Mapping Jordan’s Public Sector Institutional Framework

Despite the breadth of Jordan’s public institutions, there remains no single, publicly accessible, and continuously updated framework that maps how the state is structured or governed—that is, a comprehensive reference detailing all public entities that comprise the Jordanian government system and the specific roles each one plays within it. The closest official reference today is the Public Sector Modernization Roadmap, overseen by the Prime Ministry’s Implementation Office and the Minister of State for Public Sector Modernisation. While it outlines reform tracks and governance priorities, it does not provide a comprehensive catalogue of all active entities or their legal foundations. The Legislation and Opinion Bureau remains the definitive legal source for statutes and by-laws, and the Prime Ministry’s portal offers the most current directory of ministries and government bodies. Yet, for researchers, investors, and citizens alike, this information remains fragmented.

As a family office operating at the intersection of investment, policy, and development, ShoumanCo depends on a clear understanding of the institutional environment in which it operates. Transparency is not merely a value, it is a prerequisite for responsible engagement.

Through this initiative, ShoumanCo Public Affairs seeks to present, for the first time, a structured and publicly navigable Institutional Framework of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, compiled from official sources and organized in accordance with international public administration standards. By publishing this framework, we aim to make information that should be public, truly public; to demystify the structure of governance; and to contribute to a culture of institutional clarity that benefits citizens, investors, and policymakers alike.

What begins here as a static publication can, with time and collaboration, evolve into Jordan’s first interactive institutional database, an open resource for learning, research, and reform. Its purpose is simple: to foster transparency, understanding, and public trust in the architecture of Jordan’s state institutions.

Why Visibility Matters

A clear Public Sector Institutional Framework is more than an administrative reference, it is a visual A clear Public Sector Institutional Framework is more than an administrative reference; it is a visual language of governance. It allows citizens to see, quite literally, how their country functions: where authority begins and ends, how institutions interconnect, and how the chain of command moves from the Constitution to the citizen. It captures not only the state’s organizational structure—the hierarchy of ministries, departments, and agencies—but also the regulatory systems, accountability mechanisms, and financial controls that make government operational. It shows how policies are translated into practice, how public funds flow through institutions, and how authority and responsibility circulate within the machinery of the state.

When presented clearly, such a framework can achieve what years of fragmented communication cannot—it shows the state as a single, comprehensible system. It bridges the distance between law and implementation, between planning and service delivery, and between citizens and the officials who serve them. It embodies the very purpose of governance: to deliver public services efficiently, to align national objectives across institutions, to uphold fairness and transparency, and to provide a stable foundation for reform and modernization.

For the public, this is not a matter of curiosity but of civic understanding. It clarifies who is responsible for what, prevents confusion between overlapping mandates, and transforms abstract bureaucracy into visible accountability. When the framework is publicly available and continuously maintained, it enables citizens to trace outcomes back to origin—to see how a policy becomes action, how a budget becomes service, and how the principles of good governance are upheld or neglected in practice. In societies that publish these frameworks openly, much of the opacity, speculation, and mistrust surrounding public institutions dissolves on its own. Sometimes, the framework itself (when made visible) is enough to clear years of misunderstanding.

Because no institution has ever defined this foundation plainly, this is where the work must begin: by mapping how Jordan is governed, and by confronting why a clear, collective understanding of that structure has become essential—if meaningful reform, accountability, and national coherence are ever to follow.

Starting Point: The Constitutional System and the Distribution of Power

Jordan is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system—a structure that often gets mentioned but rarely unpacked. In simple terms, it means the country is governed through a balance of monarchical continuity and elected representation. The King, as Head of State, embodies the unity and permanence of the Kingdom; the government, led by a Prime Minister and Cabinet, carries the responsibility of policy and daily administration; and Parliament, with its two chambers—the House of Representatives (مجلس النواب) and the Senate (مجلس الأعيان)—serves as the legislative and oversight authority.

