Executive Summary:
This study is based on a field survey conducted by the Research and Studies Department of the Scientific Office of the Syrian Future Movement. The survey included 600 families in five major Syrian cities (Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Latakia, and Tartus) during 2026, aiming to understand the actual mechanisms Syrians employ to manage their livelihoods after liberation.
The results reveal a significant gap between the picture gleaned from international poverty indicators (which indicate that more than 90% live below the poverty line) and the field observations, which show active markets, demand for durable goods, and construction activity.
The study proposes the “bioeconomic” theory as an alternative explanatory framework, focusing on multiple income sources (73% of families), social support networks (83% have a shelter in times of distress), occupational flexibility (60% have changed professions), and home-based production (59% engage in it).
It also shows that 59% of families cover their expenses easily or regularly, and 80% feel better off compared to the pre-liberation period.
The study concludes with practical recommendations to strengthen this model and present a forward-looking vision for Syria 2030.
Introduction – The Problem of the Contradiction Between International Indicators and the Reality on the Ground:
Since the liberation, a striking contradiction has emerged between the catastrophic picture painted by international reports of the living conditions in Syria and the reality experienced by Syrian citizens in major cities.
While estimates from the World Bank and the World Food Programme indicate that more than 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line, and 27% live in extreme poverty (World Bank, 2025; WFP, 2025), observers on the ground note a remarkable economic activity characterized by: saturated markets, increased demand for cars and household appliances, rising rents, and significant construction activity.
This contradiction cannot be attributed to a mere error in monitoring; rather, it points to a methodological gap in how well-being is measured in post-conflict contexts.
This study aims to test the hypothesis that Syrians have developed alternative economic mechanisms based on “self-generated productive capacity,” mutual support networks, and professional flexibility—what we call in this study “the bioeconomy.”
It also seeks to critique traditional measurement methodologies and offer alternative tools that capture the specificities of the Syrian context.
Theoretical Framework – From Resilience Economics to Bioeconomy:
- A Critique of Traditional Concepts of Poverty:
International poverty indicators primarily rely on measuring monetary income and consumption (Ravallion, 2016).
However, this approach overlooks several crucial dimensions in crisis contexts:
- The informal economy.
- Remittances.
- Social capital.
- Psychological resilience.
These factors, taken together, can produce a level of well-being that is disproportionate to apparent monetary income.
- Literature on Resilience Economics and the Informal Economy in Post-Conflict Contexts:
The literature on “resilience” refers to the ability of households to withstand shocks by diversifying income sources and relying on social networks.
Studies of similar cases, such as Iraq after 2003 and Lebanon after the civil war, have shown that households resort to the informal economy and remittances as primary coping mechanisms.
In the Balkans, some studies have documented how families rebuilt their livelihoods through a combination of international aid and self-initiated efforts (World Bank, 2005).
Syria is unique in its high degree of social cohesion and extensive kinship networks, which may explain the effectiveness of these mechanisms.
- The Origins of the Term “Bioeconomy”:
Nicolas Georgescu-Rojen coined the term “bioeconomy” to link economic, biological, and physical laws.
However, the contemporary use of the term by organizations such as the OECD focuses on an economy based on renewable biological resources.
Here, we offer a new definition that captures the specificities of the Syrian situation. We define the Syrian bioeconomy as an economic model based on investing in “human energy” through multiple income streams, professional flexibility, social support networks, and home-based production, resulting in a capacity for “life management” that transcends the limitations of monetary income.
This concept differs from the “informal economy” in that it focuses on positive and productive aspects, rather than simply evading taxes or regulation.
Research Methodology:
1- Study Type and Methodology:
We adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys (questionnaires) with qualitative tools (in-depth interviews and focus groups).
This approach allows us to measure the phenomenon on a large scale while understanding the underlying mechanisms.
2- Research Population and Sample:
The survey targeted households in the main urban areas: Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Latakia, and Tartus.
A stratified cluster sample of 600 households was selected, distributed according to the approximate population density of the cities: Damascus (32%), Aleppo (28%), Homs (18%), Latakia (12%), and Tartus (10%).
Each city was divided into neighborhoods according to living standards (upscale, middle class, and working class), and neighborhoods were randomly selected from each class.
