Rethinking leadership in Thailand

Thailand stands at a development crossroads. On the surface, the nation has invested heavily in education, innovation, and technical training. Each year, it produces a new wave of high-achieving graduates, particularly in the fields of science and technology. Yet, the country remained mired in a persistent middle-income trap. The question is not whether Thailand has talent, but whether it has the institutional culture and civic direction to channel that talent into meaningful national progress.

- Peerasit Kamnuansilpa

The insights of the late Albert O Hirschman, whose work spanned economics, political science, and development, offer a valuable lens. In his seminal book, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, Hirschman argued that when people become disillusioned with institutions, they typically respond in one of two ways: they “exit” by withdrawing, or they exercise “voice” by trying to improve the situation from within. In Thailand, the nation’s brightest minds too often choose “exit”. Some leave their rural communities for education and never return. Others join the public sector only to become disillusioned and disengaged. Even professionals trained in medicine, agriculture, or engineering rarely reinvest those skills in the communities that need them most. Talent circulates, but it does not root.

This exit is embedded in the very structure of Thailand's education system. University entrance exams are designed to funnel top-performing students into Stem disciplines under the assumption that science and technology are engines of development. Meanwhile, the social sciences — public administration, economics, and political science — are often viewed as secondary or “soft”. The irony is profound: graduates of Stem usually end up working under bureaucracies governed by social science graduates who have been trained to follow orders rather than lead with purpose.