Together, these two pillars—the executive and the legislative—form the visible machinery of governance, where power is exercised, laws are made, and policy is translated into public service. But no system of governance can function without an independent arbiter, and that is where the judicial branch completes the balance. The judiciary, operating through constitutional, civil, and religious courts, ensures that authority—whether exercised by ministers, parliamentarians, or citizens—remains bound by law. It interprets the Constitution, settles disputes, and upholds the principle that justice is not subject to political tides.

This tripartite structure is not merely ceremonial. It defines how authority flows, how accountability is exercised, and how citizens are represented within the machinery of state. When citizens understand this arrangement, the workings of government become less abstract—policy decisions, appointments, and institutional reforms begin to make sense within a visible system of roles and responsibilities.

For a country like Jordan, where public trust is as vital as stability, transparency begins with clarity—knowing who does what, under what mandate, and within what framework of accountability. Without that clarity, reform efforts risk being perceived as opaque or symbolic. Mapping the institutional framework, therefore, is not an academic exercise; it is a step toward restoring the connection between state and citizen, and grounding public discourse in understanding rather than speculation.

Understanding the Language of Institutions

Before mapping the institutions themselves, it helps to understand the language they’re built on. The Jordanian state, like most modern administrations, uses a vocabulary that reflects hierarchy, function, and legal authority. Words such as ministry, commission, center, or bureau are not decorative—they carry specific meanings that reveal how power is organized and exercised. These distinctions are fundamental to understanding how the state operates and how citizens interact with it. Yet, no governmental portal or public resource explicitly defines or explains them. For that reason, we are doing so here.

A Ministry (وزارة) sits at the top of the executive structure, led by a Minister accountable to Parliament. Beneath it, a Department (دائرة) or Directorate (مديرية) implements policies and manages services on the ground, translating national strategy into daily administration. An Administration (إدارة), depending on its context, usually refers to a semi-autonomous executive body charged with enforcing regulations or coordinating between departments.

A Commission (هيئة / مفوضية) is typically independent by law, created to regulate sectors or ensure accountability—its autonomy designed to shield it from political influence. A Bureau (ديوان), on the other hand, performs high-level oversight, legal drafting, or auditing functions at the heart of the state. A Council (مجلس) brings together experts or officials to deliberate on policies and strategies, while a Committee (لجنة) is often temporary or task-specific, established to study, propose, or oversee particular reforms.

A Center (مركز) focuses on coordination, research, or specialized technical functions, while an Institute (معهد) tends to provide education, training, or applied research within the public sector. A Foundation (مؤسسة) or Society (جمعية)generally operates under royal or civic patronage, pursuing developmental, educational, or humanitarian goals. A Fund (صندوق) manages public or donor resources for targeted initiatives—whether pensions, welfare, or investment.

Finally, a Court (محكمة) stands apart from the executive and legislative structure altogether, forming part of the independent judiciary (السلطة القضائية) that interprets and upholds the law.

These distinctions are not semantic. They define how authority moves through the system, how institutions interact, and how accountability is structured. Understanding them turns a list of agencies and authorities into an intelligible map—one that reveals the logic of governance rather than just its names.

ShoumanCo’s Public Sector Institutional Framework

This framework was compiled by ShoumanCo Public Affairs from verified governmental sources, including the Legislation and Opinion Bureau, the Prime Ministry, and official portals of ministries, commissions, and agencies. It organizes Jordan’s public institutions according to their constitutional branch, legal authority, and administrative function—aligning with international public-administration standards. The intent is not to critique but to clarify: to present a single, cohesive map of the state’s institutional architecture that allows any citizen, investor, or policymaker to see how governance is structured, how entities interrelate, and where public responsibility ultimately resides.

