Monday, June 02, 2025

Archaeologists Join Geologists in Quest to Define Age of Humans



A new archaeology is being developed based on evidence of human activity in the Earth’s sedimentary record, and archaeologists are helping to define the Anthropocene as a new stage in the geological record.

The evolution of the human mind has allowed us to transcend our modern understandings of time and expand into the realm of “deep time thinking.” One example of this is the Geologic Time Scale (GTS), a human construct that traces the astrophysical events that have affected the composition and structure of the Earth since it was formed some 4.6 billion years ago.

Scientists have assembled bits and pieces of this huge temporal scale into periods of relative climatic and biotic stability based on geological and fossil data. By ordering these events sequentially in time, they have been able to reconstruct when, how, and under what conditions life emerged on the planet. Under the aegis of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) is charged with defining geological epochs based on fundamental changes registered in the Earth’s geological formations. The GTS is often depicted with spiraling concentric branches divided into segments representing distinct geological epochs defined by periods of relative geobiological stability.

These epochs are named, dated, and ordered, and the length of each segment is proportional to its duration relative to the other phases. As we progress toward the outer rings of the spiral, we notice that the time segments gradually become smaller, especially around 500 million years ago after the unprecedented proliferation of complex life forms that appeared during the Cambrian explosion, which accelerated the pace of global ecological changes registered in the Earth’s layers.

The emergence of the first humanoid species has been traced back to only around 7 million years ago and is placed at the extreme tip of the last branch of the spiral, underscoring how little time has passed, relatively, since our ancestors appeared on the planet. Based on global climatic data, the evolutionary story of the genus Homo has taken place throughout the Quaternary Period that began around 2.58 million years ago during the Pleistocene Epoch. This period roughly overlaps with the invention of the first breakthrough human technologies made from stone. A global warming event that began 11,650 years ago around the same time as the emergence of early sedentary civilizations in the Fertile Crescent signals the start of the Holocene Epoch, in which we currently live.

The Anthropocene (The Age of Humans) has been proposed as a new geological epoch after or within the Holocene, and, if formalized, would be the first to be introduced based on geologically observable effects of human activity on the planet. This compelling proposal spurred the establishment of the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), which is tasked to evaluate whether the geophysical signature of human behavior is sufficient to justify placing this new epoch at the apex of the spiraling branches of the GTS. While many scientists agree on the idea in principle, a major point of contention is when exactly the Anthropocene began.

Not surprisingly, pinpointing a precise threshold when human activity caused recognizable global geological alteration has proven to be a very difficult task that geologists and archeologists are working together to resolve. Some archeologists consider the Anthropocene as an incremental process, whose genesis can be identified diachronically in the Earth’s strata as early as tens of thousands of years ago, when modern humans consolidated planetary dominance, appropriating and transforming landscapes and biotic resources in archeologically detectable ways.

Anthropogenic signals, such as changes in ecosystems brought on by human overhunting of ice age megafauna, can be traced back to this period. By 10,000 years ago, plant and animal domestication boosted human ecosystem engineering as populations grew steadily through time. By around 5,000 years ago, the first urban dwellings drew swelling numbers of individuals into restricted areas, and technological innovation surged after the invention of metallurgy. Growing populations and intensified farming consumed and modified land, and animal husbandry led to increases in methane emissions traceable in the Earth’s sedimentary record.

The human imprint on the planet becomes significantly more conspicuous after the industrial age was launched in the Western world around 200 years ago, with an upsurge in carbon emissions from burning coal to feed technological development and increasing concentration of greenhouse gases driving global warming.

While viable arguments support each of these signposts along our evolutionary highway, the AWG concluded that the most suitable time to begin the Anthropocene would be in the 1950s, when the Great Acceleration sharply augmented the signs of human activity in the global geological record. This made the signs even more clearly distinguishable thanks to a wide range of indicators synchronously chronicling their symptoms, like climate deregulation, atmospheric, terrestrial, and water pollution, loss of biodiversity, excessive resource consumption, and massive land transformations.