Within each neighborhood, households were systematically selected:
In detached houses, one in five was chosen, and in apartment buildings, one apartment per building was randomly selected.
This sample size ensures a margin of error of ±4% at a 95% confidence level.
The response rate was 78%, with the main reasons for refusal being: fear of taxes and rationing (42% of respondents), reluctance to answer (35%), and the absence of the head of household (23%).
This may indicate a slight bias towards more confident or open households.
Measurement Tool – “Vital Well-being” Questionnaire:
1- The questionnaire was designed to measure four main dimensions:
- Dimension 1: Sources of productive energy (diversified income streams, home-based production, occupational flexibility).
- Dimension 2: Resilience capital (solidarity networks, vocational skills, in-kind support).
- Dimension 3: Dynamic living stability (covering expenses, feeling better, economic security, purchasing durable goods).
- Dimension 4: Challenges and opportunities (open-ended questions).
The questionnaire was initially tested on 30 households to ensure the clarity and suitability of the questions, and minor adjustments were made.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internal reliability was calculated and found to be 0.82 for the quantitative questions, indicating acceptable reliability.
Face validity was also confirmed by presenting the questionnaire to five economists and social researchers who are not members of the Syrian Future Movement.
2- Qualitative Instruments:
In-depth interviews were conducted with 25 individuals representing diverse demographics (small business owners, families reliant on remittances, widowed heads of households, and unemployed young people).
Four focus groups were also organized in working-class neighborhoods to discuss coping mechanisms and daily challenges.
The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed using the Brown-Clark method.
3- Data Analysis:
Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS software, including:
- Descriptive statistics (percentages, means).
- Tests of differences between cities to examine spatial variation.
- Logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with “ability to manage life.”
Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic coding.
4- Study Limitations:
The sample is limited to urban areas and does not represent rural areas or refugee camps. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized to all of Syria. We relied on respondents’ self-reported information, which may be influenced by “social desirability bias” (particularly in questions such as “managing life”) or “optimism bias” after editing.
The lack of a panel prevented accurate tracking of changes at the household level.
Despite assurances of confidentiality, verifying the accuracy of some income-related responses was difficult due to tax concerns or legal reasons.
Political and security conditions in some areas may have influenced responses, but we were unable to measure this.
Field Survey Results:
1- Sample Characteristics
The sample consisted of 48% males and 52% females (mostly female heads of households).
The most represented age group was 31-45 years (41%).
In terms of education, 34% held a university degree or higher, 29% had a secondary education, and 37% had less than a secondary education.
The average household size was 4.8 members.
2- Sources of Productive Energy:
The results showed that 73% of households relied on more than one source of income.
The distribution of households according to the number of sources was as follows:
27% had one source, 41% had two sources, 22% had three sources, and 10% had four or more sources. When analyzing the nature of income sources (with the possibility of multiple sources), the responses were distributed as follows: self-employment (58%), daily or seasonal work (43%), remittances from relatives (45%), government job (31%), private sector job (27%), aid from organizations (18%), property rental (12%), and farming or livestock breeding (9%).
Job flexibility was high: 38% changed jobs once in the past two years, and 22% changed jobs more than once. Only 13% remained in the same job without changing.
Regarding home-based production for sale or barter, 31% stated that they engage in it regularly, 28% occasionally, while 22% expressed their desire and ability to do so if the means were available.
3- Resilience Capital:
The results demonstrated the strength of mutual support networks, as:
54% have someone they turn to “always” in times of hardship, and 29% “sometimes.” Only 5% said they have no family members.
Regarding the role of family in improving living conditions, 48% said it was “essential and very significant,” and 33% said it was “moderate.” This means that 81% believe family plays an important role.
Regular in-kind support (food, medicine, home repair assistance) is received by 23% regularly and by 41% occasionally.
As for vocational skills, 42% possess a skill and use it supplementally, and 31% possess a skill but are not currently using it. Only 27% do not possess a specific skill.
Participation in cooperative groups or associations is limited: 18% participate regularly, 24% occasionally, but 32% expressed interest in joining.
