The outcry on the Syrian street following the hike in fuel prices came as no surprise. People view the situation quite simply: if the price of diesel rises, transport fares go up; if transport costs increase, so do the prices of vegetables, food, and goods; and with winter approaching, there are the added burdens of heating, as well as the costs associated with bread, agriculture, and production.
People are therefore justified in voicing their objections and stating that their capacity to endure is limited. Listening to these voices should not be interpreted as an act of opposition to the state; on the contrary, when the cost of living places such strain on the public, it is incumbent upon any economic policy to heed their concerns and seek a solution.
At the same time, the other side of the equation cannot be ignored. The state is required to secure fuel supplies on a daily basis; a portion of these needs is met through imports, and prices are influenced by global markets, shipping costs, exchange rates, and supply conditions. If the cost of procuring the fuel exceeds its selling price, someone must inevitably shoulder the difference.
It is precisely here that I believe the issue should not devolve into a confrontation between the citizen and the state:
• The citizen says: "I can no longer bear any more."
• The state says: "I cannot indefinitely absorb the cost difference."
Both are realities that cannot be disregarded.
Therefore, rather than limiting the debate to a choice between raising or lowering prices, why not ask a different question: Can we sell fuel at a price that ensures its continued availability, and then redirect the funds the state can allocate for subsidies to where people truly need them?
I believe this is possible, though the approach cannot be identical for all types of fuel.
Gasoline is not the same as cooking gas... and diesel is a different story altogether.
Let us begin with gasoline for private vehicles; If we lower the price for everyone, a car owner consuming 200 liters will benefit far more than one consuming 50 liters, whereas a citizen who does not own a car will derive no benefit from the reduction at all.
Therefore, I believe that gasoline for private vehicles could be sold at an economic price—determined by the state based on cost—while redirecting a portion of the resulting savings directly to eligible households.
However, we must be fair; not every car owner is wealthy. There are those who own twenty-year-old vehicles, those who use their cars to earn a living, and low-income families for whom the car is their only vehicle. Thus, car ownership alone should not be grounds for depriving a family of support.
The criterion must be the family's overall situation: its income, size, circumstances, and actual ability to bear the cost of living.
Taxis and public transport present a different case, as they do not represent merely private consumption; any price increase directly impacts the passenger's pocket. Consequently, a special mechanism is required to link any subsidy to the actual service provided and the fare structure.
As for household gas, I do not believe the same approach should apply, given that it is an essential need in every home. Eligible families could receive a basic allocation at a subsidized "social" rate—determined by family size and needs—while any amount exceeding this limit would be sold at the economic price. This way, we safeguard the household's essential needs without creating an uncapped subsidy system.
A Cautious Approach to Diesel
We then come to diesel fuel, an area requiring even greater caution; It is not merely a matter of filling a car’s fuel tank; diesel is essential for heating, bakeries, agriculture, transportation, hospitals, industrial production, and the transport of food supplies. A citizen might never personally purchase a single liter of diesel, yet they still pay the price of its rising cost—embedded in the price of bread, vegetables, and transportation fares.
Therefore, diesel subsidies should be aligned with actual usage:
• Heating for vulnerable families requires a specific approach.
• Public transportation requires a specific approach.
• Bakeries and agriculture require a specific approach.
• Hospitals and essential services require a specific approach.
• As for usage unrelated to basic needs or essential production, the economic price can be charged.
Put simply: we do not subsidize diesel merely because it is diesel; rather, we subsidize it when it supports bread, heating, transportation, agriculture, healthcare, or production that people rely on.
Numerical Calculations and Direct Support
So... what will actually reach the family?
Here, we must move beyond generalities and put a concrete figure on the table. According to data from the UN World Food Programme (WFP), approximately 7.2 million people in Syria suffer from severe food insecurity. This figure refers to individuals, not the number of households eligible for support. To avoid attributing a figure to the organization that it did not state, we will use this number solely to construct a calculation example.
If we assume—for the sake of calculation—an average family size of five members: 7.2 million ÷ 5 = approximately 1.44 million families.