In March 2024, the IUGS decided not to formally integrate the Anthropocene into the GTS; a verdict that has hardly quelled disagreements surrounding this matter. And there are other problems related to this issue. For example, while the existing chronostratigraphic divisions of the GTS register periods of stability lasting millions of years, the Anthropocene would be the first geological epoch to occur within only a human lifetime.

Even if we situate its beginning thousands of years before the industrial revolution, the Anthropocene sedimentary archive is currently still under formation. No matter the outcome of this fascinating planet-wide debate, the Anthropocene has indelibly entered into scientific and social discourse as the world faces many challenges posed by the unprecedented expansion of advanced human populations with unique techno-social behaviors that are now clearly linked to cataclysmic climatic events and biological genocide. It has become evident that the implications of the Anthropocene now exceed the question of its validity as a geochronological division in the Earth’s evolutionary history.

While geologists examine the end results of long-term paleoecological scenarios, archeologists center on more recent layers that record the origins and evolution of human life (the archeosphere). Fascinating interpretations are coming out of the collaboration between geologists and archeologists on the issue of the Anthropocene. Among these, the concept of the physical technosphere is particularly interesting since it addresses questions about how the entire mass of materials manufactured and modified by humans is becoming assimilated into the Earth system. In 2016, Jan Zalasiewicz and colleagues estimated the total mass of the physical technosphere to be a staggering 30 trillion tons, and it continues to grow, far surpassing both the volume and the diversity of the domesticated biosphere (plants and animals).

“We define the physical technosphere as consisting of technological materials within which a human component can be distinguished, with part in active use and part being a material residue. The human signature may be recognized by characteristics including form, function and composition that result from deliberate design, manufacture and processing. This includes extraction, processing and refining raw geological materials into novel forms and combinations of elements, compounds and products,” stated the article by Zalasiewicz and colleagues published in the Anthropocene Review, United Kingdom.

The study further added, “The active technosphere is made up of buildings, roads, energy supply structures, all tools, machines, and consumer goods that are currently in use or usable, together with farmlands and managed forests on land, the trawler scours and other excavations of the seafloor in the oceans, and so on. It is highly diverse in structure, with novel inanimate components including new minerals and materials… and a living part that includes crop plants and domesticated animals. Humans both produce and are sustained by (and now are dependent on) the rest of the physical technosphere.”

Although it was formed culturally because of anthropogenic agency, the technosphere combined with natural forces, has become an integral part of the functioning Earth system. It operates above and below the ground, in the seas, and even in outer space, with components interacting constantly and dynamically with the lithosphere, the biosphere, the hydrosphere, and the atmosphere.

While these other spheres have evolved over millions, or even billions of years, the technosphere—like the Anthropocene—has existed for a comparatively minute period of time. Continuously growing in pace with human demography and technological advances, the technosphere now generates so much excess waste that it cannot all be recycled back into the system, creating an imbalance in the structural relationships guiding the planet’s equilibrium and generating traceable Anthropocene deposits.

Beyond its physical aspects, the technosphere also encompasses the human social structures that enable it to function and in which all individuals play a part. Much like the synapses within the human brain or molecular systems forming the parts of a larger whole, humans constitute the individual components of the technosphere, cooperating to enable it to function while also creating the need for its existence.

“The technosphere is also manifest in the wide distribution of myriad artefacts such as needles, motors, and medicines, and by technological or technologically assisted processes like pumping and harvesting, as well as by nominally human activities that are closely tied to technological processes, such as watching television or filling out tax forms. Most such localized systems, processes and artefacts derive from, or are connected either directly or indirectly to, the globe-spanning networks of the technosphere,” stated the 2014 article by P. K. Haff, published in the Geological Society, London.

