Is It Time to Democratize Capital in Jordan?

Whenever the concept of democracy is raised, attention instinctively turns to politics—to elections, parliaments, political parties, freedom of expression, and the peaceful transfer of power. Modern political experience has firmly established these as the principal indicators of democratic maturity and institutional stability. Yet another question deserves equal attention, particularly amid today’s profound economic transformations: Can wealth itself become more democratic?

This is not a call for absolute equality of ownership, nor an attempt to revive economic doctrines that history has already left behind. Rather, it is an invitation to explore institutions capable of making economic growth more inclusive by providing citizens with meaningful opportunities to participate in the creation of wealth—not merely in the redistribution of its outcomes.

Political philosophy has long been concerned with the protection of property. From John Locke, who regarded property as one of the fundamental natural rights, to Adam Smith, who argued that markets flourish only when supported by trust, moral norms, and well-functioning institutions, the relationship between property and prosperity has occupied a central place in economic thought. More recently, Nobel laureate Douglass North demonstrated that development is determined not simply by the abundance of resources but by the quality of the institutions governing their use. Likewise, Amartya Sen redefined development as the expansion of people’s capabilities and freedoms rather than merely an increase in average income.

Taken together, these perspectives invite a different question. If democracy seeks to disperse political power and prevent its concentration, should we not also consider institutions capable of broadening economic opportunity and expanding participation in the ownership of productive assets?

This is where the public shareholding company emerges—not merely as a legal form of business organization, but as one of the most significant institutional innovations in modern economic history.

Public corporations solved a challenge that had constrained economic development for centuries. They enabled thousands of small savings to be pooled into large-scale productive investments, separated ownership from management, and established legal frameworks that distribute rights, responsibilities, risks, and returns among large numbers of shareholders. Their significance lies not only in mobilizing capital but also in transforming investment from an activity reserved for the wealthy into an opportunity accessible to a much broader segment of society.

Viewed from this perspective, a public shareholding company is more than a business enterprise; it is an institution that produces trust. It is built upon transparency, disclosure, shareholder protection, accountability, and independent governance—principles that have become economic assets just as much as legal requirements. Markets cannot function efficiently without trust, long-term investment cannot flourish amid uncertainty, and capital naturally seeks environments governed by stable institutions and predictable rules.

For this reason, corporate governance has evolved from a regulatory concern into a fundamental pillar of national competitiveness. The stronger the governance framework, the lower the cost of capital, the higher corporate valuations, the greater investor confidence, and the stronger the prospects for sustainable economic growth.

Yet the true importance of public shareholding companies extends beyond corporate governance alone. The greatest challenge facing modern economies is no longer simply achieving higher growth rates, but ensuring that growth is inclusive, equitable, and sustainable.

Experience around the world has shown that economies may record impressive GDP growth while wealth disparities continue to widen, corporate profits reach record levels, and large segments of society remain disconnected from the benefits of economic transformation. Consequently, economists are increasingly asking not only how to generate growth, but who owns that growth—and who participates in creating it.

It is precisely here that public shareholding companies intersect with the concept of sustainable development. When governed according to the highest standards of transparency and accountability, they possess the unique ability to integrate the three pillars of sustainability within a single institutional framework.

Economically, they mobilize domestic savings, finance investment, stimulate innovation, create employment, and deepen capital markets.

Socially, they broaden ownership, strengthen institutional trust, and enable citizens to participate in wealth creation rather than merely sharing in its eventual redistribution.

Environmentally, they can channel investment toward renewable energy, resource efficiency, circular economy initiatives, and low-carbon infrastructure.

Public shareholding companies therefore represent far more than financing mechanisms; they constitute institutional platforms for balanced and sustainable development.

This perspective carries particular relevance for Jordan, where the country is implementing its Economic Modernization Vision while seeking to accelerate growth, attract investment, and develop strategic sectors including energy, water, mining, transportation, logistics, and the digital economy.

However, the success of this vision will depend not only on the volume of investment attracted, but also on the relationship established between these investments and society itself.

Will major national projects remain developments that citizens merely observe from a distance? Or could some of these projects—where economically and institutionally appropriate—become opportunities in which citizens participate as shareholders alongside the state, the private sector, and institutional investors within sound legal and financial frameworks?

