Digital Economy Policy and SME Transformation in Thailand: A Critical Analysis of Thailand 4.0 Implementation
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper rigorously analyzes the execution of Thailand's digital economy policy inside the Thailand 4.0 framework and its ramifications for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Thailand 4.0 seeks to shift the economy towards innovation-driven growth via the enhancement of digital infrastructure and technical advancement; yet, small and medium-sized enterprises, which constitute the bulk of firms, persistently encounter substantial structural limitations. These problems elicit apprehensions about the efficacy and inclusivity of policy execution. The study utilizes a qualitative documentary examination of policy documents, governmental reports, and scholarly literature released from 2015 to 2025. The paper examines policy objectives, implementation mechanisms, and structural factors influencing SME transformation, informed by digital transformation theory and a critical political economy viewpoint. The results indicate a continual disparity between policy objectives and real-world results. Despite the expansion of digital infrastructure and support initiatives, SMEs—especially micro and rural enterprises—face restricted access to financing, inadequate digital competencies, and heightened reliance on predominant digital platforms. These institutional barriers exacerbate disparities in digital adoption and perpetuate existing inequities among enterprises of varying sizes and geographies. Moreover, the emergence of platform-based markets creates power imbalances that limit the autonomy and value acquisition of SMEs. The study suggests that Thailand's digital transformation has predominantly led to incremental rather than revolutionary changes among SMEs. In the absence of focused policy interventions, enhanced institutional coordination, and robust regulatory frameworks to tackle platform dominance and resource imbalances, digital economy policies may intensify rather than alleviate economic inequality. The document emphasizes the necessity for inclusive, capability-driven, and governance-centered solutions to guarantee equitable SME advancement in the digital age.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Andrews, D., Criscuolo, C., & Gal, P. N. (2016). The global productivity slowdown, technology divergence, and public policy (OECD Productivity Working Papers No. 5). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlwqm2fh7kj-en
Beck, T., & Demirgüç-Kunt, A. (2006). Small and medium-sized enterprises: Access to finance as a growth constraint. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(11), 2931–2943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.05.009
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. https://doi.org/10. 2307/2393553
Cunningham, P., Gök, A., & Laredo, P. (2013). The impact of direct support to R&D and innovation in firms. Research Evaluation, 22(4), 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1093/ reseval/rvt017
Cutolo, D., & Kenney, M. (2021). Platform-dependent entrepreneurs: Power asymmetries, risks, and strategies in the platform economy. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(4), 584–605. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2019.0013
Fagerberg, J. (2018). Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy. Research Policy, 47(9), 1568–1576. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.respol.2018.08.012
Fagerberg, J., & Srholec, M. (2008). National innovation systems, capabilities, and economic development. Research Policy, 37(9), 1417–1435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol. 2008.06.003
Hendri, M. I. (2025). Performance management in SMEs: Integrating bibliometric insights and systematic review on antecedents and outcomes. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 102205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102205.
Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2002). Implementing public policy: Governance in theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Intarakumnerd, P., & Ketkaew, C. (2019). National innovation system in Thailand: The evolution and challenges. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 27(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2019.1610950
Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., & Helbig, J. (2013). Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative Industrie 4.0. German National Academy of Science and Engineering.
Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2016). The rise of the platform economy. Issues in Science and Technology, 32(3), 61–69.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
Müller, J. M., Buliga, O., & Voigt, K.-I. (2018). Fortune favors the prepared: How SMEs approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132, 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.019
Murthy, K.V. B., Kalsie, A., & Shankar, R. (2021). Digital economy in a global perspective: Is there a digital divide? Transnational Corporations Review, 13(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19186444.2020.1871257.
Noer, M. Y., Chan, A., Tresna, P. W., & Purbasari, R. (2025). Digital marketing and sustainable innovation in SMEs through bibliometric and systematic review. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), 2548953. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2548953
OECD. (2022). Digital economy outlook for Southeast Asia. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/7c75cbd8-en
Office of Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion. (2023). SME statistics report 2023. OSMEP.
Papadopoulos, T., Baltas, K. N., & Balta, M. E. (2020). The use of digital technologies by small and medium enterprises during COVID-19: Implications for theory and practice. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102192. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijinfomgt.2020.102192
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. University of California Press.
Schinkel, M. P., & Treuren, L. (2024). Corporate social responsibility by joint agreement. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 123, 102897. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jeem.2023.102897.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2019.09.022
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jsis.2019.01.003
Wade, R. H. (2018). The developmental state: Dead or alive? Development and Change, 49(2), 518–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12370
Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.001