Royal Hashemite Court (RHC) / Diwan — 1919 / 1946

Royally Affiliated NG Patronage Institutions

• Royal Scientific Society (RSS) — 1970

• King Abdullah II Fund for Development (KAFD) — 2001

• Royal Hashemite Fund for Human Development (JOHUD) — 1977

• Crown Prince Foundation (CPF) — 2015

• Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought — 1980

• King Abdullah II Center for Excellence (KACE) — 2006

• Royal Jordanian Geographic Center (RJGC) — 1975

• King Abdullah II Design & Development Bureau (KADDB → JODDB) — 1999 / renamed 2020

• Royal Film Commission of Jordan (RFC) — 2003

• Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature (RSCN) — 1966

• Queen Rania Foundation for Education and Development (QRF) — 2013

• King Hussein Foundation (KHF) — 1999

• Noor Al Hussein Foundation (NHF) — 1985

• Queen Alia Foundation for Social Care — 1979

• Jordan River Foundation (JRF) — 1995

• Jordanian National Commission for Women (JNCW) — 1992

• Royal Health Awareness Society (RHAS) — 2005

• Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies (RIIFS) — 1994

• Royal Botanic Garden of Jordan — 2005

• The Hashemite Committee for Disabled Soldiers — 1974

• Citizen Services Unit

National Security Agencies

• General Intelligence Department (GID) — 1964

• Public Security Directorate  (PSD) — 1956

• National Center for Security & Crisis Management (NCSCM) — 2005/2013

The Judicial Branch:

• Constitutional Court — 2012

• Judicial Council — per 1952 Constitution; organized by law thereafter

• Sharia Courts — modern system organized 1951; constitutional status 1952

• Supreme Judge Department (Qadhi Al Qudda) — 1951

• Judicial Institute of Jordan (JIJ) — 1994

Parliament / Legislative Branch:

• House of Representatives (Majlis al-Nuwaab) — current form 1952 (origins 1928)

• Senate (Majlis al-Aayan) — 1952.

Constitutional & Statutory Oversight Commissions

• Audit Bureau — 1952

• Independent Election Commission — 2012

• Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission (IACC) — 2016

• Ombudsman Bureau (Grievances Bureau) — 2008

• Service and Public Administration Commission (Civil Service Bureau) — 1955

• Higher Council for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (HCD) — 2007/2017

Cabinet of Jordan / Executive Branch:

Prime Ministry — 1921

Ministries

• Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates

• Ministry of Interior

• Ministry of Justice

• Ministry of Education

• Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

• Ministry of Health

• Ministry of Finance

• Ministry of Labour

• Ministry of Industry, Trade and Supply

• Ministry of Agriculture

• Ministry of Water and Irrigation

• Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources

• Ministry of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship

• Ministry of Transportation

• Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities

• Ministry of Environment

• Ministry of Culture

• Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs

• Ministry of Public Works and Housing

• Ministry of Political & Parliamentary Affairs

• Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation

• Ministry of Social Development

• Ministry of Youth

• Ministry of Local Administration

• Ministry of State for Public Sector Modernization

• Ministry of State for Legal Affairs

• Ministry of State for Prime Ministry Affairs

• Ministry of Government Communication

• Ministry of Investment

• Ministry of Defence

Directorates, Departments, Institutes & Municipalities

• Civil Status & Passports Department (CSPD) — 1969

• General Budget Department (GBD) — 1960

• Jordan Customs Department (JCD) — 1926

• Government Procurement Department (GPD) — 2019

• Department of Palestinian Affairs (DPA) — 1950

• Jordan Institute of Diplomacy (JID) — 1994

• Institute of Public Administration (IPA) — 1968

• Income & Sales Tax Department (ISTD) — 2004

• Department of Land & Survey (DLS) — 1927

• Companies Control Department (CCD) — 2003

• Civil Service Consumer Corporation (CSCC) — 1973

• Jordan Enterprise Development Corporation (JEDCO) — 2005

• Government Tender Department (GTD) — 1977

• Legislation and Opinion Bureau — 1948

Commissions / Regulatory Authorities

• Energy & Minerals Regulatory Commission (EMRC) — 2014

• Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) — 1995

• Jordan Securities Commission (JSC) — 1997

• Jordan Standards & Metrology Organization (JSMO) — 2000

• Civil Aviation Regulatory Commission (CARC) — 2007

• Jordan Maritime Commission — 2002–2006

• Media Commission — 2014

• Accreditation & Quality Assurance Commission for Higher Education Institutions — 2007

