The most dangerous aspect of unemployment in Jordan is not only that its rates remain high, but also the possibility that this reality may turn into a state of general habituation among the economy, society, and government. When this happens, a slight decline in indicators becomes a source of reassurance, rather than an alarm bell that should push for a fundamental review.
اضافة اعلان
The problem with adapting to high unemployment may seem comfortable to some, but it is temporary and unsustainable. It carries serious social, economic, and political risks that cannot be underestimated.
The indicators issued last week by the Department of Statistics provide a clear example of this. The unemployment rate for the total population in the Kingdom declined to 16.1 percent in the first quarter of 2026, a decrease of half a percentage point compared with the first quarter of 2025, and a decrease of 2.3 percentage points over four years compared with the first quarter of 2022. At the same time, unemployment among Jordanians declined by only 1.7 percentage points over the past four years. These figures indicate some improvement, but they do not point to a real breakthrough in the labour market.
The problem is that this limited decline may be used to justify the continuation of the same policies, even though experience has shown their limited effectiveness. If unemployment among Jordanians has declined over four years at such a slow pace, despite the many programmes, initiatives, and plans, then it is natural to ask: Why have they not succeeded? And why has their impact remained limited to marginal improvement, while the crisis itself has persisted?
A large part of the answer lies in the fact that previous approaches dealt with unemployment as a partial issue, rather than as a matter connected to the structure of the entire economy. For years, reliance was placed on encouraging local, Arab, and foreign investment, while making implicit or explicit concessions in work-related social protections, foremost among them the acceptance of low-wage policies. The result has become clear: this approach has not generated sufficient expansion in productive investment, has not created enough new jobs of the required quantity and quality, and has not placed unemployment on a serious and sustainable downward path. On the contrary, part of this approach has contributed to the accumulation of wealth and the deepening of social inequality, because low wages and precarious work do not create an economy that is more just or more capable of generating employment.
Therefore, it is no longer sufficient to continue recycling the same tools. What is needed is an integrated employment policy that draws lessons from previous experiences and begins with education from its earliest stages, through vocational, technical, and intermediate education, all the way to university education. More importantly, the content of education and training must be reconsidered, not only their form, so that they become genuinely linked to the needs of the economy and to possible employment opportunities. Such a policy must also include labour standards themselves, so that the goal becomes the creation of sufficient, decent, and dignified jobs with wages that allow for a decent life—not poor-quality employment, nor merely low-paid jobs with weak protections.
Unemployment is not merely a figure in a statistical report. It is an indicator of the efficiency and fairness of the current development model and the prevailing pattern of economic growth. When unemployment remains high among Jordanians, this means that the imbalance is too deep to be addressed through one initiative here or one programme there. What is needed today is not to celebrate a limited decline, but to acknowledge that the old employment policy has exhausted its purpose. Continuing with the same approach will mean only one thing: we will keep going in circles, while the cost of delay grows heavier for both society and the state.
