Restructuring state property: Who gains and who loses from the price hike on paper?

In recent weeks, the Kuwaiti government has intensified its focus on restructuring state-owned properties through a development-oriented lens that considers economic, financial, social, and investment impacts.

In alignment with this approach, the Minister of Finance and Minister of State for Economic Affairs, Engineer Noura Al-Fassam, has been tasked with formulating a comprehensive framework to address this increasingly urgent national priority, reports Al-Rai daily.

Signaling the seriousness of this initiative, a wave of swift actions has followed — including the formation of several specialized committees.

The first was established to conduct a detailed and fair inventory of assets held by each ministry and government entity.

The latest committee, formed just last week, is focused on regulating the use of state-owned properties by limiting ministries’ authority over public and private assets, while exploring the feasibility of consolidating oversight and management under a centralized governmental structure.

But the question remains: What exactly is the “Schizophrenia Movement” planning in this regard? And what developmental and economic qualifications back its ambitions?

Official data reveals that state properties, with an estimated total value of 121.7 billion dinars, generated only 125 million dinars in revenue in the 2023–2024 fiscal year — barely 6% of the total non-oil income in the national budget.

These figures point to alarmingly low returns on assets of such magnitude, even if significantly increased.

Sources familiar with the matter said the proposed restructuring aims to enhance operational efficiency and revenue generation from state assets.

The ultimate goal is to support Kuwait’s broader sustainable development agenda, as outlined in the “New Kuwait 2035” vision.

While the rhetoric is promising, many critical questions remain unanswered. What mechanisms will be used to implement this restructuring? What criteria will determine asset prioritization? Most importantly, what financial and developmental benefits can the public treasury and service beneficiaries realistically expect?

Equally pressing are concerns about the possible downsides. Chief among them is the risk of inflation stemming from the revaluation of state assets.

Repricing these assets “on paper” may look good in theory, but in practice, it could impose new burdens on citizens and businesses alike.

In short, as Kuwait prepares for a potential leap in asset valuation, the debate intensifies: Who will be the winners — and who will be the losers — when the price of state property is recalculated with the stroke of a pen?