Following geological precepts and using methodologies classically applied in archeological sciences, the imprint of human activity on the planet is gradually being defined, quantified, mapped, and categorized, while novel subjects like technospheric taxonomy are being developed to complement traditional geological and stratigraphic practices. Just like the remnants of prehistoric material culture—like stone tools or pottery sherds—the objects we produce, use, and throw away in our daily lives are transforming into technofossils that will become markers in the chronocultural framework of human evolution, providing fodder for future archeologists.

At the generational scale, residues from polluting gases, sewage, toxic chemicals, and microplastics are melding into sedimentary layers, and artificial ground transformed by landfills, war rubble, mining, and urban settings is converted into novel anthropic geological settings with the passage of time.

There is no doubt that scarring and modification of land and sea resulting from wars, agriculture, urbanization, mining, and other human activities are being incorporated into the Earth’s geological layers. The evolution of human technologies has led our species to embark on an ongoing process that began incrementally and snowballed exponentially over the millennia, converting into the emblem of modern human heritage.

The global distribution of all human waste will be chronicled in relation to its position in sub-actual sedimentary formations that—in the not so distant future—will serve to define and classify the sequential cultural contexts of the Anthropocene.

Deborah Barsky is a writing fellow for the Human Bridges project of the Independent Media Institute, a researcher at the Catalan Institute of Human Paleoecology and Social Evolution, and an associate professor at the Rovira i Virgili University in Tarragona, Spain, with the Open University of Catalonia (UOC). She is the author of Human Prehistory: Exploring the Past to Understand the Future.

Courtesy: Independent Media Institute

 

 

New Study Shows Extreme Glacier Loss, Already at 2 Degree Celsius



Mohd. Imran Khan 


Widespread concern expressed at first global UN conference focused on glaciers, underway in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.

Image Courtesy: New Indian Express

Tajikistan/Patna: India might have experienced a cool May in 2025, an unusual one, as this month is normally known for extreme heat and heat waves. But global temperature is rising due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and continues to pose a serious threat to glaciers. 

A latest international scientific study published in the journal, Science, has revealed that glaciers are even more sensitive to global warming than previously estimated; with only 24% of present-day glacier mass remaining if the world warms to 2.7°C, the trajectory set by current climate policies. These figures, however, are global, skewed mostly by the very large glaciers around Antarctica and Greenland.

In contrast, limiting warming to 1.5°C would preserve 54% of glacier mass.

According to scientists and experts engaged in the study, new projections show extreme glacier loss already at 2 degree Celsius. There is an urgent transition from fossil fuels needed to avoid glacier tipping points, they say.

Even the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH), where glaciers feed river basins supporting two billion people, show only 25% of 2020 ice remaining at 2°C. Kathmandu-based ICIMOD's recent research study also pointed towards the same.

The glacier regions most important to human communities are even more sensitive, with several losing nearly all glacier ice already at 2°C. This includes the glaciers of the European Alps, the Rockies of the Western US and Canada, and Iceland, with only 10-15% of their 2020 ice levels remaining at 2°C sustained warming. Most hard-hit would be Scandinavia, with no glacier ice remaining at 2°C at all, warns the study.

All four of these regions are committed to losing at least half their ice already at or below 1°C; starkly mirroring a paper released last week setting the safe margin for Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets at or below that same 1°C level, the study finds.

The study highlighted that staying close to 1.5°C on the other hand preserves at least some glacier ice in all regions, even Scandinavia, with 20-30% remaining in the four most sensitive regions; and 40-45% in the Himalayas and Caucuses; stressing the growing urgency of the 1.5°C temperature goal and rapid decarbonisation to achieve it.

These results come amidst rising concern about impacts of glacier and snowpack loss by world leaders as the first global UN conference focused on glaciers opened in Dushanbe, Tajikistan on Friday. Officials from over 50 countries are in attendance, including 30 at ministerial level or higher.

