Dr. Hamad Kasasbeh

The ninth wave of Arab Barometer presents a two-sided picture of Jordanians’ views of the government and the economy. On the one hand, confidence in the government rose to 49%, from 39% in late 2023, while satisfaction with its overall performance reached 61%—clear and positive findings. On the other hand, the survey showed that economic concern remained high and that assessments of the government on jobs, prices, and living standards were far weaker than overall confidence. The central contrast is therefore straightforward: higher confidence in government, but lower satisfaction with economic outcomes.

Before applying these findings to the present, the timing of the survey and the limits of the comparison must be made clear. The survey was conducted from 1 to 12 October 2025, about a year after the current government was formed, while the 49% confidence figure is compared with 39% recorded in late 2023, under the previous government. The entire increase therefore cannot be attributed to the current government, although the 49% figure does reflect confidence in it after roughly a year in office. The report itself was published on 4 September 2026, around eleven months after the fieldwork, so it describes an earlier stage rather than public sentiment at the moment of publication. At the same time, the age of the data also means that the survey cannot capture any improvement or deterioration that may have occurred afterward. This matters even more because in September 2026 the government launched its “Two Years of Work: From Vision to Reality” campaign, saying it would present the results of two years of work and the impact of projects, programmes, and decisions on citizens’ lives. A fair assessment of the government’s economic impact today therefore requires more recent evidence.

Read within the period it actually measures, the survey gives the government a clear positive balance on institutional performance and public services. Ninety percent gave a positive assessment of its performance in maintaining security and public order, while satisfaction with essential services was also relatively high: 79% for electricity, 73% for waste collection, 69% for water, 67% for health care, and 66% for education. These findings help explain the rise in confidence and overall satisfaction: citizens value stability, continuity of services, and institutions that continue to function in a turbulent regional environment. But strong ratings in these areas do not automatically mean that the economic impact was equally strong.

When the focus shifts to the economy, the picture in the survey becomes more difficult. Fifty-nine percent of Jordanians identified the economy as the country’s most important challenge, while only 27% rated economic conditions positively. Looking ahead, 47% expected conditions to worsen, 21% expected no change, and only 30% expected improvement over the following two to three years. These figures do not suggest an absence of hope, but they do not support describing the public mood at the time as broadly economically optimistic. Higher confidence in government coexisted with widespread economic concern.

The test closest to citizens’ daily lives appears in their assessment of the government’s performance on core economic issues. Satisfaction stood at 22% for job creation, 23% for keeping prices low, and 24% for reducing inequality, compared with 61% satisfaction with the government’s overall performance. That gap is substantial and important for interpreting the results. The survey does not establish a direct causal effect of government policies, but it does show how citizens assessed their impact on daily life at the time of the fieldwork. It is therefore fair to say that the government’s confidence dividend was stronger than satisfaction with economic outcomes, without assuming that the same picture remained unchanged through September 2026.

Household conditions reinforce the same reading of that period. Sixty-one percent reported experiencing some form of food insecurity in the month before the survey because of insufficient money, while 38% said their household had run out of food at some point during the previous year. Forty-four percent had considered emigrating, 92% of those cited economic reasons, and 40% said they had already begun preparing to leave. The current government cannot reasonably be held solely responsible for economic pressures accumulated over many years, but these indicators show that the rise in confidence in 2025 did not necessarily mean that economic pressures on households had disappeared.

In this context, transparency in presenting the survey results requires more than highlighting the most positive headlines; the findings should be presented within their full temporal and substantive context. Some coverage emphasized higher confidence in the government and overall satisfaction, while its wording suggested that the results described public sentiment at the time of the report’s publication in September 2026, even though the data were collected in October 2025. The same coverage also gave less weight to the economic indicators reported in the study. The issue is not the accuracy of the figures themselves, but how they are selected and framed. Transparency requires readers to know when the data were collected, what they actually measure, and what conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from them.

Accordingly, the survey gives the government an important positive balance for the period it actually measures: higher confidence, stronger overall satisfaction, and strong ratings for security and public services. At the same time, it does not provide equivalent evidence that economic policies had translated to the same degree into improvements in citizens’ lives by October 2025, nor can it by itself determine conditions in September 2026. That is the fairest reading of the data. Assessing the impact of policy today should rely on more recent indicators and on the results the government says it will present after two years in office. Ultimately, the best way to strengthen and sustain public confidence is for results to speak for themselves and for citizens to feel the impact of policy in jobs, incomes, services, and the cost of living.