Chokchai SuttawetGreg J. BamberMonash UniversityMahidol UniversityNewcastle University, United Kingdom2019-08-232019-08-232018-10-01Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Vol.56, No.4 (2018), 539-56517447941103841112-s2.0-85053447814https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/45353© 2018 The Authors. Compilation and layout © The Australian HR Institute. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian HR Institute The International Labour Organization (ILO) promotes labour standards and decent work to counter a global ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of job regulation. By analysing Thailand's experiences, we consider three questions: 1) How might we characterize Thai capitalism?; 2) What are Thailand's labour market contexts for human resource management and industrial relations?; and 3) What is Thailand's situation regarding decent work and how is it related to politics, ILO labour standards and labour law? We identify two Thai labour-market contexts: state-owned and private enterprises where there is unionization (Type A); and public services/smaller enterprises/informal work where unionization is negligible (Type B). We find implementation of decent work is patchy. We suggest that Thailand reforms its tripartite agency to promote decent work and improve human resource management. These steps are more likely to be more effective and sustained under a parliamentary democracy than under a military junta. Our analysis has relevance also for other economies.Mahidol UniversityBusiness, Management and AccountingArticleSCOPUS10.1111/1744-7941.12190