International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 12, Issue 7 (July 2025), Pages: 87-99

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Digital innovation pathways: Transforming local governance in Thailand

 Author(s): 

 Anurat Anantanatorn *

 Affiliation(s):

 Faculty of Political Science and Law, Burapha University, Saen Suk, Thailand

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3122-9189

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.07.008

 Abstract

This study evaluates how ten award-winning digital innovation projects were developed and successfully implemented in local government in Thailand. Using qualitative methods, data were collected from government reports, media sources, and interviews with administrators, officials, and experts. The analysis shows that these projects followed clear steps, such as identifying problems, setting goals, and carrying out plans in an organized way. The innovations were grouped into three types: management, service, and technical, each created to solve problems in public services and government operations. Key factors for success included strong leadership, active involvement of stakeholders, focus on users’ needs, and good support systems. The results highlight the value of careful planning and teamwork in creating effective innovations. This study offers practical guidance for improving local government practices and supports Thailand’s 20-year strategic plan under the Thailand 4.0 policy, which promotes digital transformation to achieve sustainable development goals.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Digital innovation, Local governance, Success factors, Public services, Thailand 4.0

 Article history

 Received 26 January 2025, Received in revised form 19 May 2025, Accepted 10 June 2025

 Acknowledgment

This research was supported by the Faculty of Political Science and Law, Burapha University, under Grant No. 007/2566. The author sincerely appreciates the financial assistance provided, which was instrumental in conducting this study. I would also like to express my gratitude to all participants, including administrators, officials, and experts, whose insights and contributions enriched the findings of this research. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

In conducting this research, several ethical considerations were prioritized to ensure the integrity of the study and the protection of participants involved. Informed consent was obtained from all key informants, ensuring they were fully aware of the study's purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits before participation. Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained by removing personal identifiers from all data collected and securely storing information to protect participants' privacy. The research design aimed to minimize harm by allowing participants to skip any uncomfortable questions. Ethical approval was sought from the BUU ethics committee to ensure adherence to established guidelines.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Anantanatorn A (2025). Digital innovation pathways: Transforming local governance in Thailand. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(7): 87-99

  Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure

 Tables

 No Table

----------------------------------------------   

 References (31)

