Kiatanantha Lounkaew
A single minor case processed through the mainstream route costs approximately 3,828 U.S. dollars, whereas mediation resolves comparable matters for approximately 103 dollars, a reduction of about 97 percent that holds across four offense categories. The simulation yields a mean mainstream cost of 3,735 dollars with a 95 percent interval of [3,703, 3,811], a mean mediation cost of 59 dollars with an interval of [40, 122], and a mean reduction of 98.4 percent with an interval of [96.7, 98.9]. The reduction never falls below 94 percent under any sensitivity scenario.
INTRODUCTION: Concerns over the workload of Thailand's criminal justice institutions have returned mediation to policy debate, particularly for disputes in which the injury is modest but the administrative effort is not. This study asks what economic difference emerges when such cases are handled through mediation rather than through the usual criminal process.
METHODS: The analysis draws on two components of a single arrangement with Thailand's Office of Justice Affairs: anonymized microdata from a field survey of 850 respondents across five provinces selected by stratified sampling on the Human Achievement Index, and administrative records of agency budgets, caseloads, and procedures. Private cost components are survey means and government components are budget-to-caseload ratios, all expressed in 2026 prices. Uncertainty is quantified by Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 replications, and robustness is tested under four alternative assumptions about wages, travel, and legal representation.
RESULTS: A single minor case processed through the mainstream route costs approximately 3,828 U.S. dollars, whereas mediation resolves comparable matters for approximately 103 dollars, a reduction of about 97 percent that holds across four offense categories. The simulation yields a mean mainstream cost of 3,735 dollars with a 95 percent interval of [3,703, 3,811], a mean mediation cost of 59 dollars with an interval of [40, 122], and a mean reduction of 98.4 percent with an interval of [96.7, 98.9]. The reduction never falls below 94 percent under any sensitivity scenario.
DISCUSSION: Read within a litigation-decision framework, a difference of this magnitude would alter disputants' incentives if they faced both options, because it widens the range within which settlement is mutually preferable to adjudication. The institutional implication carries comparable weight, since each case diverted from the adversarial track removes paperwork and scheduling pressure from police, prosecutors, and courts. Mediation on this evidence is not an auxiliary service but an instrument for keeping an overloaded system functional, an aim aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 16.