On the evening of 23 September 2026, Jusoor Center for Studies hosted a panel discussion at its headquarters in Damascus entitled “Economic Conditions in Syria: Challenges, Impacts, and Solutions.” The session brought together government officials and members of the People's Assembly, alongside academics, economic experts, financial and political analysts, and civil society activists.
The discussion addressed the structural challenges confronting the Syrian economy and their current and future repercussions on society, examining the collaborative roles of the state—across both its legislative and executive branches—as well as the contributions of the private sector and local communities to the economic recovery process.
The first session focused on existing challenges, guided by a central question: did the lifting of international sanctions bring an end to the economic crisis, or do domestic hurdles remain the most decisive factor? Participants reached a consensus that while easing external restrictions unlocks new opportunities for investment and trade, it does not automatically resolve domestic structural imbalances. Key challenges identified included the absence of a legislative and institutional framework capable of steering the recovery phase, weak strategic planning, and a lack of inter-ministerial coordination—particularly in the absence of an effective role for the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers in harmonizing government policies.
Attendees examined the impact of the transitional government’s economic policies, noting that declining domestic production, extensive import liberalization, and market flooding—coinciding with rising energy prices and liquidity-tightening policies—contributed to the idling of several industrial facilities, rising unemployment rates, and diminished national productive capacity, thereby compounding budgetary pressures and expanding the fiscal deficit.
Participants observed that the crisis is not solely a matter of resources, but is equally tied to the quality of public administration, given persistent corruption, deficient transparency, uneven performance across public sector institutions, and the absence of a clear code of conduct governing the relationship between civil servants and citizens and reinforcing accountability.
In the second session, participants concluded that the escalation of protests from socio-economic demands to political ones is not inevitable at this stage, yet becomes increasingly probable if crises continue to be managed through short-term pacification rather than structural reform. The absence of sustainable solutions and the widening gap between public expectations and tangible outcomes could gradually channel demands toward holding public policies and decision-making mechanisms accountable, making an effective economic response an indispensable requirement for consolidating social and political stability.
In the final session, participants underscored that economic recovery cannot be the responsibility of a single actor. The legislative authority is expected to enact new laws that incentivize investment, safeguard competition, and establish transparency, while the executive authority bears the responsibility of executing policies efficiently. Concurrently, the private sector plays a vital role in revitalizing production and job creation, while local communities act as key partners in social oversight and the initiation of development projects that reinforce the local economy.
The panel concluded by emphasizing that challenges, impacts, and solutions form an interconnected continuum, and that the success of the recovery phase requires moving beyond reactive crisis management toward building a strategic vision grounded in transparency, the integration of state institutions, and genuine partnership with the private sector and local communities.