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.
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.
This challenge is not simply academic; it is deeply institutional. Technocrats who enter the public sector often find themselves conforming to a culture that prioritises hierarchy over innovation and career advancement over public services. The best and brightest may rise, but they often become administrators rather than reformers. Rather than fostering visionary leadership, the bureaucracy becomes a silo of professional self-interest.
The consequences are most visible in rural and marginalised communities. Schools remain underfunded, teachers underprepared, and children underrepresented.
As the privileged exit, sending their children to elite urban schools, rural areas lose not only human capital, but also their political and intellectual voice. Exit thus breeds more exit, reinforcing the cycles of underdevelopment.
Thailand's middle-income trap is not merely an economic failure; it reflects a deeper institutional moral malaise. The country suffers from a deficit of civic purpose. Leadership is often reduced to maintaining systems rather than reimagining them. Intelligence is abundant, but it is not grounded in a commitment to the public good.
To break this cycle, Thailand must cultivate a new generation of socially committed leaders. The social sciences must be reclaimed not as secondary disciplines, but as essential to national renewal. We need scholars and practitioners who understand complexity, listen to communities, and can translate social needs into policy action. Institutions must be rebuilt to reward return, service, and purposeful leadership.
Globally, the universities that produce Nobel Laureates do so not merely through scientific excellence, but by cultivating a culture in which knowledge serves society and science addresses human dilemmas. Thailand's universities must embrace this ethic if they are to foster innovation grounded in justice and inclusion.
Policy reforms can help reverse the tide of exit and reawaken civic engagement. First, the value of academic disciplines must be rebalanced. Universities should foster interdisciplinary learning by bringing together students from science and technology with those from ethics, governance, and public policy. Likewise, social science students should. Be trained not only to analyse systems but to lead them.
Second, the civil services recruitment and promotion system must be restructured to reward innovation, accountability, and citizen engagement. Currently, career advancement often hinges on seniority and conformity rather than on initiative or impact. A bureaucracy that values experimentation, community services, and collaborative policymaking will be more effective and more worthy of public trust.
Third, incentives are needed to encourage professionals to return to their communities. Rural fellowships, public service scholarships, or community-based leadership programmes can draw educated youth back to where they are needed most. Schools in rural areas should be seen not as escape routes, but as incubators of civic leadership.
Fourth, the national development narrative must evolve. Infrastructure development projects -- whether digital highways or high-speed rail are vital. But true development depends on building inclusive institutions that reflect and respond to the country's diversity. Public service should be seen not as a burden, but as a noble pursuit, central to shaping a fairer society.
Ultimately, national development is a civic and ethical journey. If the brightest continue to exit, and the voiceless are left behind and remain unheard, Thailand risks not only economic stagnation but also democratic erosion.
This transformation begins when leadership is no longer defined by titles or privilege, but by a commitment to serving others. It deepens when the social sciences are no longer marginalised, but recognised as essential tools for justice and social cohesion. And it flourishes when the nation's most talented citizens are inspired not to leave, but to lead.
Peerasit Kamnuansilpa is the Founder and Former Dean of the College of Local Administration, Khon Kaen University.