• Securities Depository Center (SDC) — 1999

• Jordan Food & Drug Administration (JFDA) — 2003

• Jordanian Medical Council (JMC) — 1973

• Higher Health Council (HHC) — 1994

• Land Transport Regulatory Commission (LTRC) — 2002

• Civil Aviation Regulatory Commission (CARC) — 2007

• Technical and Vocational Skills Development Commission (TVSDC) — 2019

• Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) — 1995

Councils / Boards

• Economic & Social Council of Jordan — created 2007; operational 2009

• Higher Population Council — 2002

• Jordanian Nursing Council — 2002

• Higher Council for Science & Technology (HCST) — 1987

• National Council for Family Affairs (NCFA) — 2001

• Jordan National Building Council — 2009

• National Center for Curriculum Development (NCCD) — 2017

• Jordan Tourism Board (JTB) — 1998

Authorities / Agencies

• Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority (ASEZA) — 2000 law / effective 2001

• Water Authority of Jordan (WAJ) — 1988

• Jordan Nuclear Regulatory Commission (JNRC) — 2007

• Petra Development & Tourism Region Authority (PDTRA) — 2009

• Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) — 2007

• General Iftaa’ Department — 2006

• Jordan Center for Disease Control (JCDC) — 2022

• National Agricultural Research Center (NARC) — 1958

• Department of Statistics (DOS) — 1949

• Department of the National Library — 1977

• Department of Antiquities (DoA) — 1923

• Jordan Valley Authority (JVA) — 1977

Public Financial & Monetary Institutions

• Central Bank of Jordan (CBJ) — 1959 law / operations 1964

• Jordan Deposit Insurance Corporation (JODIC) — 2000

• Social Security Investment Fund (SSIF) — 2003

• Development and Employment Fund (DEF) — 1989

• Cities and Villages Development Bank (CVDB) — 1979

• Jordan Postal Saving Fund (JPSF) — 1970

• Social Security Corporation (SSC) — 1978

• National Aid Fund — 1986

• Orphans Fund Development Corporation (OFDC) — 1972

• Zakat Fund — 2010

• Hajj Fund — 2013

• Scientific Research and Innovation Support Fund (SRISF) — 2015

• Jordan Investment Fund (JIF) — 2016

State-Owned Enterprises & Public Corporations

• Jordan Water Company (Miyahuna) — 2006/2007

• National Electric Power Company (NEPCO) — 1996

• Jordan Post Company — 2007

• Jordan Radio and Television Corporation (JRTV) — 1968

• Jordan News Agency (Petra) — 1969

• National Resources Investment and Development Corporation (MAWARID) — 2000

• Jordan Hijaz Railway Corporation (JHRC) — 1952

• Agricultural Credit Corporation (ACC) — 1963

• Jordan Co-operative Corporation (JCC) — 1997

• Vocational Training Corporation (VTC) — 1976

• General Corporation for Housing & Urban Development (GCHUD) — 1992

• General Corporation for Housing and Urban Development (GCHUD) — 1992

• Arabic Language Academy (Majma al-Lughah al-Arabiyya) — 1976

• Jordan Museum — 2014

• University of Jordan — 1962

This framework is far from exhaustive, and it is not yet as visual, detailed, or interactive as it should one day be. What is presented here is a starting point—the most transparent and consolidated institutional map of Jordan publicly available to date—but still only a fraction of what true institutional literacy demands. A complete framework should illustrate the chain of command and the chain of accountability, showing how authority and responsibility move through ministries, directorates, and public agencies. It should include a directory of departments under each institution, their mandates, purposes, and core functions, as well as an accessible outline of their day-to-day operations and service delivery mechanisms. Each entity should also disclose its founding rationale, legal basis, and any predecessor institutions, along with its current legal status, organizational structure, and supervising authority. The public should be able to trace an institution’s governance and leadership composition—who appoints its head, who sits on its board, what their terms and qualifications are, and which oversight body receives their reports.

