one³
data.go.thแหล่งข้อมูล

Criticismข้อวิจารณ์

What the record says about OTOP.

Seven criticisms of the programme, each attributed, each answered by the register — or left unanswered, where the register cannot answer it.ข้อวิจารณ์โอทอปเจ็ดข้อ ระบุแหล่งที่มา และตอบด้วยข้อมูลทะเบียน — หรือบอกตรง ๆ ว่าตอบไม่ได้

Seven criticisms of the One Tambon One Product programme, each one attributed, and each one answered by the register — or not answered, where the register cannot answer it. The right-hand column is the only part of this page nobody else can write.

Sources: FAO OCOP platform · Natsuda Igusa & Wiboon 2012 · Boonma 2012 · Chulalongkorn 2020 · NIDA & NRCT 2019 · OIC criteria · APR 2024

№The criticismWho says itWhat this registry says
01The products are largely imitations of one another, and they oversupply the market.Natsuda Igusa & Wiboon (2012) · NIDA & National Research Council of Thailand (2019)This registry cannot measure oversupply, and the reason is the same gap the criticism names: 107,385 of 154,050 records (69.7%) carry no product category at all. Two thirds of the register cannot say what its own products are, so no join on this data can find the same product in two provinces. The criticism and the dataset are the same hole, seen from two ends.
02The 5★ grade is the state grading itself: a top-down selection, not an independent certification.Natsuda Igusa & Wiboon (2012) · Boonma (2012) · the rules themselves at Office of the Investment Promotion Board (the 5★ criteria itself)Correct, and the registry carries the state's grade and a separate third-party claim side by side. 17,235 records (11.2%) carry a certification from a standards body —9,552 of them valid, 7,559 expired,124 of unknown status. Two claims about quality, and 44% of the second one has lapsed. The registry cannot say which grade is deserved. It can say when a certificate expired.
03The star system rewards the producers who were already strong and starves the ones below them.Boonma (2012) · FAO · OCOP Regional Knowledge PlatformThe register can see the distance between the state's best-rated tier and the market. 7,089 of the 4–5★ records carry no contact channel of any kind — no phone, no email, no site. Only 117 carry all three buyer signals at once (0.1% of the register). The grading and the reachability are close to disjoint sets. Whether that is the scheme failing or the register failing is exactly the question the programme's own evaluation put, in 2003, and never settled.
04The programme fell short of lifting the grassroots economy, and the number of champions fell from 2004 to 2012.FAO · OCOP Regional Knowledge Platform · FAO · OCOP Regional Knowledge Platform · Chulalongkorn University (2020)The registry counts filings, not selections, and never contained a pass/fail mark — the portal publishes the submissions, and the committee's verdict stayed inside the committee. What the filings show is the shape: 590 filings in 2020, 4,183in 2024, and 2,993 in 2025. The filings grew roughly sevenfold. Whether the products that passed did so is not a question this dataset can answer — the count the FAO quotes is a count of awards, and an award is not a row.
05The revenue the programme generated did not reach the communities it was meant for.Chulalongkorn University (2020) · NIDA & National Research Council of Thailand (2019)Not testable here, and the reason is structural. A filing register has no revenue field, no turnover and no margin; it records that a producer exists and what they registered. The only revenue series on this site is a separate national dataset joined at the level of the province — which is far above the household the criticism is about. Joining them would produce a number that looks like an answer and is not one.
06Corruption is associated with the programme's founding years.Natsuda Igusa & Wiboon (2012)Nothing. The registry holds a registration number, a name, a product, a place and, sometimes, a telephone number. It holds no officer, no contract, no payment and no award. The scholars who write about this say plainly that they were not in a position to investigate it, and neither is this dataset. The one trace of the 2006 suspension anywhere in the programme's record is the date it happened. A register of filings is not a register of decisions, and it will not be turned into one by anyone who reads it carefully.
07Support was short-term, overlapping and dependent on the state; the training did not stick.Asia Pacific Management Review (2024) · Siam University / TCI-Thaijo (2023)Invisible here by construction. The registry has no field for training, funding, coaching or support of any kind, so every claim about what the state gave a producer — and every claim that it gave too little, or gave it inconsistently, or gave it to the strong — is invisible on this dataset by design. This is the one criticism on this list where the honest reading is that a filing register cannot help at all, and it is listed for that reason.

What this site will not claim สิ่งที่เว็บไซต์นี้จะไม่อ้าง

  • That OTOP works, or that it does not. The register is 154,050 filings and a filing is not an outcome.
  • That the 5★ grade means a product is good. It means a committee scored a submission on three axes, on a date, once.
  • That a producer is reachable because a phone number is written down. It means the number was written down.
  • That this is the whole of OTOP. It is what the national portal returns, merged and de-duplicated — and the portal is not the programme, the committee's awards are not in it, and the money is not in it.

Every number in the right-hand column is a row in the source data, and every number the criticism quotes is quoted with its source. Where the two disagree, the disagreement is left standing. Read the Method for how the merge works, the history for how the programme reached this point, and the data bank for the raw material.

The sources แหล่งอ้างอิง

  1. FAO · OCOP Regional Knowledge PlatformOne Tambon One Product (OTOP) to promote grassroots economy in Thailand
  2. FAO · OCOP Regional Knowledge PlatformThailand — the classification, the criteria, the 2019 star counts
  3. FAO · OCOP Regional Knowledge PlatformThailand: the grassroots economy reaps benefits from targeted support under OTOP
  4. Natsuda Igusa & Wiboon (2012)One Village One Product — rural development strategy in Asia: the case of OTOP in Thailand. Asian Journal of Rural Development
  5. Boonma (2012)OTOP and OVOP: An Analysis of Placing a Value on Development. Chulalongkorn East Asian Studies
  6. Chulalongkorn University (2020)Implications of the One Tambon One Product policy on … — a fair-trade comparison
  7. NIDA & National Research Council of Thailand (2019)A comparative study of the policy process between One Tambon One Product and One Village One Product
  8. Office of the Investment Promotion Board (the 5★ criteria itself)หลักเกณฑ์การจัดระดับสินค้าคัดสรรสุดยอดหนึ่งตำบลหนึ่งผลิตภัณฑ์ (OTOP Product Champion) — the official scoring rules
  9. Asia Pacific Management Review (2024)One Tambon One Product (OTOP) implementation by the Thai Government
  10. Siam University / TCI-Thaijo (2023)An Analysis of One Tambon One Product (OTOP) Project: Problems, Obstacles, Achievements

Built 2026-10-28 from data.go.th. The OTOP registration data belongs to the Department of Community Development; the reading of it is this site's.

Built 2026-10-28 from data.go.th · 154,050 producer records · 77 province shardsสร้างเมื่อ 2026-10-28 จาก data.go.th · 154,050 รายการ · 77 ไฟล์แยกรายจังหวัด What these numbers are →ตัวเลขเหล่านี้คืออะไร →