This is not an argument for economic populism, nor does it suggest that every national project should be floated through an initial public offering. Every project has its own financing requirements, risk profile, and strategic considerations. Rather, it opens an important discussion about how the ownership base of selected productive national assets might be broadened in ways that strengthen trust, mobilize domestic savings, and deepen citizens’ connection to the national economy.

Here lies perhaps the defining distinction between conventional development and truly inclusive development. Traditional approaches focus primarily on redistributing income after growth has occurred. Inclusive development, by contrast, seeks to broaden participation in the creation of wealth from the outset. Income redistribution remains an important instrument of social justice, but it cannot substitute for an economic system that allows a larger share of citizens to own productive assets—directly or indirectly—through transparent, well-governed institutions.

Broadening ownership is not merely about increasing the number of investors; it is about expanding the circle of responsibility, belonging, and long-term commitment. A citizen who owns shares in a successful company—or participates in a national project through an investment fund—does not view the economy as something external. Rather, it becomes an integral part of his or her own future and that of future generations.

This is what may be described as economic citizenship: a relationship in which citizens become partners in creating economic value rather than passive consumers or recipients of its outcomes.

Naturally, public shareholding companies are not a universal solution to every development challenge. They require deep and liquid capital markets, advanced regulatory frameworks, independent oversight institutions, rigorous disclosure standards, effective investor protection, and a strong culture of responsible investment. Without these foundations, they may instead become vehicles for speculation or excessive concentration of ownership—the very outcomes they are intended to prevent.

When these conditions are met, however, public shareholding companies become far more than instruments for raising capital. They become institutions that generate trust, strengthen governance, connect society with the economy, and provide a durable foundation for sustainable development.

In Jordan, where economic modernization intersects with political and administrative reform, it may be time to broaden the conversation by introducing a fourth dimension: institutional economic modernization—the development of economic institutions capable of combining efficiency, transparency, participation, and sustainability.

The central question for the coming years may therefore be not simply how to attract more investment, but how to enable a larger number of Jordanians to become partners in those investments whenever doing so is economically viable and institutionally appropriate.

This reality also raises another important question: When was the last time Jordan witnessed the establishment of a new public shareholding company through a broad public offering that enabled citizens to become shareholders from the very beginning? While Jordan’s capital market continues to experience capital increases, rights issues, and corporate restructuring, the primary market has not displayed the same level of dynamism required by the country’s modernization agenda. This calls for renewed consideration of the legislative, financial, and regulatory environment needed to encourage the establishment of new public shareholding companies, particularly in strategic sectors. The question is therefore not merely historical; it is fundamentally developmental. Is our economy creating new institutions capable of absorbing domestic savings and expanding ownership opportunities, or is the market becoming primarily a venue for trading ownership in already existing companies?

International experience offers valuable lessons. In countries such as Singapore and Malaysia, publicly listed companies have played an important role in financing infrastructure, airports, ports, energy projects, and other strategic investments while channeling domestic savings into national development. In France, part of the national electricity company was offered to public investors as part of a policy designed to broaden ownership while preserving the state’s strategic role. Saudi Arabia has likewise witnessed landmark public offerings that deepened its capital market and expanded citizen participation in the ownership of strategic national assets. These experiences do not suggest that a single model fits every country. Rather, they demonstrate that public shareholding companies can serve as powerful instruments for mobilizing national capital, deepening financial markets, and involving society in financing major development projects when supported by sound governance and effective institutional design.

Ultimately, nations are measured not only by the size of their economies or the number of projects they complete, but also by their ability to build institutions that enable citizens to feel genuine ownership over the future being created around them.

If Jordan is preparing to implement strategic projects in water, railways, mining, energy, and the digital economy, an important question naturally follows: How many new public shareholding companies could emerge from these projects over the coming decade? And how many Jordanians could become partners in their ownership rather than remaining merely beneficiaries of their outcomes?

Perhaps this represents the deepest mission of the public shareholding company in the twenty-first century: not merely to generate profits, but to generate trust; not merely to mobilize capital, but to broaden ownership; not merely to finance development, but to transform development itself from an economic program managed by institutions into a national project genuinely shared by society as a whole.