Dr. Hamad Kasasbeh

Fighting corruption is no longer merely a legal or administrative issue; it has become an economic issue directly linked to citizens’ confidence, investment attractiveness, and the economy’s ability to grow and create jobs. Modern economies are built not only on financial capital, but also on clear rules, stable institutions, and people’s ability to make decisions with confidence. Therefore, the real challenge is not simply to raise the issue of corruption, but to manage it in a way that strengthens the rule of law while preserving the image of the state and its institutions as the foundation of investment, stability, and development.

There is no disagreement that corruption poses a serious threat to development. It wastes resources, weakens competition, reduces the efficiency of public spending, and affects the quality of services. For this reason, combating corruption must remain a national priority. At the same time, however, it is important to distinguish between corruption cases that require accountability and the creation of a general impression that the entire state is a corrupt environment. Such generalization weakens confidence in institutions, influences investors’ decisions, and may impose an economic cost no less serious than the cost of corruption itself.

From an economic perspective, trust is one of the most important assets a country can possess, even though it does not appear in budgets or national accounts. When an investor decides to launch a new project, they do not look only at taxes or incentives; they also look at the stability of legislation, the speed of procedures, the independence of the judiciary, and the transparency of institutions. The higher the level of trust, the lower the investment risks, the greater the opportunities for expansion and job creation, and the stronger the overall level of economic activity. Trust is not merely a moral value; it is an economic asset that directly affects investment, production, employment, and growth rates.

From this standpoint, the government, as the authority with general jurisdiction, bears the responsibility of leading this file by applying the law to those proven to be involved and by building a system that prevents corruption from occurring in the first place. In this context, the recent Cabinet decision to prepare an urgent regulation governing ministerial work and preventing conflicts of interest among ministers can be viewed as an important step in the right direction. This decision moves the integrity file from the sphere of general discourse to the sphere of institutional regulation, and it affirms that fighting corruption is not complete through reaction after violations occur; it also requires clear rules that strengthen the separation between the public interest and private interest.

However, the value of this decision is not measured by its issuance alone, but by its ability to become a permanent practice in public administration. The experiences of countries that have succeeded in building strong institutions, including Singapore, show that sound governance depends on the proper application of legislation, the sustainability of its implementation, and its integration with transparency and accountability. This strengthens the confidence of citizens and investors and creates a more attractive investment environment. Every measure that prevents conflicts of interest before they occur saves the state financial, economic, and legal costs, and reinforces confidence in the fairness of public decisions.

At the same time, citizens need to see results in their daily lives more than they need to hear about announced procedures. When services become faster, procedures clearer, and accountability fairer, citizens feel that the state respects their rights and their time, and confidence begins to return gradually. Trust is not built by statements, but by continuous practice and by the ability of institutions to turn policies into tangible results that citizens can feel.

The media and social media platforms also have an important role in this equation. Responsible criticism helps expose shortcomings and support reform, while generalization or accusations without evidence may create inaccurate impressions about the national economy, influence investors’ decisions, and increase uncertainty among citizens. Therefore, protecting the state’s reputation does not conflict with exposing corruption; rather, it requires that criticism be based on facts and that investigation and adjudication be left to the competent institutions, in a manner that preserves rights and safeguards the dignity of the state.

In conclusion, Jordan needs to rebuild trust as much as it needs to fight corruption, because trust is the foundation of investment, growth, and social stability. This trust is not built through denial, nor through generalizations unsupported by evidence, but through clear policies, tangible and measurable results, sound governance, and institutions that apply the law fairly to everyone. Only then does fighting corruption become a tool for building the state, strengthening economic competitiveness, and consolidating trust as the hidden capital upon which sustainable development is built.