics, including labour productivity, size, foreign ownership, international business operations, proportion of R&D workers and certain industry affiliations (e.g. ICT), are identified as positive determinants of digital maturity.
2. The report “Service Offshoring, Productivity and Employment” (Maczulskij and Kässi, 2024[51]) examines how service offshoring influences productivity and employment in Finland's service sector. The authors construct a firm-level dataset by merging financial statements, foreign ownership data, service trade records and linked employer-employee information from 2002 to 2016. As dependent variables, they measure firm-level labour productivity and MFP, alongside indicators of workforce composition. To address the potential endogeneity of firm decisions on service imports, the analysis relies on an instrumental variable approach based on global service export demand shocks aiming to isolate the causal effect of service imports. The results indicate that offshoring services does not enhance firm-level productivity. However, greater reliance on imported services is positively associated with employment growth, including among immigrant workers. Offshoring is also found to shift the occupational structure by reducing managerial and mid-level expert positions while expanding more production-oriented roles.
3. The working paper “Service Industries, Capital Intensity, and Labour Productivity” examines labour productivity across five private knowledge-intensive service industries over the period 1995–2023 (Kaitila, 2025[52]). Using a growth accounting framework based on Eurostat national accounts data and panel regressions relying on the EUKLEMS & INTANProd database (Bontadini et al., 2023[53]), the study analyses how different forms of capital intensity (ICT, R&D, software and databases, and all others) relate to productivity levels and growth. The analysis draws cross-country comparisons, benchmarking Finland against several peer countries. The study finds a positive association between both capital intensity and labour productivity levels, and between capital deepening and productivity growth. The strength of these relationships and the role of different capital types varies by industry. Notably, ICT capital intensity became increasingly relevant after the Global Financial Crisis, while the opposite is true for the contributions of R&D capital intensity. Finland is found to have relatively low capital intensity, including in ICT and intangible assets, despite similar or higher labour skill levels, which could strengthen the absorptive capacity of firms.
References
[46] ABS (2023), Australian System of National Accounts, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/national-accounts/australian-system-national-accounts/latest-release.
[45] ABS (2021), Chapter 19 Productivity measures, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/detailed-methodology-information/concepts-sources-methods/australian-system-national-accounts-concepts-sources-and-methods/2020-21/chapter-19-productivity-measures.
[2] André, C. and P. Gal (2024), “Reviving productivity growth: A review of policies”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1822, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/61244acd-en.
[18] Apaitan, T. et al. (2020), Common Ownership, Domestic Competition, and Export: Evidence from Thailand, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, Bangkok, https://www.pier.or.th/files/dp/pier_dp_140.pdf.
[44] APC (2024), Annual productivity bulletin 2024, https://www.pc.gov.au/ongoing/productivity-insights/bulletins/bulletin-2024/productivity-bulletin-2024.pdf.
[32] APC (2024), Australian Government Productivity Commission: How we contribute, https://www.pc.gov.au/about/contribute#:~:text=We%20contribute%20by%20providing%20quality,by%20communicating%20ideas%20and%20analysis.
[35] APC (2024), Housing construction productivity, https://www.pc.gov.au/research/current/housing-construction.
[33] APC (2024), Productivity: current and recent work, https://www.pc.gov.au/about/our-work-streams/productivity.
[43] APC (2024), Quarterly productivity bulletin – June 2024, https://www.pc.gov.au/ongoing/productivity-insights/bulletins/quarterly-bulletin-june-2024.
[36] APC (2023), Productivity inquiry (2023), https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/productivity#report.
[34] APC (2021), Things you can’t drop on your feet: an overview of Australia’s services sector productivity, https://www.pc.gov.au/ongoing/productivity-insights/services.
[19] Attavanich, W. et al. (2019), Farms, Farmers and Farming: a Perspective through Data and Behavioral Insights, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, Bangkok, https://www.pier.or.th/dp/122/.
[16] Banternghansa, C., A. Paweenawat and K. Samphantharak (2019), Understanding Corporate Thailand I: Finance, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, Bangkok, https://www.pier.or.th/en/dp/112/.
