Purpose: This paper discusses theoretical, policy and practical issues concerning the problem of "agrochemical dependency" in Thailand, including roles that public extension services play in advocacy or mitigation of agrochemical use. Methodology/Approach: Our research aimed to better understand department of agricultural extension (DOAE) institutional and officials' perceptions of contributing factors to agrochemical dependency as well as strategies for mitigating agrochemical use. We reviewed relevant policies, web materials and technical cooperation agreements. We supplemented theoretical and document analysis with interviews totaling 15 DOAE managers or senior officers comparing Bangkok headquarters and Nan Province perspectives. We refer to relevant secondary literatures for explanatory context. Findings: Results showed differences as well as similarities between views of DOAE officials in Bangkok headquarters and those from one province (Nan) about DOAE priorities, responsibilities and perceived reasons why farmers overuse agrochemicals or do not adopt organic agriculture (OA). A national policy encouraged "safe use" of agrochemicals but not (necessarily or effectively) mitigation while the DOAE still (to a much lesser extent) promoted self-sufficiency and OA alternatives. Interviews and documentary evidence revealed DOAE public-private partnerships with corporate advice, technical support, human resources and learning activities that encouraged or normalized agrochemical use and dependency.Practical Implications: Study results should be useful for governments, donors, international agencies and department officials in policy development, program planning, training design, budgeting and delivery. Originality/Value: This study is unique for: better understanding implications of agrochemical dependency and privatization of public extension services; analyzing factors inhibiting OA adoption; and examining contentious policies, partnerships, and training activities.