In a hypothetical question: “If relatives’ support stopped, how would your situation be affected?”
23% answered “it would collapse completely,” and 41% answered “it would be significantly affected.” This means that 64% are substantially dependent on this support.
4- Dynamic Living Stability:
Households were asked how they covered their basic expenses over the past six months: 16% covered easily and sometimes saved, 43% covered them normally without major problems, 28% covered them with difficulty in some months, and 13% covered them with great difficulty and always experienced a deficit.
Time Comparison: Compared to last year (2025), 29% are much better, 38% are slightly better (67% improved), 21% are the same, 8% are slightly worse, and 4% are much worse.
Compared to the pre-liberalization period (before 2024): 52% are much better, 28% are slightly better (80% improved), 12% are the same, 5% are slightly worse, and 3% are much worse.
Feeling of Economic Security about the Future: 19% are very secure and optimistic, 36% are moderately secure (55% secure), 22% are uncertain, 15% are worried, and 8% are very fearful. Purchasing durable goods in the past year: 24% bought more than one item, 38% bought one item (62% bought), 22% did not buy but plan to, and 16% neither bought nor plan to.
Home renovations and repairs: 47% undertook major renovations or repairs to their homes in the past year.
The most significant question: “Can someone in your area manage reasonably well even with a limited income?”
38% answered “Yes, definitely,” 41% answered “Yes, somewhat” (79% positive), 14% answered “Very difficult,” and 7% answered “Impossible.”
Open-ended questions -5:
The biggest challenges: rising prices and currency devaluation (76%), high rents (54%), job insecurity (41%), poor government services (38%), and difficulty accessing medication (27%). The most needed assistance: facilitating access to microloans (63%), housing support or rent reductions (44%), infrastructure improvements (38%), and direct food assistance (22%).
6- Analysis of intercity and internal variations:
ANOVA analysis revealed statistically significant differences between cities in some variables.
In Damascus, the percentage of residents relying on remittances was higher (54%) than in Homs (38%), reflecting the greater emigration rate.
Similarly, the percentage of residents purchasing durable goods was higher in Damascus (68%) than in Latakia (55%).
Conversely, occupational flexibility (changing professions) was higher in Homs (68%), possibly due to the greater scale of destruction and the need for reconstruction.
These differences confirm that the “vital economy” is not homogeneous across all regions, but rather is shaped by local conditions.
Discussion of Results:
1- Explaining the Apparent Contradiction with International Reports:
Our results indicate that international reports are not so much inaccurate as they are inappropriate for the Syrian context.
Their reliance solely on cash income overlooks: multiple income sources (73% of households), social safety nets that provide informal security (83% have shelter), home-based production (59% engage in it), and vocational skills as latent capital (73% possess a skill).
Therefore, the 13% who suffer from a permanent disability (our indicator of extreme poverty) is closer to reality than the 27% reported.
However, this does not negate the existence of severe poverty in marginalized areas outside the scope of our study.
2- Addressing the Apparent Contradiction in the Results – Reliance on Relatives and the Ability to Manage Life:
It may seem contradictory that 64% rely substantially on assistance from relatives, while 79% say they manage their lives reasonably well.
However, qualitative analysis reveals that “managing life” involves utilizing this aid as a resource, not denying it.
Interviews showed that households integrate remittances from expatriates with local income, vocational skills, and home-based production into a comprehensive strategy.
Here, aid is not seen as a “shame” but rather as part of an expected safety net.
Furthermore, “managing life” means being able to meet basic needs with dignity, not being able to do without aid.
3- Interpreting Causal Relationships – The Role of the Bioeconomy vs. Other Factors:
A critic might argue that the reported improvement is simply due to the return of security and stability, rather than to the mechanisms of the “bioeconomy.”
However, logistic regression analysis showed that the variables strongly associated with “managing life” are: multiple income streams (odds. 3.2), possession of a vocational skill (odds. 2.8), a strong social safety net (odds. 2.5), and receiving remittances (odds. 2.1).
Meanwhile, the effect of improved public security (as an observer variable) was lower (odds. 1.6). This indicates that bioeconomic mechanisms play an independent and important role.
