Ten-year vision and IMF programme

There are big differences between Jordan’s 10-year vision and the economic reform programme agreed upon with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The vision is an instrument designed to set the general direction. It is not strictly binding, while the programme is a definite agenda for action, with a set of objectives to be achieved. And it is of course binding for the government.

The country is supposed to observe both the vision and the programme.

The vision is watched by public opinion, while the programme undergoes regular IMF revision.

The two plans are not exactly the same. The vision is more ambitious, while the programme is more realistic and, perhaps, rather humble in comparison.

The difference between the two documents did not become noticeable after several years of application, but was obvious from the very beginning.

The difference is substantial, particularly from a quantitative point of view.

Take as an example economic growth. The vision expects growth this year (2016) to be 4.67 per cent in real terms, while the programme is satisfied with 2.8 per cent, up from the acctual rate of growth in the previous year, which was 2.3 per cent, a not very impressive improvement of only one half of a percentage point.

Differences continue to exist between the projections of the vision and the programme during the coming three years, 2017-2019.

Growth in the programme’s last year (2019) is supposed to reach 5.37 per cent according to the vision and 4 per cent only according to the programme.

It is only normal for the vision to be more ambitious and set higher targets, and for the programme to be more realistic.

It would be great if the actual results were better than what the programme aimed at, even if they are below the objectives of the vision.

Differences like the one above apply to other major economic indicators as well, such as gross domestic product, gross public debt, budget deficit, etc.

In every case, the programme’s objectives are always below the vision’s.

The real challenge facing the government is not to end up with results that are lower than the targets of both plans. Such an outcome would amount to a complete failure.

The government is by no means expected to choose one of the two options, namely either to go with the vision or adhere to the IMF programme. 

The vision is much wider than the programme, which is mainly about fiscal and monetary challenges, while the vision cares about the quality of life from social, educational, health, governance, productivity, competitiveness, social security, culture and national loyalty, in addition to the ability to stand to turbulences, and all other regional challenges.