Dr. Hamad Kasasbeh

The specialized program on Economic Impact Assessment, which comes as part of broader efforts to develop the capacities of public sector leaders, represents an important step toward updating the tools of public economic decision-making. The idea itself deserves recognition, as it moves the discussion beyond traditional training toward a wider question: how can the impact of policies, projects, and budgets be measured? It is important to emphasize from the outset that the observations raised here do not assume that these requirements are absent from those responsible for this program or other public administration development programs. Rather, they aim to highlight what is needed to ensure that the idea moves from training to institutional application.

Economic policy is not measured only by the size of expenditure or the number of programs, but by the clear results it achieves in growth, employment, productivity, income, and the efficient use of resources. From this perspective, Economic Impact Assessment is important because it helps estimate the economic and social return of policies, compare alternatives, and direct public money toward the most viable paths. This is particularly important in an economy that needs to maximize the impact of every public dinar and direct resources toward priorities with the highest return.

The key question, however, is whether Economic Impact Assessment will remain limited to training and knowledge-building, or whether it will become a practical requirement before policies are approved and resources are allocated. Experience shows that the challenge in public administration is not always the absence of modern concepts, but the difficulty of turning them into binding rules of work. The language of reports may change, and terms such as cost, return, alternatives, and performance indicators may enter official documents, while decisions continue to be made in the same way and budgets continue to be prepared according to a logic that does not clearly link funding to the expected impact.

For this reason, Economic Impact Assessment should come before the decision, not after it. Its value appears when it is used before launching a public project, a support program, or a sectoral policy, so that alternatives are compared, costs and benefits are estimated, risks are assessed, and success indicators are defined from the beginning. If it is used later to justify a decision that has already been made, or to add economic language to an administrative report, it loses much of its value and becomes a formal procedure that does not improve public decision-making as much as required.

The effectiveness of impact assessment depends on its place within the economic decision-making cycle, not on the quality of the tool alone. If assessment remains optional, disconnected from the budget, or unrelated to accountability for results, its impact will remain limited no matter how good the training is. But when it becomes part of the rules for allocating resources, a requirement before approving projects, and a tool for monitoring results, it helps set priorities, reduce waste, and improve the efficiency of public spending.

In the Jordanian context, the need for this shift is clear. Public resources are limited, financial obligations are large, and the need to improve services and create jobs remains ongoing. Therefore, it is not enough to know how much was spent or how many projects were implemented; it is necessary to know the value added by that spending. The real value of any public program appears in its impact on productivity, service quality, support for productive sectors, the creation of sustainable job opportunities, and whether better results could have been achieved at the same cost or at a lower cost.

This requires accurate and up-to-date data, economic analysis units capable of reading indicators, and a mechanism that links assessment results to the budget and financing decisions. Without these conditions, impact assessment may turn into another paper in the decision file, rather than a tool that changes the way resources are allocated. Therefore, the measure of the program’s success should not be its launch or the quality of its training material alone, but the extent to which participating leaders are able to transfer what they learn into institutional behavior within decision-making positions. If impact assessment does not lead to modifying a program, rejecting a weak project, or redirecting spending toward a higher priority, its impact will remain limited no matter how important it appears in form.

In conclusion, Economic Impact Assessment is an important idea that deserves support, and programs that build the capacities of public sector leaders in this field represent a positive direction that should be built upon. The observations raised here do not reduce the importance of the program or the efforts of those responsible for it; rather, they emphasize that its real success depends on its ability to move from the training room to decisions on resource allocation, budget preparation, and results review. When impact assessment becomes part of the way spending decisions are made, priorities are chosen, and results are monitored, it can move from being an important training initiative to a real institutional tool for improving the quality of economic policies, raising the efficiency of public spending, and serving citizens more effectively.