Over time, citizens should see how institutions evolve—when they were created, merged, or restructured; how their roles have shifted; and what effect those shifts have had on national policy. This should be complemented by data on budgets, funding sources, procurement activities, and staffing levels, presented alongside clear performance indicators and audit findings. Each institution should publish annual reports, organizational charts, and human-capital profiles, detailing workforce composition, training programs, and leadership development initiatives. Equally important are public interfaces: up-to-date websites, digital-service statistics, and open-data portals that integrate with Sanad and Jordan.gov.jo. Citizens should be able to access real-time dashboards showing service performance, complaint resolution rates, and satisfaction scores. Every dataset should carry a timestamp of last update, a verified source link, and a contact point for inquiries or feedback—turning transparency from a static publication into an active dialogue.

In its fully developed form, this framework could evolve into a visual governance map —an interactive dashboard linking each institution to its founding law, leadership structure, financial data, and performance outcomes. It would visualize the entire chain of governance, connecting every ministry, commission, and authority to its subordinate departments and affiliated agencies while highlighting reporting lines, oversight relationships, and budget flows. A historical timeline could display major reforms, mergers, and legislative changes, while open-data access would empower researchers, journalists, and citizens to track the evolution of the state in real time. Such transparency would not only simplify civic understanding but also cultivate accountability, efficiency, and trust—allowing every Jordanian to see, at a glance, how the state is built, how it operates, and how it can improve.

What follows naturally from this is the need for institutional evaluation—for turning visibility into improvement. Mapping the state is only the first step; understanding how well it functions, where it overlaps, and how it can evolve is the work that must come next.

Conclusion

What began here is not an endpoint but a foundation. The act of mapping institutions, clarifying mandates, and questioning structure is the quiet groundwork of national renewal. Real reform does not emerge from declarations—it emerges from comprehension. By making the architecture of the state visible, we lay the basis for accountability; by evaluating and optimizing it, we give reform direction.

ShoumanCo is also excited to share, in an upcoming publication, its own conceptual Structural Reform Proposal, which will explore pathways for institutional consolidation, digital integration, and a comprehensive rethinking of the state’s public interface. This includes the revamp of existing digital assets and the unification of digital networks under a clearer, citizen-oriented framework. The Sanad app, though commendable in its intent and representative of the spirit of modernization, still lacks the critical engine of evaluation and institutional coherence needed to sustain meaningful change. The goal is not merely to digitize processes but to ensure that digital government becomes structurally intelligent—efficient, transparent, and accountable.

At ShoumanCo Public Affairs, our intent is not to speak on behalf of government but to speak for clarity itself—for the belief that transparency, structure, and shared understanding are the prerequisites of trust. If this publication helps even a few citizens, policymakers, or investors see the state more clearly, then it will have served its purpose. The work ahead belongs to all of us.

Invitation for Feedback & Collaboration

This framework is an evolving effort. ShoumanCo Public Affairs welcomes feedback, corrections, and suggestionsfrom readers, experts, and public officials. If you notice omissions, recent reforms, or institutional updates that should be reflected, please contact us directly at publicaffairs@shouman.co. Continuous improvement depends on collective accuracy—and on the shared belief that understanding the state begins with mapping it together.

Disclaimer

This publication is not an official government document. It has been compiled by ShoumanCo Public Affairs from publicly available and verifiable sources, including the Legislation and Opinion Bureau, the Prime Ministry’s official portal, and relevant institutional websites. All Arabic equivalents are provided for clarity and reference. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, readers are encouraged to cross-check with official sources for the most recent legal or structural updates.

Conceptual Foundations

The study of public administration and institutional governance employs a diverse vocabulary to describe how states organize authority and manage accountability. These terms—rooted in different intellectual traditions and historical experiences—can be confusing even to policymakers themselves. Before examining the modern terminology and theoretical foundations of governance, it is worth recalling where institutions began: how early societies first transformed power into structure and order into administration. From these origins emerged the long evolution of institutional design—an evolution that continues to shape how we understand what is now called the Public Sector Institutional Framework.