4- Comparison with previous studies:
Our findings are consistent with a study on Iraq after 2003 that found 68% of households relied on multiple income sources, and that remittances from expatriates constituted 40% of household income in some areas (Al-Mawlawi, 2020).
They also align with a study on Lebanon that showed family networks played a crucial role in resilience during the economic crisis (Chaaban, 2009).
However, what distinguishes the Syrian case is the wider prevalence of home-based production (59%) and the high degree of occupational flexibility (60% changed professions), which may reflect accumulated experience from the long years of crisis.
5- Theoretical implications:
The results underscore the need to develop theories of poverty and welfare to suit post-conflict contexts. Concepts such as the “poverty line,” based on monetary income, should be complemented by indicators that take into account social and skills capital and informal safety nets.
The results also support the “resilience” theory, which emphasizes that families are not merely passive victims, but active agents who develop complex coping strategies.
6- A Forward-Looking Vision – Syria 2030 in Light of a Bioeconomy:
Based on the preceding results, the Economic Bureau of the Syrian Future Movement proposes three scenarios:
Scenario One (Investing in Bioeconomy): The state adopts policies that invest in domestic productive capacity through a national micro-enterprise fund (funded with $50 million from the state budget and international grants), in addition to vocational training programs (funded with $10 million in partnership with the International Labour Organization), and a platform to connect expatriates with small investment opportunities. This would lead to growth of 7-8% annually and a reduction in extreme poverty to 5% by 2030.
Scenario Two (Balance): A gradual improvement in services, a continued and tangible flow of Gulf investments, and the continued existence of social safety nets as a primary safety net. This would lead to 4-5% growth and 8-10% extreme poverty.
The third scenario (missed opportunity): The state fails to adapt to the dynamics of a vibrant economy, bureaucracy persists, and skilled workers emigrate. This would lead to growth below 2% and 15% extreme poverty.
Here, we see that the first scenario is the desired outcome and requires immediate intervention.
Policy Recommendations:
First, Short Term (2026-2027):
Establish a national microfinance fund in partnership with local banks and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). This fund would provide low-interest loans (2-3%) with a one-year grace period, aiming to transform home-based businesses (59% of households) into registered enterprises.
Proposed funding: $50 million ($30 million from the state budget, $20 million from international grants).
Implementation Mechanisms: Open branches of the fund in major governorates, simplify application procedures, and offer accessible guarantees (personal or group guarantees).
Launch a national short-term vocational training program in cooperation with the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Ministry of Social Affairs. This program aims to leverage existing craft skills (73%) by improving quality, digital marketing, and small business management.
The program duration is 3-6 months and includes practical training in local workshops.
Proposed funding: $10 million (grant from the European Union or the United Nations Development Programme).
Implementation Partners: Chambers of Industry and Commerce, and local community organizations.
Developing an online platform to connect expatriates with small investment opportunities, in cooperation with the Ministry of Expatriates and the Federation of Chambers of Commerce. The platform will offer legal and advisory services and facilitate secure money transfers.
It will include a database of investment opportunities (small projects, real estate, partnerships) categorized by region and investment type.
Funding: A partnership between the private sector (technology companies) and a grant from the International Organization for Migration.
Launching a national media campaign to document success stories of the bioeconomy, in partnership with local media outlets, to build trust and promote a culture of entrepreneurship.
The campaign will include television programs, press reports, and social media posts.
Second, in the medium term (2028-2030):
Developing a “Syrian Bioeconomy Index” in cooperation with the Central Agency for Statistics and international organizations (UNICEF, UNDP). The index comprises 12 weighted variables (diversity of income sources 20%, strength of social safety nets 20%, artisanal skills 15%, home-based production 15%, ability to manage life 15%, and economic security 15%).
It aims to replace traditional poverty indicators with a more relevant one and is published annually.
A law for the social safety net economy is enacted to regulate the work of cooperative societies, family funds, and savings groups. It provides tax incentives (a 5-year exemption) for participants and protects their rights through an oversight mechanism.
This law draws on international experiences such as the German cooperative law and the Canadian model of community trusts.
The legislation requires a national dialogue with experts and civil society organizations.