Glaciers in Tajikistan and the rest of Central Asia, serving as water towers across the ancient Silk Road civilisations, stretching from Pakistan to China, maintain twice as much ice at 1.5°C (60% of 2020 levels) as they do at 2°C (30%).

Speaking in Dushanbe, Asian Development Bank Vice-President Yingming Yang said, "Melting glaciers threaten lives on an unprecedented scale, including the livelihoods of more than two billion people in Asia. Switching to clean energy to cut the release of planet-warming emissions remains the most effective way of slowing glacial melt. At the same time," he added, "it is essential to mobilise financing to help the most vulnerable adapt to a future of more floods, droughts, and rising sea levels across Asia and the Pacific."

To get these results, a team of 21 scientists from 10 countries used eight glacier models to calculate the potential ice loss of the more than 200,000 glaciers worldwide, under a wide range of global temperature scenarios. For each scenario, they assumed that temperatures would remain constant for thousands of years.

In all scenarios, the glaciers lose mass rapidly over decades and then continue to melt at a slower pace for centuries, even without further warming. This means they will feel the impact of today’s heat for a long time before settling into a new balance as they retreat to higher altitudes.

“Our study makes it painfully clear that every fraction of a degree matters,” says co-lead author Dr. Harry Zekollari from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. “The choices we make today will resonate for centuries, determining how much of our glaciers can be preserved.”

"Glaciers are good indicators of climate change because their retreat allows us to see with our own eyes how climate is changing...[but t]he situation for glaciers is actually far worse than visible in the mountains today," says co-lead author Dr. Lilian Schuster from the University of Innsbruck.

A sadly striking feature of the study is that glaciers in the Tropics -- the central Andes of Peru, Ecuador and Colombia, as well as East Africa and Indonesia -- appear to maintain higher levels of ice, but this is only because they have lost so much already. What remains today is at very high altitudes where ice essentially "evaporates," rather than melts.

Venezuela's final glacier, Humboldt, lost glacier status in 2024; Indonesia's ironically named "Infinity Glacier" is likely to follow within the next two years. Germany lost one of its last five remaining glaciers during a heat wave in 2022, and Slovenia's likely lost its last real glacier a few decades ago.

At another high-level conference on mountains and glaciers earlier this month, named the Sagarmatha Dialogues in honour of Mt. Everest (Sagarmatha), Nepal's Prime Minister Oli had underscored their global importance: "Mountains may seem far away. But their breath keeps half the world alive. From the Arctic to the Andes, from the Alps to the Himalayas - they are the Earth’s water towers....and they are in danger."

 

Free Market Economy in Syria: We’ve Seen This failure Before




The model the new regime seeks to implement, is a standard international recipe which includes tax cuts for corporations, and privatization of public assets.

Three days after rebel forces toppled President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, Bassel Hamwi, head of the Damascus Chamber of Commerce, told Reuters in an exclusive interview that the new economic model will be “a free market system based on competition.” Similarly, other high-ranking officials, including Syria’s Transitional President Ahmed al-Sharaa, noted that Syria has suffered from “socialist” economic policies. The advisor to the Minister of Economy stated: “The entire public sector must be sold,” illustrating that “establishing and managing businesses is the responsibility of citizens, not government bureaucrats who are amateur entrepreneurs.”

It is argued that such statements may be mere rhetoric meant to appease the international community without full implementation. However, a closer look at the new regime’s conduct since its arrival suggests that it has moved decisively toward extreme liberalization.

Despite the Baath regime’s decades-long history of a centralized, or “command” economy, where government bodies control production and distribution through state-owned enterprises, Assad shifted towards open market policies in the early 2000s. As a result, the public sector’s share of Syria’s GDP dropped to just one-third. The social consequences were disastrous, with some experts arguing that these policies played a key role in sparking the 2011 uprising. This raises critical questions about the new regime’s rationale for implementing similar policies, now on an even shakier foundation.

