Thailand Study Finds Top One Percent Own Sixteen Percent of Titled Land
NESDC consultation reveals sharp disparities in land ownership across regions and ownership types
A consultation convened by Thailand’s National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) brought together experts, civil society groups and government agencies—including the Department of Lands and Land Bank Administration Institute—to present findings on land ownership inequality.
The study covered titled land and Nor Sor 3 Kor and Nor Sor 3 documents, which collectively account for around one-third of Thailand’s total land area.
It found extremely high inequality: the Gini coefficient for titled land was 0.7298—far higher than the income Gini of 0.417 reported in 2023.
The top ten percent of landowners possess seven hundred ten times more land by area, and three hundred forty-eight times more by value, than the bottom ten percent.
Meanwhile, the top one percent control approximately sixteen point seven eight percent of titled land by area and thirty-four point nine one percent by value.
Regional patterns vary: titled-land inequality is highest in the Bangkok Metropolitan and Eastern regions, while disparities in Nor Sor 3 Kor and Nor Sor 3 documents are most acute in the Western and Central regions.
Juristic persons—corporations—own more land by both area and value than individuals, especially in economic hubs such as Phuket, Samut Prakan and Chonburi.
Bangkok residents own land in other provinces equivalent to five percent of Thailand’s total land area, with Pathum Thani, Nakhon Nayok and Samut Prakan being common investment destinations.
On average, each individual in the top one percent owns eighty-one rai of titled land, valued at around thirty-five million baht.
Ownership tends to cluster near home provinces, while in major urban or economic zones land is more frequently acquired for investment purposes.
Participants at the session recommended expanding research to include social characteristics of landowners—such as income, acquisition method and generational traits—and mapping land use through a land-tax map.
The scope could also broaden to consider people without land and categories such as state-owned land.
Proposals included offering tax incentives to private owners who allocate land for low-income use, promoting vertical land use in urban buildings through shared community spaces, easing access to state-owned land with transparent eligibility and usage conditions, and supporting collective management models like cooperatives for equitable utilisation.
The study covered titled land and Nor Sor 3 Kor and Nor Sor 3 documents, which collectively account for around one-third of Thailand’s total land area.
It found extremely high inequality: the Gini coefficient for titled land was 0.7298—far higher than the income Gini of 0.417 reported in 2023.
The top ten percent of landowners possess seven hundred ten times more land by area, and three hundred forty-eight times more by value, than the bottom ten percent.
Meanwhile, the top one percent control approximately sixteen point seven eight percent of titled land by area and thirty-four point nine one percent by value.
Regional patterns vary: titled-land inequality is highest in the Bangkok Metropolitan and Eastern regions, while disparities in Nor Sor 3 Kor and Nor Sor 3 documents are most acute in the Western and Central regions.
Juristic persons—corporations—own more land by both area and value than individuals, especially in economic hubs such as Phuket, Samut Prakan and Chonburi.
Bangkok residents own land in other provinces equivalent to five percent of Thailand’s total land area, with Pathum Thani, Nakhon Nayok and Samut Prakan being common investment destinations.
On average, each individual in the top one percent owns eighty-one rai of titled land, valued at around thirty-five million baht.
Ownership tends to cluster near home provinces, while in major urban or economic zones land is more frequently acquired for investment purposes.
Participants at the session recommended expanding research to include social characteristics of landowners—such as income, acquisition method and generational traits—and mapping land use through a land-tax map.
The scope could also broaden to consider people without land and categories such as state-owned land.
Proposals included offering tax incentives to private owners who allocate land for low-income use, promoting vertical land use in urban buildings through shared community spaces, easing access to state-owned land with transparent eligibility and usage conditions, and supporting collective management models like cooperatives for equitable utilisation.