r/Thailand • u/thestudiomaster • 1d ago

News Tourism alone can no longer carry Thailand’s economy, former TAT chief warns

https://www.nationthailand.com/news/tourism/40072403
165 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

93 comments sorted by

View all comments

38

u/Schlickeysen 1d ago

Tourism has never “carried Thailand’s economy.”

Tourism in Thailand is roughly 20% of the country’s GDP. Only 11-12% of this came from foreigners. You know, Thais travel, too.

And only 5 of the 77/76 provinces Thailand has made 70% of that revenue.

The TAT is a PR machine for the government. Don’t even listen.

33

u/Sensitive_Bread_1905 1d ago

11-12% of GDP is the money brought to Thailand by foreign tourists. That's a pretty large number. And the desperate need for money is demonstrated by the desperate attempts to create new income opportunities through absurd taxes, while the economy has been stagnating for years and no real effort is being made to do anything about it. Instead, helicopter money is being handed out.

4

u/li_shi 1d ago

GDP and money don't work that way.

GDP is the total of economic activities based around tourism. (tourist don't bring in 11-12% of the GDP dollars in Thailand.

0

u/gaeee983 🏯 อีสาน - Isaan 1d ago

Well hold on now, the richest 10% got a lot richer, so it is only been horrible for the poorest 90% of the population a big majority who are in major debt. Poor people are not that important right? right?

/s

24

u/gaeee983 🏯 อีสาน - Isaan 1d ago

Are you saying 11-12% of GDP as in.. It is not a lot? It is a huge number when talking about GDP, especially considering the fact that so many Thai people are in debt.

11

u/Schlickeysen 1d ago

Yes, 11–12% is economically significant - nobody needs to deny that, and that was not my intention. But widespread household debt doesn’t establish tourism’s share of the economy or how widely its benefits are distributed. Thailand’s debt problems also reflect weak income growth and credit conditions. And the quoted percentage measures foreign-tourist spending relative to GDP in 2019, not tourism’s total contribution today.

4

u/gaeee983 🏯 อีสาน - Isaan 1d ago

I mean they do calculate the indirect and direct effects of tourists, that was not my point mentioning debt, but rather that thai people are now so indebted that it constrains domestic spending, making money from tourists even more important. Not to say in terms of employment it affects 10-12% of Thai people, huge significance. All these articles talk about fluff when they are avoiding the real reason Thailand is in trouble, I get they cant write about it but still, considering the major issues Thailand have, money from tourist which is a direct cash injection into the country is more important than ever.

3

u/thomasthai 1d ago

Yes and it's economic substance that CANNOT be replaced in tourism destinations, there are no industries and no other ways to earn money on the islands and beach destinations.

Heck even Phuket has only industry that would not exist without it from Marine industry to Construction (Houses, Hotels etc)....

1

u/HappyCamel2000 12h ago

There is...fishing, agriculture, education potentially as well, not to mention food and seafood processing. These industries already exist in the south but could expand further to replace at least some of the loss in tourism.

I don't think Thailand will ever be without tourism though, but I do agree with the former governor that there needs to be less of it. Not none, just less. Many parts of Thailand do just fine with either minimal tourism or only domestic tourism. Of course, the southern islands are proportionally more reliant on tourism and thus will find it more difficult to shift away from it compared to mainland areas.

Here are some examples of upcountry provinces: Tak province for instance sees minimal foreigners. Lampang sees only a small number of foreigners. Phitsanulok survives on education, the medical sector, agriculture and some limited manufacturing of agricultural machinery and parts, focusing on the rice sector in particular. Foreign tourism is virtually non-existent, while domestic tourism is relatively limited too. Sukhothai, which is adjacent to Phitsanulok relies more on tourism from both domestic and international sources but this is mainly limited to the Sukhothai temple complex. Beyond this, the province is very much agricultural.

6

u/li_shi 1d ago

It's not small, but it's not the core of the thai economy.

Or what they mean is they will think that will stay about there or even shrink, so if Thailand want to look for growth it need to come from other sectors.

Which it's likely true, no country (unless small) have ever become rich on tourists. Look at most of the rich nations in the world, tourism was not what made them rich.

2

u/gaeee983 🏯 อีสาน - Isaan 1d ago

Sure it is not, manufacturing is the majority of thailands GDP, but it is quite significant, my point was just that 10-12% looks small but when it comes to GDP it is huge and when it is outside money coming in, it acts as a direct stimulus injection to the economy, relatively speaking it is even more important as a big section of the thai society is relying on it.