[27] Belgium National Productivity Board (2024), The National Productivity Board, https://cnp-nrp.belgium.be/home.php?lang=en.
[53] Bontadini, F. et al. (2023), EUKLEMS & INTANProd: industry productivity accounts with intangibles, Luiss Lab of European Economics, Rome, https://euklems-intanprod-llee.luiss.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/EUKLEMS_INTANProd_D2.3.1.pdf.
[1] Cavassini, F. et al. (2022), “Pro-Productivity institutions at work: Country practices and new insights on their set-up and functioning”, OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 32, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f5a3a2df-en.
[31] CEA (2024), The Annual Report of the Council of Economic Advisers, The Council of Economic Advisers, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ERP-2024.pdf.
[24] Charoenporn, P. and S. Choksawatpaisan (2024), “Innovation and Productivity in the Service Sector: The Case of Thailand”, Thammasat Review of Economic and Social Policy, Vol. 9/1, https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/TRESP/issue/view/17911.
[23] Deloitte (2023), รายงาน Digital Transformation 2566 [Digital Transformation Report 2023].
[48] ETLA (2024), “Boosting Productivity in Services through Digitalisation”, https://www.etla.fi/en/research/boosting-productivity-in-services-through-digitalization/.
[50] Eurostat (2025), Glossary:Digital Intensity Index (DII), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Digial_Intensity_Index_(DII)&curid=120437&oldid=614292.
[52] Kaitila, V. (2025), Service Industries, Capital Intensity, and Labour Productivity, ETLA Economic Research, Finland, https://www.etla.fi/en/publications/working-papers-en/service-industries-capital-intensity-and-labour-productivity/.
[49] Kuosmanen, N., M. Pajarinen and A. Heshmati (2024), An Analysis of Digitalization and Firm Performance in Finland’s Private Service Industries, ETLA, http://pub.etla.fi/ETLA-Working-Papers-117.pdf.
[17] Limjaroenrat, V. (2016), Firm-level Perspective of Thailand’s Low Investment Puzzle, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, Bangkok, https://www.pier.or.th/en/dp/042/.
[51] Maczulskij, T. and O. Kässi (2024), Service Offshoring, Productivity and Employment, ETLA Economic Research, https://www.etla.fi/en/publications/reports/palveluiden-tuonnin-vaikutus-palveluyritysten-tuottavuuteen-ja-tyollisyyteen/.
[9] MOL (2023), ค่าค่จ้าจ้งและผลิตลิภาพแรงงานไทย: พัฒพันาอย่าย่งไรให้ส่ห้งส่เสริมริกันกัและกัน.[Wages and Productivity of Thai Labor: How to Develop for Mutual Benefit].
[8] MOL (2022), ผลิตภาพแรงงานไทย: ขับเคลื่อนอย่างไรในยุคโลกเปลี่ยน [Thai labour productivity: how to drive it in an era of global change?].
[7] MOL (2021), รายงานการศ ึ กษาวิจัยแนวทางการเพิ่มผลติ ภาพแรงงาน: เพื่อพัฒนาคุณภาพของผลิตภาพแรงงานไทย.[Research report on the approach to increase labor productivity: to develop the quality of Thai labor productivity].
[14] Muthitacharoen, A., A. Paweenawat and K. Samphantharak (2024), The Double-Edged Sword: Unintended Consequences of SME Promotion Policy, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, Bangkok, https://www.pier.or.th/dp/148/.
[15] Nakavachara, V. (2020), Digital Thailand: Analyzing the Impact of Broadband Connectivity on Firm Productivity, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, Bangkok, https://www.pier.or.th/en/dp/132/.
[28] NCPC (2024), About Us, https://www.competitiveness.ie/about-us/#:~:text=In%201997%2C%20the%20Government%20established,for%20Enterprise%2C%20Trade%20and%20Employment.
[38] NCPC (2024), Ireland’s Competitiveness Challenge 2024, https://www.competitiveness.ie/media/d2nhry3o/icc_2024_final_version.pdf.