Incubator zones for small businesses are established in the suburbs of major cities (e.g., Adra in the Damascus countryside, Sheikh Najjar in Aleppo). These zones provide essential infrastructure (electricity, water, and communications) and shared services (marketing, packaging, and export) at subsidized prices. Proposed Funding: A partnership between the Ministry of Local Administration (land provision), the private sector (establishment and management), and international donors (infrastructure funding).
We recommend that the incubator model in Turkey be utilized.
Long-Term (2030+):
Integrate bioeconomy concepts into the educational curriculum in cooperation with the Ministry of Education. This can be achieved by introducing practical activities related to craft, agricultural, and financial skills in basic education, and by establishing small business clubs in secondary schools.
This requires developing new curricula and training teachers.
Build a strategic partnership with the Gulf States, Turkey, and the European Union, focusing on investing in Syrian human capital. This can be accomplished by funding training programs, supporting small businesses, and connecting them to regional markets.
The Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation will coordinate this partnership, defining clear priorities (sectors: crafts, agriculture, technology) and establishing monitoring mechanisms.
Promote the “Syria: Land of Bioeconomy” brand through international participation (economic forums, exhibitions) and digital platforms to showcase success stories and attract investments. This includes producing marketing materials in Arabic, English and Turkish, and creating an interactive website.
Study Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research:
In addition to relying on volunteer university students for this study, which serves as a model for future, potentially larger-scale studies with a more substantial budget to include a greater number of university students, we also note the following limitations:
- The sample was limited to urban areas and did not represent rural areas or refugee camps.
- There is a possibility of social bias in some responses (especially regarding “life management” questions).
- We were unable to verify the accuracy of reported income.
- Political and security conditions may have influenced some respondents’ willingness to answer.
- There is no follow-up survey to monitor changes at the household level.
Therefore, we suggest the following for future research:
- Conducting a similar survey in rural areas and refugee camps to compare results.
- Studying the impact of political variables (such as security stability and government policies) on the microeconomy.
- Conducting a follow-up panel survey of the same households over 3-5 years to monitor the development of resilience mechanisms.
- In-depth research into the role of women in the microeconomy, particularly in home-based production.
- A comparative study with other countries that emerged from conflicts (Iraq, Lebanon, Bosnia) to draw broader lessons.
the reviewer
- البنك الدولي. (2025). تقرير عن الفقر في سورية: تحديات الانتقال وإعادة الإعمار (تقرير رقم 178965-SY). مجموعة البنك الدولي، واشنطن العاصمة.
- برنامج الأغذية العالمي. (2025). تقييم الأمن الغذائي في سورية: النتائج والتوصيات. الأمم المتحدة، روما.
- Al-Mawlawi, A. (2020). Informal Economy and Livelihoods in Post-2003 Iraq. Middle East Centre Report, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.
- Barrett, C. B., & Constas, M. A. (2014). Toward a theory of resilience for international development applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(40), 14625-14630. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320880111
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
- Bugge, M., Hansen, T., & Klitkou, A. (2016). What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature. Sustainability, 8(7), 691. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070691
- Chaaban, J. (2009). Labour markets and migration in post-conflict Lebanon. In Labour Markets and Migration in Conflict-Affected Countries. World Bank Publications, Washington, DC.
- Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
- De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. Basic Books, New York.
- Fine, B. (2001). Social capital versus social theory: Political economy and social science at the turn of the millennium. Routledge, London.
- Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
- Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Wiley Series in Survey Methodology, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
- Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
- Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
- Loayza, N. V., & Rigolini, J. (2011). Informal employment: Safety net or growth engine? World Development, 39(9), 1503-1515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.03.015
- Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.
- OECD. (2018). The bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a policy agenda. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264056886-en
- Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster, New York.
- Ravallion, M. (2016). The economics of poverty: History, measurement, and policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Viaggi, D. (2018). The bioeconomy: Delivering sustainable green growth. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
- World Bank. (2005). Resilience and reconstruction in the Balkans. World Bank Publications, Washington, DC.
- World Bank. (2023). Migration and remittances data: Annual remittances inflows. Migration and Development Brief 39, World Bank Group, Washington, DC. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/migrationremittancesdiasporaissues/brief/migration-remittances-data