The Evolution of Institutions and Governance Systems

Institutions did not begin as ministries or laws; they began as patterns of order. Early human societies relied on clans, elders, and scribes to preserve collective memory, manage exchange, and enforce norms—the first administrative roles in recorded history. Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia developed bureaucratic hierarchies to collect grain, record taxes, and standardize decrees. The Greeks introduced participatory governance through the polis, while Rome transformed administration into a professional state apparatus whose influence endured through Byzantium and beyond.

Across the Islamic Caliphates, the Diwan system refined the idea of centralized record-keeping and fiscal oversight—an institutional legacy still present in Arabic administrative language today. In Europe, the rise of nation-states and the Enlightenment formalized governance through written constitutions and civil services, culminating in the rational-legal bureaucracy described by Max Weber. From these ancient roots to modern global governance models, the evolution of institutions traces humanity’s effort to organize power with rules, reason, and accountability—a lineage examined in depth by Francis Fukuyama (The Origins of Political Order, 2011) and Douglass C. North, John J. Wallis, and Barry R. Weingast (Violence and Social Orders, 2009).

Before the emergence of the Hashemite Kingdom, the lands that constitute modern Jordan were governed through successive imperial frameworks that left distinct administrative imprints. Under the Ottoman Empire (1516–1918), governance operated through provincial vilayet and sanjak systems, with local councils (majalis) overseeing taxation, justice, and security in coordination with Istanbul’s central bureaucracy. Following the British Mandate (1921–1946), these Ottoman structures were gradually reorganized under the Emirate of Transjordan, where early ministries—such as Finance, Justice, and Interior—were established under British supervision but staffed increasingly by local administrators. These transitional decades laid the groundwork for Jordan’s modern state apparatus: an inherited mix of Ottoman bureaucratic order, British administrative rationalization, and Hashemite leadership that together formed the foundation of today’s institutional framework.

Synonyms and Near-Synonyms

Several official and academic terms overlap with Public Sector Institutional Framework and may be used interchangeably depending on institutional context:

• Institutional Architecture (الهيكل المؤسسي) – Used by the OECD, UNDP, and World Bank to describe the structural design and interrelation of public bodies, emphasizing coordination and hierarchy rather than policy content.

• Administrative Structure (الهيكل الإداري) – A classical term from early bureaucratic theory (Max Weber, 1922), referring to the internal arrangement of ministries and agencies.

• Governance Framework (إطار الحوكمة) – Broader than the institutional framework; includes decision-making processes, ethical norms, and public accountability. Popularized by the World Bank (1992) and UNDP (1997).

• Institutional Landscape (المشهد المؤسسي) – A descriptive phrase used in contemporary policy analysis to convey the full range and diversity of state entities.

• Public Administration System (نظام الإدارة العامة) – Common in comparative administration studies; focuses on management capacity and performance rather than the legal structure of institutions.

• State Institutional Framework (الإطار المؤسسي للدولة) – A variant more common in political economy, encompassing both constitutional and administrative institutions (see Douglass North, 1990).

  
  

These terms share a central aim: to describe how authority is organized and distributed across the machinery of government. However, their emphases differ—architecture and framework imply structural coherence; system and landscape suggest complexity and function.

Related but Easily Confused Terms

Some terms are closely related but differ in scope, leading to conceptual confusion:

• Institutional Arrangements (الترتيبات المؤسسية) – Refers to coordination mechanisms (e.g., inter-agency committees, oversight processes) rather than the full institutional structure. Common in Elinor Ostrom’s and Oliver Williamson’s work on new institutional economics.

• Government Structure (الهيكل الحكومي) – Focuses on political offices (ministries, cabinet) but omits semi-independent or royal-affiliated bodies.

• Public Sector Reform Framework (إطار إصلاح القطاع العام) – A reform agenda, not a descriptive model. Used by the IMF and World Bank in policy operations.