“Economic liberalization,” the contemporary meaning behind the oft-used term “free market economy,” refers to allowing businesses to take charge of the economy with minimal government restrictions. It is a model implemented through a standard international recipe which includes tax cuts for corporations, and privatization of public assets. This step implements harsh austerity measures, such as laying off public sector workers, cutting spending on public services, raising sales taxes, cutting pensions and ending subsidies on essential commodities. It also involves extreme facilitation of international trade, which can be to the detriment of domestic goods. These policies send a message to major financial institutions, like the IMF and World Bank, that a country is committed to making necessary changes to its fiscal policy in order to be eligible for financial aid. They also signal that the economy is open and attractive to foreign investors.

How is the new Syrian regime implementing a free market economy?

Since the beginning of the year, the government has unveiled a plan to overhaul the public sector by eliminating supposedly “ghost employees.” Former finance Minister Mohammad Abazid revealed in January that 400,000 “phantom names” must be purged from government payrolls, while the Minister of Administrative Development announced that Syria now needs only 550,000 to 600,000 public sector workers – less than half the previous workforce.

Additionally, Syria’s new government wasted no time in lifting state subsidies on fuel, raising diesel prices to nearly 10,000 Syrian pounds per liter at official gas stations in March 2025, compared to the subsidized rate of just 2,000 pounds in previous years. As a result, a taxi ride from Damascus to the suburbs costs half to almost all of a minimum-wage worker’s daily income.

In December 2024, beneficiaries of the “smart card system were denied subsidies on bread.” Families who used the card enjoyed the benefit of purchasing essential goods at reduced prices. Although the standard bundle now weighed 1,500 grams (up from 1,100 grams) and contained 12 loaves instead of just 7, this change came with a steep price increase, with the cost of a single bundle skyrocketing from 400 Syrian pounds to 4,000, marking a dramatic shift in the country’s approach to staples. On top of that, the Director General of the Syrian Bakeries Institution, Mohammad al-Sayyadi disclosed that the relevant authorities are currently conducting a study to either revise the price of the subsidized bread package or decrease its weight, as part of a broader strategy to gradually “liberalize” pricing.

Syria’s new government wasted no time in lifting state subsidies on fuel, raising diesel prices to nearly 10,000 Syrian pounds per liter at official gas stations in March 2025, compared to the subsidized rate of just 2,000 pounds in previous years.

To make matters worse, the state-run Syrian Trade Corporation was dismantled, its operations frozen, and its vast inventory liquidated through public auctions. This corporation was a merger of the General Consumer Corporation, the General Corporation for Storage and Marketing, and the General Corporation for the Distribution of Textile Products; it had direct sales links to citizens and state employees in most Syrian cities.

Trade liberalization took center stage, with the government promising to cut tariffs on imports by 60% within a month of its arrival. The administration also made efforts to remove trade and transportation barriers with neighboring Jordan and Turkey. Turkish exports to northern Syria surged to USD 219 million in January alone, marking a 35.5% year-on-year increase. Cheap Turkish products have now flooded the market and can be seen being bought on the sidewalks at the expense of Syrian goods. By the end of February 2025, Jordanian exports to Syria had surged by 483% compared to the same period in 2024, rising from 6 million to 35 million Jordanian dinars according to the Jordanian Department of Statistics, while Syrian exports to Jordan actually declined by 11.11%, from 9 million to 8 million dinars when comparing the first two months of 2024 and 2025.

Plans to revitalize Syria’s free trade zones with adjacent countries were also set in motion. The Jordan Free Zones Investors Commission reported that the total number of contracts signed in the Syrian-Jordanian Joint Free Zone has reached 88 investment and operational contracts since its reopening at the beginning of this year.

The new regime also implemented a policy of what can be described as “monetary austerity.” The central bank restricted liquidity, enforced strict withdrawal limits on bank accounts, and reduced the printing of new currency – measures that dampened consumer demand and weakened purchasing power. Notably, in May, the Central Bank of Syria announced that, starting July 5, clients would be allowed full withdrawals from new cash deposits made after May 7, 2025. However, the policy excludes remittances and earlier deposits, leading experts to view its impact as limited due to its narrow scope.

