More than ten years ago, during serious discussions within the University of Jordan, the idea was not merely to establish a training institute or a course center, but rather a much broader vision: to establish a national college for government similar to Harvard Kennedy School. The concept was based on building an academic-governmental edifice that integrates education, policy-making, and leadership development, becoming a part of the state's infrastructure, not just a supporting entity.
The ambition then was not just to train the employee, but to reshape the way the state's administrators are prepared.
Today, the idea returns under the name of the Jordanian Academy for Government Management. Despite the importance of this step outwardly, the real question is no longer: Do we need an academy? but: Is what is proposed today an extension of that deep vision, or a diluted version of it?
The difference between a "government college" and a "training academy" is not just in the name, but in the role and function. A government college, as in international experiences, is not an entity that offers short programs, but rather an institution that graduates policy makers, produces knowledge, and directly contributes to the formulation of public policies. Its students not only receive knowledge but also work on real issues, interact with decision-makers, and become part of the governance system even before they officially enter it.
This model was present in the original concept that was proposed years ago. The goal was that there would be an institution granting specialized degrees in public policies and government management, linking academic research with state needs, and establishing a clear path for preparing leaders before they reach positions of responsibility. The idea was not to add an institution to the government apparatus, but to create an “institutional mind” that keeps pace with the development of the state.
But what we see today raises a legitimate question: Are we moving towards this model, or are we reverting to the traditional framework that simplifies the idea to training?
The problem in Jordanian public administration has never been a lack of courses, but the absence of a comprehensive system for preparing leadership. For many years, training remained an activity separate from hiring and promotion, not determining who reaches decision-making positions nor changing the nature of those who make the decisions. Therefore, turning the idea of a “government college” into just a training academy, no matter how advanced, means losing the essence of the project.
The success of any model similar to Harvard Kennedy School does not rely on programs alone but on three interconnected elements: in-depth academic education, direct connection with decision-making, and linking training with career paths. Without these elements, the institution loses its transformative role and becomes just a supporting entity.
In the Jordanian case, the real challenge is transitioning from the idea of “training” to the concept of “state preparation.” That is, the academy—or the college—becomes part of the decision-making system, not just a provider of training services. Its graduates should be the natural core of governmental leadership, and training there should be an implicit or explicit prerequisite for reaching senior positions.
The risk today does not lie in establishing the academy, but in building it on a vision less ambitious than what was previously proposed—settling for a training model while the original idea was a national project to rebuild public administration. Then, we would have moved from a strategic vision to a limited administrative solution.
I write this today from the position of someone who participated in those initial discussions and saw in the idea of a “government college” a real opportunity for a qualitative leap in state performance. I still see that this opportunity exists, but on the condition that we reconsider the scale of our ambition and not reduce the project to its institutional form, but return it to its essence: building leadership, crafting policies, and connecting knowledge with decision-making.
The difference between moving towards or away from the Harvard model is not determined by name or structure, but by answering one question: Do we want an institution that trains employees, or one that graduates state leaders?
In answering this question, the future of this academy is determined, along with an important part of the future of public administration in Jordan.