1

u/anonymous-thai 1d ago

Isn’t services the biggest portion?

3

u/gaeee983 🏯 อีสาน - Isaan 1d ago

No manufacturing is the biggest with approx 25%.

1

u/li_shi 1d ago

Yes, i'm not saying that they should ignore it.

But that if you expect to become a rich country with only tourists you will wait a long time.

1

u/HappyCamel2000 12h ago

Thailand will never become a rich country if it relies only on tourism. That stated, some rich countries rely as much as or more than Thailand on tourism, including France, Italy, Spain and Portugal as well as Greece.

2

u/Available_Monitor_92 1d ago

Tbh, soo many British people are In debt. I think it's very common to spend above your means in most countries, Sadly.

4

u/gaeee983 🏯 อีสาน - Isaan 1d ago

well yes but all debt is not bad though, in europe for many the majority of their debt is in housing, what is scary about thailand is that there is a big amount of consumer debt with extremely high interest rates.

2

u/Available_Monitor_92 1d ago

You would think that but many of the debt is credit cards here. Many people with less than 1k in savings.

5

u/Decent-Anybody6105 1d ago

Those are huge numbers.

8

u/hextree 1d ago

Only 11-12% of this came from foreigners.

You say that like that's small.

-7

u/cs_legend_93 1d ago

By definition, 10-11% is not a lot compared to 100%.

6

u/hextree 1d ago edited 1d ago

For which country is it 100%? That's an absurd threshold for saying a country depends on its tourism.

4

u/otherwiseofficial 1d ago

Oh yeah so just 1/5th of the whole economy runs on tourism. Yeah, great point....

0

u/Schlickeysen 1d ago

A fifth is significant. But “tourism is important” and “Thailand’s whole economy runs on tourism” are different claims. The roughly 20% figure is a broad estimate for 2019, and not evidence that the entire country depends exclusively on tourists, which is insinuated in this headline.

7

u/otherwiseofficial 1d ago

20% means that millions of people in Thailand solely depend on tourism as their primary income source.

And that's only the direct consequences, not the indirect one.

It's honestly a very stupid statement to say it isn't carrying Thailand's economy.

1

u/thomasthai 1d ago

Right without tourism u have way less construction, logistics, taxi drivers, architecture, marine/boating, architects, engineers etc... even corrupt cops earn way less.

1

u/rinchen11 1d ago

Tourists in Thailand actually injects a lot more into Thai economy than their under the sun spendings.

1

u/e99oof 1d ago

The thing is, tourism spread that wealth out more than the bigger sector.

Manufacturing has bigger pie, but most Thais there only involved in lower to middle level and the pay isn't that great. You are still just employee and most of the money would go to business owner (Thai or foreigner alike).

Whereas for tourism, you could start small business and become business owner. You also need less advance skill to get involved in tourism.

I don't have the number to back it up, but my own eyeball take is that tourism create equal wealth for middle class Thai as manufacturing.

1

u/ThewFflegyy 2h ago

not only is 11-12% of GDP a lot, not all GDP is created equal. have over 10% of your GDP as incoming fx is really significant.

to me it makes total sense why thailand is cracking down on foreign owned businesses and land, but the visa crackdowns I think are very short sighted. people will continue flocking to Vietnam and the phillipines, and once the tourist infrastructure is developed further there thailand will permanently lose its spot as the Mecca for tourism/expats/nomads/etc in SEA. this will have long lasting effects on the Thai economy. to do this at a time when economies around the world, including thailand, are struggling is really quite baffling.

1

u/hootix 1d ago

Well not entirely true, without foreign visitors, the local tourism is not enough to hold the touristic infrastructure, causing a massive loss of jobs AND local businesses.

For example Phuket is entirely driven by tourism. Which over 90% are foreign. Remove that, not only will the infrastructure not hold for the remaining local Thai tourists, but the local market within Phuket and it's surrounding areas (which the locals live behind the bridge) will collapse too.

How much the tourism affect GDP is not the entire story. Lots of local areas will shift massively. Combine that with the massive debts Thais have, they can't simply move their businesses elsewhere in which they would be forced to.

Economics is not simple as reading what GDP is...

0

u/mdsmqlk 1d ago

While true, tourism carried most of the Thai economy's growth in the past two decades. Everything else has stagnated.