The government deserves credit for moving economically at the right time to absorb the shock of rising energy prices and the disruption of gas supplies it had been purchasing from the occupying state, without passing this increase directly and fully onto the prices of petroleum derivatives in the local market.
اضافة اعلان
This measure deserves praise because it came at a moment of acute regional turmoil, as the American-Israeli war on Iran expands and the risks to neighboring economies, including the Jordanian economy, continue to grow. Under such circumstances, protecting citizens from sharp price shocks becomes a national priority, not merely a financial or administrative option.
What matters most now is that the government continues along this path, because preventing global price increases from being transmitted to the local market eases pressure on households and prevents broader waves of inflation that could affect transport, food, services, and production costs. It is true that this policy may impose unforeseen financial burdens on the treasury, but at this stage it remains less costly than allowing prices to rise rapidly and then trying to address their social and economic consequences later. Dealing with the shock early is more effective than waiting for it to worsen.
The issue here is not limited to fuel prices alone, but to the consequences that extend directly into people’s lives. When energy costs rise, transport, operation, and production costs rise with them, and these increases are then passed on to the prices of goods and services. In an economy such as Jordan’s, which already suffers from limited incomes and high living costs, any new inflationary wave will place severe pressure on households, especially the middle class and low-income groups. Therefore, the decision to absorb part of the energy shock also serves to protect social and political stability.
From an economic perspective, the continuation of these measures helps preserve the momentum of the drivers of economic growth. An economy cannot grow in an environment where costs rise suddenly, purchasing power declines, and the investor, producer, and consumer all become hesitant. When the government absorbs part of the shock, it protects economic activity from slowing down and shields productive and service sectors from slipping into a cycle of contraction or further weakness. This is especially important amid an open regional war, when no one knows when it will end or how far its consequences may spread.
It is clear that the continuation of this war has affected and will continue to affect the Jordanian economy negatively in more than one direction, whether in terms of public finance stability, import and energy costs, daily economic activity, or household budgets. Therefore, the realistic objective now is not to prevent losses entirely, but to reduce them as much as possible and prevent external pressures from turning into a broader internal crisis.
But this effort, despite its importance, should not remain limited to managing the immediate shock alone. Once this phase has passed, we must work strategically on two parallel tracks: strengthening the social protection system so it becomes more capable of protecting the groups most affected by crises and more efficient in reaching those who truly need support, and accelerating the transition toward renewable energy sources in order to reduce dependence on imported energy and make the economy more resilient to external shocks. What is required is a stronger safety net, a faster energy transition, and a clearer link between economic policies, social justice, and long-term economic resilience.
What the government has done so far is a correct and necessary step, and it should continue as long as these exceptional circumstances persist. Protecting society from inflation and preserving the minimum level of economic stability are more important today than macro-financial calculations.
