Why Thailand is Growing Old
Before Getting Rich
A bitter lesson in self-reliance and decentralization, for Indonesia.
There is a phrase that has recently begun dominating economic reports on Thailand: the country is said to be “growing old before getting rich.” This is no mere figure of speech, nor is it clickbait. It is a sobering diagnosis from economists tracking a nation that was once the poster child of Southeast Asian growth, but now finds itself stuck halfway — no longer poor, yet unable to cross into high-income prosperity.
For the National Self-Reliance Movement (Gerakan Mandiri Bangsa), Thailand’s trajectory is far more than just a piece of foreign news. It is a mirror. It stands as a stark warning of what happens when a nation builds solely from the center, relies heavily on external forces, and forgets to anchor deep roots of self-reliance across its own regions.
An Economy Running Out of Breath
In 2026, Thailand’s economy is projected to grow by just 1.5 to 2 percent — its sluggish performance making it the weakest growth level in nearly three decades, excluding periods of outright global crisis. Contrast this with Indonesia, which maintains a growth rate above 5 percent over the same period. Ironically, following the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Thailand led the region through robust export-led industrialization.
Making matters worse, Thailand’s household debt currently hovers between 87 and 90 percent of its GDP — ranking among the highest in Asia. This is not productive debt used to fund businesses or acquire appreciation assets; instead, a vast portion goes toward covering basic daily living expenses and credit card balances.
When a nation borrows merely to survive rather than to expand, it serves as a clear signal that its economic self-reliance is fracturing at the grassroots level.
Compounding these financial strain lines, Thailand faces a daunting demographic crisis: its fertility rate has dropped to 1.08 births per woman — among the lowest globally. Citizens aged 60 and over are projected to make up 28 percent of the total population by 2033, if not sooner. This is precisely what economists term the double trap: a middle-income trap locked in tandem with a population aging rapidly before wealth can accumulate.
The Root Cause: A Fragile Centralization
Yet, these data points are merely symptoms. The root malady runs much deeper, and it is exactly where our most vital lessons lie.
-
Over-dependence on external forces
Thailand’s growth model rested for too long on foreign direct investment, imported technology, and tourism. When global supply chains shifted and investors pivoted to cheaper labor markets, Thailand lacked a domestic foundation strong enough to cushion the blow.
-
Excessively centralized power
Political instability centered in Bangkok continuously derails policy continuity — marked by three prime minister changes since 2023. Power that is overly concentrated and detached from the grassroots remains vulnerable to elite-level volatility, while provincial citizens suffer the consequences first.
-
Loss of technological ownership
A nation operating purely as an assembler of foreign technology remains perpetually exposed to abandonment the moment a cheaper alternative appears. Without native research and innovation capacities, a country does not truly command its economic destiny.
Single point, single risk
Distributed nodes, mutual support
Lessons for Indonesia: Returning to the Roots
This is precisely where Thailand’s story aligns with our core convictions at the National Self-Reliance Movement: Indonesia is far too massive and diverse to rely on a single center of decision-making, a uniform growth model, or an external engine of power. Developing nations that successfully broke through similar barriers, such as South Korea, did so through heavy investments in human capital and innovation capabilities nurtured from the bottom up — not by waiting for instructions from the top.
Local Autonomy
Regions reduced to mere extensions of central directives, stripped of the freedom to innovate and manage their distinct potential, will always fracture during a crisis — much like Thailand’s industrial sector buckled when foreign capital fled. Resilient economic strength stems from thousands of empowered local initiatives.
Decentralization of Power
When governance and decision-making accumulate heavily at the center, a single political shock can paralyze an entire nation’s policy direction — as witnessed in Bangkok. Distributed power grants a country the flexibility to weather unexpected storms.
Choosing a Different Path
Thailand is by no means a failed state. It simply stands as an example of what happens when a nation delays answering its most fundamental question: are we building true self-reliance, or are we merely catching a temporary ride on someone else’s growth?
Indonesia still has the time to choose a different path. This is accomplished not by standardizing the entire archipelago from Jakarta, but by creating space for each region to grow on its own terms — backed by policies that distribute power rather than hoard it. As we have always believed: Indonesia cannot be built alone from a single center. It can only find real strength if built collectively, from the ground up, by communities and regions that are genuinely self-reliant.
