The Politics of Agenda Setting for PM 2.5 and Haze Pollution Policy of Thailand from 2019 to 2024

Abstract

This research article examines (1) the political and social context regarding the PM 2.5 problems from 2019 to 2024; studies (2) the political mobilization of the agenda setting for the PM 2.5 and haze pollution policy of Thailand from 2019 to 2024; and investigates (3) the interactions between the political players in the agenda setting for the PM 2.5 and haze pollution policy of Thailand from 2019 to 2024. The qualitative research approach was employed. Data were collected using the techniques of documentary research and in-depth interview. Data analysis was conducted using the techniques of content analysis and thematic analysis. Findings are as follows: (1) From 2019 to 2024, the PM 2.5 problems intensified due to open burning, transportation, and the industrial sector. The government did not have integrated management and international cooperation did not progress. The civil society, professionals, and the public sector mutually mobilized a Draft Clean Air Act. However, they faced obstacles from the political structure of centralization and the opposition of capital groups. Thailand therefore cannot issue the Clean Air Act. This Draft is in the consideration of the Parliament. Clean air politics reflects social awareness and the expectation to have a sustainable and fair reform of a policy system. (2) After the 2023 election, the policy competition between the Pheu Thai Party and the Move Forward Party pushed the PM 2.5 problems to become the government’s agenda. The Draft Clean Air Act was presented as a tool for both policy and politics. The agenda setting was a result of the pressure from various directions i.e. the effects on health, proposals from the academic sector, media, and members of the general public. All of these led to the announcement of the PM 2.5 as a national agenda. The mobilization of the policy resulted in the structural change i.e. a proposal for drafting a law, adjusting organizations, and providing the space for members of the general public to participate in the solving of the problem. (3) The civil society, academics, young persons, and the opposition parties played a role in mobilizing a Draft Clean Air Act and fostered policy pressure on the government. The public sector tried to reduce open burning and promoted clean technology. However, it faced opposition from capital groups worried for their capital which resulted in policy bargaining. The conflicts between agencies, centralization politics, and interference from the benefits groups remain obstacles for policy integration although there is support from the society and cooperation from ASEAN.