Thus, in this rough model, we are talking about approximately 1.5 million families. The actual figure the state arrives at might be higher or lower; this cannot be determined in an article but rather through a genuine social registry that accurately reflects the situation of families on the ground.
However, let us continue the calculation. If we aim for meaningful assistance and propose $60 per month per family as a starting point for discussion (not as a salary or an official figure), the costs would be:
• Approximately $86.4 million per month.
• Roughly $2.88 million per day.
• About $1.04 billion per year.
Yes, a billion dollars is a substantial sum; I present it exactly as is, without sugarcoating it. If the state cannot afford it, it should not promise it. If it can afford a portion of it, let us determine that feasible amount and calculate what would actually reach the family. The crucial thing is to avoid telling people there is support without anyone knowing its value, or setting a paltry sum that makes no difference to a family's life yet labeling it "social protection."
The $60 figure I propose here is not an amount I claim is sufficient for a family to live on (certainly not); rather, it is a monthly aid component within a broader system that also covers gas, heating, subsidized transport, bread, agriculture, and basic services. If prices and the cost of living change, the value of the aid must also be reviewed; otherwise, it will lose its significance over time.
Who deserves support?
This brings us to the most difficult question: Who is eligible?
In my view, this issue is more important than the support mechanism itself or the method of fund transfer. I do not want a bureaucrat deciding that a specific family deserves......and others do not qualify; I do not want anyone to be denied assistance simply because they own the home they live in or an old vehicle they use for work.
We need a national social registry for families—linked to national ID numbers and family data—that provides a comprehensive picture: family size, total income, employment status, housing, assets, business activities, children, the elderly, special needs cases, and verifiable income sources.
There is no need to simply categorize Syrians as either "poor" or "rich." Instead, there are families requiring greater protection, low-income families needing support, families capable of bearing part of the cost, and families able to cover the full cost.
Even with the best system in the world, errors will occur. Therefore, citizens must have the right to appeal and request a review, and they must be informed of the reasons behind their acceptance into or exclusion from the program.
Where will the funding come from?
This question cannot be avoided. If we want a program costing tens of millions of dollars per month, it is not enough to simply say the state should pay; the source of the funds must be clearly identified.
Funding could be pooled from savings achieved by eliminating general consumption subsidies, reallocating the state's subsidy budget, utilizing social protection resources, and directing any available grants or aid toward this purpose.
However, before finalizing any figures, the relevant authorities must sit down and perform actual calculations:
1. How much can the state allocate each month?
2. How many families can be covered?
3. What amount will each family receive?
Only then should the figures be announced to the public. There is no shame in the state acknowledging its limited capacity; what matters is that citizens know where the funds go, how much is allocated, how many families benefit, and how much actually reaches them. Such transparency protects the state just as it protects the citizen.
Conclusion
Ultimately, what do we want?
I do not want the state to subsidize the cost of every liter of fuel consumed by everyone, regardless of their financial means or consumption levels. Conversely, I cannot accept telling a family whose income is insufficient for food, heating, and transportation: "These are the new prices—you are on your own."
Between these two extremes lies ample room to construct a fairer solution:
• Gasoline for private use could be priced at market rates, while eligible families receive direct support.
• A protected baseline price for cooking gas could be maintained for households that need it.
• Diesel could be subsidized when used for heating, transportation, bread production, agriculture, healthcare, and essential manufacturing.
• A social registry could identify who requires protection and the level of support needed, while guaranteeing every citizen the right to appeal and review decisions.
I do not present these figures as a ready-made decision, nor do I claim this is the only possible solution; rather, I offer an idea I believe is worth discussing. Instead of asking only, "What should the price of a liter of fuel be?" let us also ask: "How much can the state allocate to support eligible families? Who truly needs this support? And how can we ensure it reaches them directly?"
Listening to public outcry does not mean ignoring the state’s capabilities, nor does understanding the state’s constraints mean asking people to bear burdens beyond their means. Ultimately, the success of any economic decision is measured not only by the state’s ability to supply fuel but also by the citizen’s ability to live with dignity.
Imad Al-Ismail - Zaman Al-Wasl
Comments About This Article
Please fill the fields below.