To fund the new free market economy, Sharaa engaged with a wide range of Syrian business figures, including wealthy investors, industrialists, and company executives, both domestically and abroad. He even established contact with former Assad-linked businessmen who had fled the country after the fall of the regime.

The central bank restricted liquidity, enforced strict withdrawal limits on bank accounts, and reduced the printing of new currency – measures that dampened consumer demand and weakened purchasing power.

The regime has promised businessmen from around the world to allow investment in strategic sectors of the Syrian economy, and Syrian officials have held meetings for this purpose with investors and officials from countries such as ChinaTurkeyAzerbaijan, not to mention European and Arab countries. On May 1, Syria signed its first major investment deal with a global corporation, a €230 million, 30-year contract with France’s CMA CGM to develop and operate the Port of Latakia, the country’s main seaport.

In order to secure and stabilize these investments, the regime pursued every possible avenue to lift sanctions, promising European countries to take back Syrian refugees, going to the Elysee Palace to get President Macron’s blessing, and even desperately trying to arrange a meeting with President Trump, going so far as to make symbolic gestures, such as proposing the construction of a Trump Tower in Damascus.

Lessons from Assad’s free market policies

It appears that the new regime has not learned the lessons of Assad’s liberalization plan in the decade leading up to the Syrian uprising in 2011. Bashar al-Assad’s aggressive push toward a free market economy is well documented in Mohammad Jamal Barut’s book “The Last Decade in Syria’s History: The Dialectic of Stagnation and Reform.

Barut points out that liberalization was achieved through a sweeping wave of legislative and policy reforms, known as the Decree Revolution, which saw the introduction of over 1,200 new laws between 2000 and 2005. These reforms were designed to integrate the Syrian economy into global economic flows, benefit from Syrian capital, and take advantage of the financial boom in the Gulf region.

Syrian economist Jihad Yazigi points out that following Syria’s economic liberalization in the early 2000s, private investors took the reins and dominated almost every major sector of the economy. The private sector became the driving force behind agriculture, manufacturing, construction, wholesale and retail trade, tourism, domestic transportation, and more, not to mention new opportunities in energy and finance. Barut’s book shows how tangible these results have been: The private sector’s contribution to GDP rose from 59.8% in 2000-2005 to 64.9% in 2006-2009.

It is important to note that this economic liberalization came at the expense of industrialization, favoring high-return, high-yield activities in the services sector, with the benefits going largely to the country’s wealthiest elites.

The social consequences of the liberalization model were stark. The percentage of Syrians living below the poverty line rose from 11.4% (2.04 million people) in 2004 to 12.3% (2.36 million) in 2007. Inflation surged from 10% in 2006 to 15.15% in 2008, making that year the worst of the decade.

Employment trends underscored the severe impact of these policies. Between 2004 and 2008, Syria’s economy generated only 90,000 new jobs, a strikingly low figure reflecting an average employment growth rate of just 0.5% per year. In contrast, labor force projections indicated that the economy needed to expand employment at an annual rate of 3-4% to absorb new entrants into the job market.

It is important to note that this economic liberalization came at the expense of industrialization, favoring high-return, high-yield activities in the services sector, with the benefits going largely to the country’s wealthiest elites. Barut sums up the situation in the following passage:

“In the rush to attract investment at any cost and drive quantitative economic growth, institutional reform in Syria was reduced to a narrow, neoliberal economic program. The guiding principle was an overreliance on the ‘invisible hand’ of the market, with policymakers prioritizing growth rates over equitable distribution.”

Shaky foundations

Assad’s flawed liberalization plan came at a time when Syria’s political, economic, and social foundations were relatively stable, a time when a decade and a half of war didn’t make it a state of shaky foundations. Now, the new regime is attempting to implement a similar model, under far less favorable circumstances.