[42] NCPC (2024), National Competitiveness and Productivity Council Bulletin 24-2 Ireland’s Competitiveness and Productivity Framework, https://www.competitiveness.ie/media/h2tfee50/20240326-ncpc-bulletin-competitiveness-framework_-final.pdf.
[40] NCPC (2024), National Competitiveness and Productivity Council Bulletin 24-4 IMD World Competitiveness Rankings, https://www.competitiveness.ie/media/wc5cpja0/ncpc-bulletin-24-4-imd-world-competitiveness-rankings-2024.pdf.
[37] NCPC (2024), Our Work, https://www.competitiveness.ie/about-us/our-work/.
[29] NCPC (2024), Secretariat, https://www.competitiveness.ie/about-us/secretariat/.
[39] NCPC (2023), Ireland’s Competitiveness Scorecard 2023, https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/publications/irelands-competitiveness-scorecard-2023.html#:~:text=Ireland's%20Competitiveness%20Scorecard%202023%20gathers,identifies%20potential%20areas%20of%20concern.
[41] NCPC (2021), National Competitiveness and Productivity Council Bulletin 21-5 Firm Dynamism and Productivity, https://www.competitiveness.ie/media/wdiftlct/ncpc-bulletin-2021-5-firm-dynamism-final-copy.pdf.
[26] NESDC (2024), Revisiting Thailand’s Productivity: Concepts and Measurement, NESDC, Bangkok, https://www.nesdc.go.th/download/document/Macroseminar/2024/Report-01.pdf.
[4] NESDC (2022), Capital Stock of Thailand, 2022 Edition, Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council, https://www.nesdc.go.th/nesdb_en/ewt_news.php?nid=4503&filename=index.
[25] NESDC (2020), National Reform Plan, Revised Edition.
[21] NXPO and NRCT (2022), รายงานการสำรวจค่าใช้จ่ายและบุคลากรทางการวิจัยและพัฒนาของประเทศไทย ประจำปี [Survey Report on Expenses and personnel research and development of Thailand].
[3] OAE (2022), การศึกษาผลิตภาพการผลิตโดยรวมในภาคเกษตร [A Study of Total Factor Productivity in the Agricultural Sector].
[6] OECD (2023), OECD Economic Surveys: Thailand 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4815cb4b-en.
[47] OECD (2001), Measuring Productivity - OECD Manual: Measurement of Aggregate and Industry-level Productivity Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264194519-en.
[5] OIE (2022), Productivity and Performance of Thai Industry Report 2022, Ministry of Industry, Office of Industrial Economics, Bangkok.
[20] OIE and FPRI (2022), การวิเคราะห์ดักรายได้ปานกลางและความเชื่อมโยงกับภาคอุตสาหกรรมไทย [An Analysis of the Middle-Income Trap and Its Linkages with the Thai Industrial Sector].
[11] Paweenawat, A., T. Chucherd and N. Amarase (2017), Uncovering Productivity Puzzles in Thailand: Lesson from Microdata, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, Bangkok, https://www.pier.or.th/en/dp/073/.
[13] Sangsubhan, K., K. Pornpattanapaisankul and P. Kambuya (2023), Automation and Productivity: Evidence from Thai Manufacturing Firms, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, Bangkok, https://www.pier.or.th/files/dp/pier_dp_199.pdf.
[12] Srithanpong, T. (2016), Firm Productivity in Thai Manufacturing Industries: Evidence from Firm-level Panel Data, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research, Bangkok, https://www.pier.or.th/en/dp/015/.
[30] The White House (2024), About the Council of Economic Advisers, https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/.
[22] WEF (2020), The Future of Jobs Report, World Economic Forum, https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020/.
[10] World Bank and Bank of Thailand (2020), Thailand Manufacturing Firm Productivity Report, World Bank, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.1596/34882.
← 1. There are other research institutions, both within and outside government, that conduct analyses on productivity-adjacent policy areas such as the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) and the Fiscal Policy Research Institute Foundation under the Ministry of Finance (FPRI). As their analysis is only indirectly related to productivity, their institutional functions and activities are not analysed.