  1. Agostino D, Arnaboldi M, and Lema MD (2021). New development: COVID-19 as an accelerator of digital transformation in public service delivery. Public Money and Management, 41(1): 69-72.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.1764206    [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Haddad S, Sharabati AA, Al Khasawneh M, Mazahreh SA, and Kawar YT (2023). Behavioral acceptance of electronic government in Jordan. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 19(1): 1-26.  https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEGR.321459    [Google Scholar]
  3. Asmawa, Hakim A, Hermawan, and Hayat A (2024). Transforming public policy in developing countries: A comprehensive review of digital implementation. Journal of ICT Standardization, 12(3): 337-364.  https://doi.org/10.13052/jicts2245-800X.1235    [Google Scholar]
  4. Belli A and Aydın A (2024). The role of local governments in the context of disaster communication and social media: The example of 06 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 11(2): 497-515.  https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.1445292    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boestam AB, Cangara H, Irwanti M, and Des Derivanti A (2023). Qualitative design in political communication research, surveys and public opinion. International Journal of Environmental, Sustainability, and Social Science, 4(5): 1369-1377.  https://doi.org/10.38142/ijesss.v4i5.805    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bondarenko S, Liganenko I, and Mykytenko V (2020). Transformation of public administration in digital conditions: World experience, prospects of Ukraine. Social Development and Security, 10(2): 76-89.  https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2020.10.2.9    [Google Scholar]
  7. Choi YJ and Kenney L (2024). A conceptual framework to explore considerations of the social implications in Internet of Things and smart city governance and policy: The case of Thailand. Policy and Internet, 16(2): 242-271.  https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.401    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fitriani, Lekatompessy RL, Tambajong H, Kontu F, Laode IC, Haris U, and Jeujanan W (2023). Digital leadership in managing public organization Indonesia. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 49(1): 383-388.  https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v49i1.9829    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ganotakis P and Love JH (2012). The innovation value chain of new knowledge-intensive firms: Evidence from the UK. Research Policy, 41(5): 925–940.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00938.x    [Google Scholar]
  10. Guest G, Namey EE, and Mitchell ML (2013). Collecting qualitative data: A field manual for applied research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506374680    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hao X, Wang X, Wu H, and Hao Y (2023). Path to sustainable development: Does digital economy matter in manufacturing green total factor productivity? Sustainable Development, 31(1): 360-378.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2397    [Google Scholar]
  12. Jantavongso S (2022). Toward global digital literate citizens: A case of Thailand's aging generation. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 88(2): e12207.  https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12207    [Google Scholar]
  13. Khin S and Ho TC (2019). Digital technology, digital capability and organizational performance: A mediating role of digital innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 11(2): 177-195.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-08-2018-0083    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kotina H, Stepura M, and Kondro P (2022). How does active digital transformation affect the efficiency of governance and the sustainability of public finance? The Ukrainian case. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 8(1): 75-82.  https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2022-8-1-75-82    [Google Scholar]
  15. Larionova K and Vecherov V (2024). The paradigmatic transformation of electronic democracy and electronic governance. Economic Scope, 195: 21–27.  https://doi.org/10.30838/EP.195.21-27    [Google Scholar]
  16. Magnusson J, Päivärinta T, and Koutsikouri D (2020). Digital ambidexterity in the public sector: Empirical evidence of a bias in balancing practices. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 15(1): 59-79.  https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-02-2020-0028    [Google Scholar]
  17. Maksimchuk О, Borisova N, Ereshchenko T, and Klyushin V (2021). Digital technologies in the tax sphere as a factor in the sustainability of economic activity. E3S Web of Conferences 274: 10002.  https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202127410002    [Google Scholar]
  18. Montel L (2023). 'Harnessing the power of the law': A qualitative analysis of the legal determinants of health in English urban planning and recommendations for fairer and healthier decision-making. BMC Public Health, 23: 310.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15166-0    [Google Scholar] PMid:36774508 PMCid:PMC9921044
  19. Morgan DL and Nica A (2020). Iterative thematic inquiry: A new method for analyzing qualitative data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19: 1-11.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920955118    [Google Scholar]
  20. Moskalenko B, Lyulyov O, Pimonenko T, and Kobushko I (2022). Institutions' effect on a Country's investment attractiveness within sustainable development. Virtual Economics, 5(4): 50-64.  https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2022.05.04(3)    [Google Scholar]
  21. Nchaga AM (2025). Integrating technology in public administration training. IDOSR Journal of Arts and Management, 10(1): 15–19.  https://doi.org/10.59298/IDOSRJAM/2025/101.151900    [Google Scholar]
  22. Noor I, Danar OR, and Wahyudi LE (2023). Local government collaborative innovation policy. Public Policy and Administration, 22(3): 332-343.  https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ppaa.22.3.33347    [Google Scholar]
  23. Novara C, Lavanco G, and Gomez-Jacinto L (2024). Reciprocity and prosocial behavior in democratic dynamic. Rivista Di Psicologia Clinica.  https://doi.org/10.3280/rpc1-2024oa18429    [Google Scholar]
  24. Pakhnenko O and Kuan Z (2023). Ethics of digital innovation in public administration. Business Ethics and Leadership, 7(1): 113-121.  https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.7(1).113-121.2023    [Google Scholar]
  25. Prachumrasee K, Ronghanam P, Thonmanee K, Phonsungnoen P, Mangma P, Setthasuravich P, and Lowatcharin G (2024). From traditional to digital: Transforming local administrative organization workflows in Thailand through social listening tools. Social Sciences, 13(12): 666.  https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13120666    [Google Scholar]
  26. Setyawan AA, Misidawati DN, Aryatama S, Jaya AANA, and Wiliana E (2024). Exploring innovative strategies for sustainable organizational growth. Global International Journal of Innovative Research, 2(5): 861-872.  https://doi.org/10.59613/global.v2i5.146    [Google Scholar]
  27. Siddiqui MR (2024). Empowering decision-making through big data analytics insights from exploratory, descriptive, sentiment, and predictive framework. Innovative Journal of Applied Science, 1(1): 12.  https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.173610531.14248185/v1    [Google Scholar]
  28. Thoppae C and Praneetpolgrang P (2021). An analysis of a blockchain-enabled e-government document interchange architecture (DIA) in Thailand. TEM Journal, 10(3): 1220-1227.  https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM103-28    [Google Scholar]
  29. Vărzaru AA (2022). Assessing digital transformation acceptance in public organizations’ marketing. Sustainability, 15(1): 265.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010265    [Google Scholar]
  30. Wongwuttiwat J, Lawanna T, and Tantontrakul T (2024). The state of digital technology and innovation development: The comparative position of Thailand in ASEAN. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 90(4): e12311.  https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12311    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wood L and Alsawy S (2018). Recovery in psychosis from a service user perspective: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of current qualitative evidence. Community Mental Health Journal, 54: 793-804.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-017-0185-9    [Google Scholar] PMid:29188393