When we warn about a shortage of dollars in Syria, it is not out of pessimism or an objection to investment; rather, it stems from our concern regarding the repercussions that an imbalance in dollar flows may have on the country’s future ability to finance essential imports—foremost among them being food and fuel.
Simply put, the issue concerns the volume of dollars flowing out of the country versus the volume flowing in; the problem is that the outflow significantly exceeds the inflow.
In recent times, substantial sums of foreign currency have left the country to finance the purchase of vehicles—for both private and government use—as well as to pay for imports. Added to this is the growing demand for dollars linked to real estate development projects. These various activities raise a fundamental economic question: where do these dollars come from, where do they go, and how much of this capital actually finds its way back into the Syrian economy?
The problem does not lie in the purchase of vehicles, the importation of goods, or the development of real estate projects per se, but rather in how these activities are financed and the extent to which they contribute to generating new dollar inflows. A dollar spent on financing imports is not necessarily equivalent to a dollar entering the country through productive or export-oriented activity. Similarly, a real estate project—regardless of its value—does not represent a new source of foreign currency if its financing is based primarily on pooling the existing dollar savings of Syrians, rather than attracting new capital from abroad. Hence, there is a clear need to establish well-defined regulations for foreign investment in Syria. These should ensure that foreign companies contribute capital from abroad, rather than relying on withdrawing dollars from the local market to finance their projects. The objective is not to hinder investment, but to ensure it acts as a catalyst for the economy—rather than further draining the country’s limited dollar liquidity.
This is particularly critical in real estate development projects, where financing mechanisms must be transparent, and their impact on local liquidity carefully assessed. It may be necessary to mandate that companies inject a specific portion of their capital from abroad before launching projects for public subscription or collecting funds from citizens—all under well-considered legal and economic guidelines.
However, the financial aspect is not the only challenge. Transparency is another major issue, and it accounts for many of the questions and criticisms surrounding investment projects.
When transparency is lacking and tenders are not clearly announced, skepticism grows, giving rise to questions that some might dismiss as merely populist. Conversely, when state procedures are public, investment terms are clear, and the criteria for selecting investors are well-known, the scope for controversy narrows, making decisions both understandable and subject to accountability.
Asking about the outcomes of these projects is not enough; one must also address the more fundamental questions regarding their origins, the mechanisms by which they were approved, and how they are financed. Citizens have a right to know how contracts are awarded, the volume of capital brought in from abroad, the proportion of local versus foreign financing, the expected return for the Syrian economy, and the extent to which each project contributes to job creation, production, and the generation of foreign currency. Ultimately, the shortage of dollars cannot be resolved merely by restricting imports or relying on real-estate investments. Instead, it requires achieving a balance between inflows and outflows, encouraging investments that generate foreign currency revenue, and regulating the use of dollars in activities that do not compensate for the foreign currency they consume.
The equation is clear: Syria needs investments that bring in dollars and create value—not projects that compete for the dollars already in the pockets of the Syrian people. Furthermore, clear procedures, transparent tendering processes, and the disclosure of funding sources remain essential prerequisites for building trust, safeguarding monetary resources, and ensuring that investments do not transform from an opportunity for growth into an additional burden on the economy.
In this article, we have not addressed the smuggling of dollars—the proceeds of corrupt deals—across borders in burlap sacks. That is a separate matter.
Editor-in-Chief
Zaman Al Wasl
Comments About This Article
Please fill the fields below.