Dr. Hamad Kasasbeh

Government field visits to the governorates have become an important tool for understanding citizens’ needs on the ground. They allow direct assessment of education, healthcare, social services, and infrastructure. These visits also reflect the government’s effort to reduce the development gap between the governorates and the capital and to promote fairness in resource allocation. However, the true value of these visits is not measured by how many take place, but by whether they create lasting and visible improvements in people’s daily lives.

Local development does not improve simply because officials visit an area or announce new projects. The government recognizes this and has increasingly linked its field meetings to decisions tailored to each governorate. Yet the real challenge is ensuring that these visits are part of a structured planning cycle. This cycle should begin with accurate data on unemployment, poverty, and service quality, and end with clear follow-up and evaluation after a defined period. Without this system, field visits risk becoming temporary administrative events.

Development fairness does not mean distributing projects equally. It means directing resources according to each governorate’s comparative advantage. Every region has sectors that can grow more effectively than others. When decisions are based on these local strengths, investment becomes more efficient, and job creation becomes more sustainable rather than short-term.

Strengthening the impact of field visits also requires introducing the concept of local development risk management. Development is not only about launching new projects. It is also about protecting existing sectors from decline and addressing structural weaknesses before they worsen. A governorate that depends heavily on one sector or is experiencing population outflow needs preventive planning to secure stability before expansion.

Another important factor is what can be called the “economy of time.” Complicated procedures, long travel distances, and poorly distributed services lead to daily productivity losses. Simplifying processes, expanding digital services, and bringing service centers closer to citizens are relatively low-cost reforms with high economic impact. Reducing wasted time improves productivity and makes governorates more attractive for investment.

Empowering local institutions is equally essential for sustainability. Municipalities need reliable data, clear authority, and trained staff to implement and monitor decisions effectively. Development cannot rely solely on central decisions. It requires capable local management that operates consistently and responsibly.

In this context, field visits can be seen as the beginning of a local development partnership built on mutual commitments between the government, local communities, and the private sector. The government provides the regulatory framework and institutional support, while the private sector and communities contribute to job creation and economic activity. Sustainable development becomes stronger when it is a shared responsibility rather than a one-sided effort.

It is also important to shift focus from the size of spending to the efficiency of spending and the sustainability of projects. The real measure of success is not how much money is allocated, but how much impact each dollar generates. Evaluating projects several years after implementation helps determine whether development outcomes are lasting or temporary. In conclusion, government field visits can become a real driver of local development if they evolve from periodic visits into a permanent system of planning, monitoring, and impact evaluation.