Is Thailand Still Considered a Safe Investment Destination?Thailand has long been regarded as one of Southeast Asia’s most attractive destinations for foreign investment. Its strategic location, diversified economy, modern infrastructure, skilled workforce and investment incentives have attracted billions of dollars in foreign direct investment over the past decades.
However, in today’s global economy, investors evaluate much more than business opportunities. Increasingly, they ask a different question:
How safe is a country for long-term investment?
That question extends beyond economic growth. It includes legal certainty, political stability, regulatory predictability, protection of property rights and the ability of institutions to withstand periods of economic or geopolitical stress.
One of the most comprehensive attempts to answer that question is the Global Investment Risk & Resilience Index (GIRRI) 2026, published jointly by Henley & Partners and AlphaGeo.
A Global Measure of Investment Safety
Although Henley & Partners is best known for its residence and citizenship advisory business, the Global Investment Risk & Resilience Index is not an investment migration ranking.
The study evaluates 226 countries and territories using nearly 3,000 data points across 13 indicators, measuring both a country’s exposure to risk and its ability to recover from economic, political and external shocks.
The assessment includes factors such as:
- Political stability
- Rule of law
- Regulatory quality
- Inflation
- Currency stability
- Fiscal strength
- Economic resilience
- Infrastructure
- Human development
- Climate resilience
- Institutional capacity to respond to crises.
Rather than measuring economic growth alone, the index seeks to answer one fundamental question:
Where is capital safest over the long term?
Unsurprisingly, this year’s leading jurisdictions include Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Singapore, Sweden and Luxembourg—countries consistently recognised for strong institutions, predictable legal systems and high levels of investor protection.
Thailand’s Strong Fundamentals
Before drawing conclusions, it is important to recognise Thailand’s many strengths.
In the World Bank’s final Doing Business Report (2020), Thailand ranked 21st out of 190 economies for ease of doing business, reflecting years of reforms aimed at creating a business-friendly environment. Although the Doing Business project was discontinued by the World Bank in 2021 following concerns over data irregularities, the 2020 edition remains the last internationally recognised benchmark for comparing business environments.
Thailand continues to benefit from:
- a diversified economy;
- world-class manufacturing;
- strong tourism;
- modern infrastructure;
- an attractive Board of Investment (BOI) incentive regime;
- a strategic position at the heart of ASEAN.
These remain significant advantages for international investors.
Yet Thailand Does Not Appear in the Top 50
One interesting observation is that Thailand does not appear among the Top 50 jurisdictions published in the Global Investment Risk & Resilience Index.
This should not automatically be interpreted as a criticism of Thailand or its economy. The published report highlights only the highest-ranked jurisdictions, and many factors contribute to the final score.
Nevertheless, the absence raises an important question.
If Thailand performs well economically and remains attractive for business, what factors may still influence international perceptions of investment safety?
Increasingly, the answer lies not in economics but in institutional confidence.
Investors today assess legal certainty, regulatory consistency, contract enforcement, judicial independence and the protection of property rights as carefully as they analyse tax rates or labour costs.
The Nominee Crackdown: Enforcement Is Not the Issue
Thailand’s current campaign against illegal nominee structures illustrates this challenge.
There is nothing controversial about enforcing the law.
Every sovereign state has both the right and the obligation to combat illegal business structures.
The real issue is how that enforcement is carried out and how it is perceived by investors.
For more than thirty years, the widespread use of nominee structures has been an open secret.
Successive governments were well aware of the practice, yet enforcement remained relatively limited. Thousands of businesses were established, properties were purchased and investments were made during a period in which these structures were widely used despite their legal uncertainty.
This perception is not limited to foreign investors.
A recent NIDA Poll found that 67.1% of Thai respondents believe corrupt public officials were primarily responsible for allowing illegal foreign-operated businesses to flourish, while 50.5% also blamed politicians. Weak enforcement and legal loopholes were also identified as major contributing factors.
Whether one agrees with these views or not, they demonstrate that a significant proportion of Thai citizens believe the issue developed over many years rather than appearing suddenly.
Proportionality Will Matter
Another important question concerns the sanctions ultimately imposed.
If businesses are required to regularise their ownership structures, pay administrative fines or comply with corrective measures within a reasonable timeframe, most international investors are unlikely to question Thailand’s commitment to enforcing its laws.
Businesses understand that regulatory breaches may carry financial consequences.
The situation becomes very different if enforcement results in the effective destruction of an investment.
Foreign investors who invested substantial sums over many years may perceive the complete loss of their businesses or assets not simply as a regulatory sanction, but as the loss of their entire investment.
Whether any individual enforcement action is legally justified will depend on its specific facts and the applicable law.
However, from an investment perspective, perception matters.
Investors can price regulatory risk.
They can budget for compliance.
They can absorb administrative fines.
What they struggle to price is the possibility that a long-standing market practice—one that had existed openly for decades with limited enforcement—could suddenly result in the complete loss of invested capital without a realistic opportunity to regularise the situation.
Investor Confidence Depends on Legal Certainty
The objective should not simply be enforcement.
It should be effective, transparent and proportionate enforcement.
Countries that consistently attract long-term international investment are not necessarily those with the fewest regulations. They are the countries where investors understand the rules, trust the institutions and have confidence that those rules will be applied consistently and fairly.
Thailand has every opportunity to strengthen its reputation as one of Asia’s leading investment destinations.
Strong enforcement against illegal structures can reinforce confidence in the rule of law.
But if international investors begin to perceive a risk of disproportionate sanctions or the effective loss of their entire investments, the consequences could extend well beyond the nominee issue itself.
Conclusion
Thailand remains one of Southeast Asia’s most dynamic economies and continues to offer exceptional opportunities for investors.
The challenge today is not whether the law should be enforced—it should.
The challenge is ensuring that enforcement strengthens confidence rather than undermines it.
In the end, international capital is attracted by more than opportunity. It is attracted by certainty.
The countries that consistently rank among the safest investment destinations are those that combine economic opportunity with predictable institutions, respect for property rights and proportionate enforcement of the law.
Thailand now has an opportunity to demonstrate that it can do exactly that.
