Globalization and health · 2026
Trade, power, and public health: a political economy analysis of Thailand's CPTPP negotiation process.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pachanee Cha-Aim, Thaiprayoon Suriwan, Marohabutr Thammarat, Chansorklin Peamanee, Sirithienthong Siriya, Yomchan Nantawan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has generated intense debate in Thailand, concerning its implications for public health, particularly intellectual property, and access to medicines. During 2018-2022, Thailand undertook an extended in-country process to provide evidence on its economic opportunity and public health challenges for the Cabinet decision. However, there is no evidence indicating whether Thailand has decided to join the CPTPP. This study examines Thailand's CPTPP negotiation process using a political economy framework, focusing on the institutional and actor landscape that shaped the negotiations.
METHODS: This study employed a qualitative research design grounded in political economy theory, integrating state-centred and power-centred analytical frameworks. Data collection comprised a document review and in-depth interviews with 31 stakeholders from the health and trade sectors, covering state officials, academics, the private sector, and civil society representatives.
RESULTS: The findings demonstrate critical public health concerns centred on pharmaceutical access, plant variety protection, and medical device regulatory standards. The findings also reveal a complex landscape of stakeholder dynamics and power asymmetries in Thailand's CPTPP negotiation process. Although both state and non-state actors played influential roles in shaping public discourse and decision-making, the decision-making was dominated by state trade actors, as the lead negotiating authority, marginalising health sector perspectives despite their active engagement. While civil society leveraged collaborative power to exert political pressure, structural imbalances and a lack of transparency persisted. In addition, intra-sectoral differences also existed and were influenced by institutional positioning.
CONCLUSION: The study highlights the need for stronger institutional mechanisms to promote inclusive stakeholder participation and greater policy coherence between trade and public health objectives in future trade negotiations.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
METHODS: This study employed a qualitative research design grounded in political economy theory, integrating state-centred and power-centred analytical frameworks. Data collection comprised a document review and in-depth interviews with 31 stakeholders from the health and trade sectors, covering state officials, academics, the private sector, and civil society representatives.
RESULTS: The findings demonstrate critical public health concerns centred on pharmaceutical access, plant variety protection, and medical device regulatory standards. The findings also reveal a complex landscape of stakeholder dynamics and power asymmetries in Thailand's CPTPP negotiation process. Although both state and non-state actors played influential roles in shaping public discourse and decision-making, the decision-making was dominated by state trade actors, as the lead negotiating authority, marginalising health sector perspectives despite their active engagement. While civil society leveraged collaborative power to exert political pressure, structural imbalances and a lack of transparency persisted. In addition, intra-sectoral differences also existed and were influenced by institutional positioning.
CONCLUSION: The study highlights the need for stronger institutional mechanisms to promote inclusive stakeholder participation and greater policy coherence between trade and public health objectives in future trade negotiations.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.