Examining inequality through land ownership: top 1% holds 16% of land

In economics, land is considered one of the fundamental factors of capital that labourers use in production. Access to land directly affects livelihoods and wellbeing. Without it, workers face higher costs of living and production, such as renting farmland, which increases expenses.

Land ownership also reflects broader economic inequality in society. Recently, the NESDC organised a consultation meeting on its study of land ownership inequality and the government’s role in reducing it. 

The event gathered experts, academics, civil society groups and state agencies including the Department of Lands, Treasury Department, Office of the National Land Policy Board (ONLB), and Land Bank Administration Institute (LABAI).

Worawan Plikhamin, Deputy Secretary-General of the NESDC, opened the meeting, stressing that unequal land ownership is a structural problem that significantly affects the economy and society. It creates barriers to fair access to resources and hampers the country’s progress towards sustainable development.

The social data and indicator development division presented its findings, focusing on titled land, Nor Sor 3 Kor and Nor Sor 3 documents, held by both individuals and juristic persons. These titles account for roughly one-third of Thailand’s total land area.

Top 1% holds 16% of land in Thailand

The study found that inequality in titled land ownership is the highest, with a Gini coefficient of 0.7298, followed by Nor Sor 3 Kor and Nor Sor 3 documents—levels considered extremely unequal. For comparison, income inequality in 2023 was measured at 0.417, almost half as severe.

When measured by size, the top 10% of landowners (Decile 10) hold 710 times more land than the bottom 10% (Decile 1). In terms of land value, the top 10% hold 348 times more than the bottom 10%.

The wealthiest 1% alone controls 16.78% of titled land by area and 34.91% by value. Regionally, land inequality is highest in the Bangkok Metropolitan Region and the Eastern region for titled land, and in the Western and Central regions for Nor Sor 3 Kor and Nor Sor 3 documents respectively.

Corporate land ownership concentrated in Phuket, Samut Prakan and Chonburi

The study also found that juristic persons own more land, both in area and value, than individuals, especially in key economic hubs such as Phuket, Samut Prakan and Chonburi.

Key findings include:

• Cross-province investment – Bangkok residents own land in other provinces amounting to 5% of Thailand’s total land area. The most popular provinces for such investment are Pathum Thani, Nakhon Nayok and Samut Prakan.
   
• High concentration among the top 1% – Each person in the wealthiest 1% owns an average of 81 rai of titled land, worth about 35 million baht.
   
• Ownership patterns – The top 1% tend to buy land in provinces adjacent to their own, except in major cities or economic zones where they often purchase land as an investment asset.

Expanding access to land for low-income groups

Participants also proposed broadening future research to examine the social characteristics of landowners, including income levels, methods of acquisition, purpose of ownership and generational differences. 

They suggested linking findings to a “land tax map” to provide a clearer picture of how land, buildings and property are utilised across different areas. The scope of study could also be extended to cover people without land and other categories of land, including state-owned plots.

The study further offered policy recommendations to improve land access for low-income groups, stressing that government measures must be tailored to local contexts, as the needs of rural and urban communities differ.

One proposal called for greater flexibility in private land use, with the land and building tax employed as an incentive. Under this approach, private landowners could allocate parts of their land for use by low-income groups in exchange for tax reductions.

Another recommendation promoted vertical land use in urban centres. For instance, owners of high-rise buildings could be encouraged to set aside part of their premises for affordable food courts or community spaces, again supported by tax incentives.

The study also advised expanding access to state land by introducing clear eligibility criteria and usage conditions. This would relax existing restrictions and allow low-income groups to make use of government land not required for official purposes.

In addition, it recommended supporting collective management models, such as cooperatives or community-led arrangements, to ensure more equitable and sustainable utilisation of state land.