WE do not exaggerate when we say that Kuwait possesses a wealth of opportunities capable of revitalizing its local economy. By capitalizing on these opportunities through thoughtful planning, the country can create jobs in various sectors and take a crucial step toward increasing the contribution of nonoil resources to its GDP. This requires strategic, well-considered decisions rather than rushed or reactive measures.
Importantly, if Kuwait aims to attract foreign and Gulf investment, it must first reduce burdens on local investors by removing restrictions and halting any practices that could be seen as hindering their business operations. Indeed, a shift in strategy is necessary for moving away from the current restrictive approach in industrial, service, agricultural, and other sectors, which ultimately led to a decline in numerous activities and businesses. For example, the Kuwait Authority for Partnership Projects has been compelled to re-tender 23 projects. Some of these projects had been on hold for over two years, causing financial losses to state assets and reducing previously earned revenue.
At the same time, completing the necessary studies for these projects and initiating their implementation will require a significant amount of time. As a result, the projects will remain dormant for several years, yielding no immediate benefits during that period. We ask - Why were these projects not initially transferred to the Public Institution for Social Security, allowing economic experts to invest the institution’s surpluses domestically? This approach could have prevented high-risk ventures, such as the previously mentioned loss of two deposits in Lebanese banks. Effective management of these projects would generate substantial, lowrisk financial returns. Given the current fragile international situation, particularly in light of recent global developments, caution is essential to avoid investments where potential risks outweigh the benefits.
Therefore, prioritizing a realistic assessment that considers potential negative repercussions before positive outcomes is the best way to maximize benefits for all parties - the private sector, the state, and citizens. Conversely, when self-interest and personal rivalries drive decision-making, the outcome inevitably harms the collective. While the state may see profits from these projects, it must realize that these gains come at the public’s expense. The burden of high rents will be passed on to consumers, forcing them either to reduce spending and forego purchases or to demand higher rates, which in turn drives up the prices of their own services. At the same time, companies involved in government-funded projects will face pressure to raise their costs.
Inflation is being fueled by a self perpetuating cycle. This trend requires decisive intervention, specifically by injecting funds into the market via appropriate channels and ensuring the circulation of capital. Such measures are necessary to achieve a genuine, sustained increase in GDP while simultaneously controlling inflation. Consequently, any conditions the government imposes on new investors to relaunch projects are unlikely to produce the same positive results as in the past. The primary need is to establish a strong financial cycle, supported by laws and regulations that attract more investors to the country. This will reinforce economic security, which forms the foundation of social security. Ultimately, as the saying goes, envy often destroys what has been painstakingly built
