The Rased Center announced Tuesday the results of its annual report on the performance of Prime Minister Dr. Jaafar Hassan’s government, marking one year since its formation. The report included a comprehensive analysis of Cabinet decisions throughout the year, covering economic measures, appointments, and the Prime Minister’s field visits.
اضافة اعلان
The report also featured a survey of Jordanian Members of Parliament and political parties on the government’s performance during its first year.
According to the report, 96% of MPs responded to the survey, while all registered Jordanian political parties participated.
Findings showed that the Prime Minister conducted 33 field visits during the year, covering 114 locations across 32 districts, 3 sub-districts, and 43 municipalities.
The health sector topped the list with 29 visits—17 health centers and 12 hospitals—followed by education with 24 schools. The agriculture, industry, and vocational training sectors came next with 22 facilities and training centers. The visits also included 21 centers and associations within the social welfare and local services sectors, 11 youth centers and clubs, and 7 touristic and archaeological sites across various governorates.
The report indicated that the government made 771 decisions in its first year, including 212 economic decisions directly linked to the Economic Modernization Vision. The Cabinet also approved 25 resolutions to settle 12,240 cases involving taxpayers and companies with the Income and Sales Tax Department, in addition to 30 appointment decisions covering 42 leadership positions.
Analysis showed that economic decisions were distributed as follows:
Investment driver: 32.8%
Future services: 20.1%
Sustainable resources: 18.8%
“Jordan as a Global Destination” initiative: 11.9%
Entrepreneurship and innovation: 4.1%
Quality of life: 5.9%
Sustainable environment: 3.2%
High-value industries: 3.2%
These figures reflect a balanced approach linking economic growth with improved quality of life.
Survey results among MPs showed that 63% rated the government’s performance as “good” to “excellent,” while 37% described it as “fair to weak.”
Regarding coordination with Parliament, 40% expressed satisfaction with government communication, while 60% were dissatisfied.
In terms of crisis management, 47.7% of MPs rated performance as “good to excellent,” compared to 52.3% who said it was “fair to weak.” About 44.7% were satisfied with the government’s economic reform efforts, while 55.3% were not.
On specific issues such as human rights, unemployment, education, health, anti-corruption, and foreign relations, evaluations varied between “weak” and “very good.” Notably, 86.4% expressed satisfaction with the government’s foreign relations, while an equal 86.4% were dissatisfied with its efforts to address unemployment.
As for expectations regarding government–parliament relations in the second year, 57.6% of MPs predicted a “tense” relationship, while 42.4% expected “harmonious” ties.
On the political party front, 57.1% of party representatives rated the government’s performance as “good to excellent,” compared to 42.9% who saw it as “fair to weak.” Only 8.6% expressed satisfaction with the level of communication with the government, while 91.4% were dissatisfied.
Furthermore, 74.3% of party representatives expected the relationship with the government in its second year to be “tense,” while 17.1% anticipated a “harmonious” relationship.
The report also noted differing evaluations by political parties regarding the government’s handling of economic reform, digital transformation, anti-corruption, tourism, and agriculture, with satisfaction levels below 50% in most areas—except foreign and diplomatic relations, which earned 74.3% approval from party representatives.