• Institutional Governance Model (نموذج الحوكمة المؤسسية) – Typically used in corporate and educational contexts, describing internal decision-making models rather than state structure.

• State Apparatus (جهاز الدولة) – A sociological term with ideological overtones, notably used by Louis Althusser (1970) in Marxist theory to describe how states reproduce power.

• Public Management System (نظام الإدارة العامة) – Emerged from the New Public Management movement (Christopher Hood, 1991); emphasizes efficiency and service delivery, not legal authority.

• Institutional Ecosystem (النظام البيئي المؤسسي) – A modern systems-theory term popular in innovation policy, focusing on adaptability and network interactions instead of hierarchy.

  
  

Understanding these distinctions matters because each carries different analytical assumptions. A “framework” implies structure and boundaries; an “architecture” implies design and interrelation; a “system” implies dynamic function. ShoumanCo adopts the term Public Sector Institutional Framework precisely because it conveys both structure and hierarchy while remaining neutral and non-political.

Intellectual Lineage of the Concept

The vocabulary of institutions evolved through three academic currents

1. Classical Public Administration (Weber, Simon) – Built the foundation for understanding bureaucratic hierarchy, rational authority, and administrative behavior.

2. New Institutionalism (North, Ostrom) – Reframed institutions as the “rules of the game” shaping political and economic outcomes; introduced the idea of continuous institutional evaluation.

3. Contemporary Governance Studies (World Bank, OECD, UNDP) – Turned “institutional frameworks” into practical tools for assessing public-sector efficiency, accountability, and modernization.

The term “Institutional Framework” as used today was formalized by the World Bank’s 1992 report “Governance and Development,” which defined it as the set of organizations, rules, and relationships through which authority is exercised in a country. It was later refined by the OECD in its Public Governance Reviews and by the UNDP in its Capacity Assessment Frameworks.

Further Reading & Theoretical Context

For readers interested in exploring the theoretical underpinnings of organization, governance, and institutional design, the following works provide essential global and regional perspectives. They inform the philosophy behind this initiative—how states structure authority, sustain trust, and adapt institutions to meet the demands of modern governance.

• Oxford University Centre for Corporate Reputation. The Science of Organization: Why Humans Build Systems.

• University of Oxford, Blavatnik School of Government. Understanding Forms of Government: A Comparative Introduction.

• OECD Public Governance Directorate. Government at a Glance: Public Sector Performance and Accountability.

• World Bank Governance Global Practice. Institutional Reform and the Challenge of Administrative Modernization.

• Weber, Max. Economy and Society. 1922.

• Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. 1947.

• North, Douglass C. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. 1990.

• Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. 1990.

• World Bank. Governance and Development. 1992.

• OECD Public Governance Directorate. Government at a Glance. Annual series.

• United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Public Administration Reform: Practice Note. 2004.

• Fukuyama, Francis. Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. 2014.

• Hood, Christopher. The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme. 1989.

• Grindle, Merilee S. Good Enough Governance Revisited. Harvard Kennedy School, 2004.

• OECD. Public Governance Reviews: Towards a More Efficient and Accountable Public Sector in Jordan. 2017.

• World Bank Governance Global Practice. Institutional Reform and the Challenge of Administrative Modernization.2018.

• United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Arab Governance Report: Institutional Effectiveness and Accountability in the Arab Region. 2020.

• Jordan Economic and Social Council. Annual Reports on Public Administration and Reform.

• United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). Public Sector Reform in the Arab Region: Institutional Capacity and Administrative Modernization.

• Arab Administrative Development Organization. Institutional Reform and Performance Measurement in Arab Public Administration.

• Ministry of State for Public Sector Modernisation. Public Sector Modernization Roadmap. 2022.

• Meadows, Donella. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. 2008.

• Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. 1990.

• OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI). Systems Approaches to Public Sector Challenges. 2017.

Together, these studies provide a conceptual foundation for understanding what this project seeks to make visible: that the structure of governance is not static but a living system—one that must be continuously examined, measured, and understood if it is to serve the public faithfully.