To give an idea of those shaky foundations, a recent UNDP report notes that in addition to massive infrastructure damage, the war in Syria has caused an estimated USD 800 billion in lost GDP over 14 years of conflict. Economic growth simulations suggest that if Syria continues to grow at the modest rate observed in recent years – about 1.3% annually between 2018 and 2024 – its GDP will not return to 2010 levels until 2080, nearly 55 years from now.

Therefore, the war has created inadequate conditions for investment in Syria, as the country’s “Investment Climate Combined Index” was 141.3 in 2023, placing the country at the bottom of the list at 154. The index is based on the findings, reports, and ratings of international companies and financial, investment and consulting institutions on the political, economic and institutional situation of countries in the region. Additionally, Syria ranked 116 in the Economic Performance Indicator, which is one of the sub-indices that make up the Investment Climate Index. In contrast, Barut points out that the Assad old plan for liberalizing the economy was very much linked to “the stability of the overall indicators of the Syrian macroeconomy that make up the investment climate combined index.”

A major challenge for the new regime lies in the lack of foreign currency reserves, a key requirement for a functioning free market based on supply and demand. In the decade when Assad embarked on his liberalization plan, the state had foreign currency reserves to finance about 29 months of imports, or 65% of the money supply, or 90% of 2005-2007 GDP. In comparison, the central bank’s foreign exchange reserves amount to only about USD 200 million in cash after the fall of the regime, as reported by Reuters, while another said the US dollar reserves were “in the hundreds of millions.”

What additionally encouraged the old government to pursue an open market policy at the beginning of the century was the stability of the exchange rate within limited fluctuations, while it now fluctuates continuously between the 10,000 and 12,000 levels, instead of being stable for years at the 14,700 level, as was the case before the fall of the previous regime.

Another reason why Sharaa’s liberalization plan is less robust than Assad’s is the fact that the poverty rate has nearly tripled, from 33% before the conflict to 90% today according to a UNDP report, while extreme poverty has increased sixfold, from 11% to 66%. This means that cutting public spending by leaving the prices of bread, medicine, and cooking gas to market mechanisms will make those products unaffordable for most Syrians.

In addition, what makes liberalization a challenge is the massive public debt that Syria has accumulated compared to its small economy, skyrocketing to USD 20 – 23 billion. These debt figures are high compared to a GDP of USD 17.5 billion in 2023, a fact that negatively affects the appetite of the foreign private for investing in Syria’s economy.

On the political level, Assad’s 25-year liberalization plans began in the era of a unified Syria and a centralized government that had full control over its territory. Today, the situation is markedly different, as Syria cannot offer a stable environment for investors amid continued violence by Islamist factions and targeted attacks on Alawites and Druze, alongside Israeli occupation and frequent incursions in the south. This persistent instability not only heightens the risk of asset damage and logistical disruptions but also reduces the number of active consumers in the market, further deterring investment.

Supporting local production can give citizens more money to spend by creating more jobs. This is a better way to boost purchasing power than simply making foreign goods cheaper by lowering trade barriers, which ultimately harms locally made products.

An alternative path

The alternative of “least state intervention in the economy” is to let the state play a central role in promoting the economy, and the alternative of relying primarily on capital and commodities from abroad is to promote national production.

According to Syrian economist Jihad Yazigi: “Rather than spending time showing the world that they can be as liberal as possible in their policy choices, the new Syrian authorities should focus on one long-term priority: increase domestic production in all business sectors.” The following actions become crucial: investing in infrastructure and safeguarding local producers from external competition to provide them with essential breathing room.

Supporting local production can give citizens more money to spend by creating more jobs. This is a better way to boost purchasing power than simply making foreign goods cheaper by lowering trade barriers, which ultimately harms locally made products.

This article was first published on Al Akhbar English.

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch