I recognise that it is a privilege to take the time to think conceptually about state behaviour and motivation. Decision-makers rarely have the time or space to enjoy that luxury. It is assumed that they are immersed in “doing” rather than “thinking”, “implementing” rather than “deliberating”.

 

Yet even while acknowledging that constraint, it is difficult to ignore a larger question: have we thought strategically enough about the future we are building for our youth and whether the future we are designing, in this time of increased mobility globally, has the ingredients to entice them to stay or even return and contribute?

 

Obviously, I am not speaking of contexts of conflict and war where it is an even more pressing consideration for states torn apart by war to strategize on how to entice their youth back to rebuild their dismantled countries. I am focused here on countries where stability has endured, yet where many young people perceive a ceiling on economic and social mobility and where shrinking corridors toward opportunity and growth are increasingly felt.

 

Across North Africa and the Mediterranean, surveys have consistently shown that significant numbers of young people express an interest in working or studying abroad if the opportunity arises. Tunisia, Morocco and Lebanon reflect similar patterns. Beyond the region, southern European countries such as Greece and Portugal experienced waves of youth mobility during periods of prolonged economic stagnation and constraint within otherwise stable systems.

 

Recent findings from the Arab Barometer underline the scale of this phenomenon. In Tunisia, around 46 per cent of respondents say they are considering emigration, the highest among surveyed countries. In Jordan, approximately 42 per cent express similar intentions. In Lebanon, the figure stands at roughly 38 per cent, and in Morocco around 35 per cent.

 

These are not marginal numbers. They represent large minorities, and in some cases near-majorities, across states that are institutionally intact and politically stable.

 

The pattern becomes even more pronounced among young people aged 18-29. In Morocco, more than half of youth in this cohort report a desire to leave. In Tunisia, figures have reached close to 70 per cent in some surveys. Across different Arab states, youth consistently report migration intentions at rates significantly higher than older generations.

 

There is, of course, an important nuance. These figures capture intentions, expressed aspirations, not realised migration. Yet intention itself matters. It signals how young people evaluate the range of futures available to them.

 

What is striking is that these trends are not emerging from societies in collapse. They are occurring within states that have preserved institutional continuity and stability, yet where many young citizens apparently perceive limits to mobility and expansion.

 

Jordan, too, sits within this broader pattern: stable; institutionally intact; and navigating the generational question of how opportunity evolves in its second century.

 

Having marked a century of statehood, Jordan stands as one of the region’s most institutionally continuous states. Stability here has not been incidental - it has been built deliberately. That achievement should not be understated. Yet the question that accompanies any centennial is not only what has been preserved, but what is being expanded and how the next generation reads that expansion.

 

Perhaps the question, then, is not simply why young people wish to move. Mobility, especially among the young and adventurous, has always been part of economic and social life cycles. The deeper question, and what I find interesting to explore, is what this apparently sustained outward aspiration signals about the alignment between state motivation and generational expectation.

 

Let me explain. States, particularly in volatile regions, are often motivated by preservation, by securing stability, managing fiscal constraint, navigating geopolitics and safeguarding institutional continuity. And these are rational priorities that we citizens understand and often reiterate ourselves when reflecting on and discussing political events around us. Ultimately, we all know, these are the foundations upon which statehood rests.

 

Yet youth motivation operates on a different horizon. It is oriented toward expansion, toward meritocratic recognition, professional mobility, social autonomy and the ability to imagine futures that stretch beyond what at times may feel like inherited limits. When preservation and expansion move at different speeds, a quiet divergence can emerge.

 

Migration, in that sense, is more often than not a reflection of timing rather than a rejection of the state. It is a measure of how young citizens read the pace at which opportunity evolves.

 

We cannot underscore enough that stability secures continuity. But what I call State Actualisation, a state’s ability to turn stability into expanding opportunity for its citizens and the fuller realisation of a state’s civic and economic promise, requires that continuity translate into widening those corridors of possibility.

 

This generational question has not gone unnoticed in Jordan. His Royal Highness Crown Prince Hussein - and before him His Majesty King Abdullah - have repeatedly emphasised the centrality of youth to the Kingdom’s future. In speeches and initiatives, he has underscored the importance of innovation, entrepreneurship, digital transformation and expanding economic participation for young Jordanians.

 

The Crown Prince’s focus on technology, start-ups and youth empowerment reflects a recognition that the second century of the Jordanian state cannot be built solely on preservation. It must also create pathways for expansion. His engagement with young entrepreneurs, his support for innovation ecosystems, and his emphasis on preparing youth for a rapidly changing global economy all point to an awareness that stability alone, while strategically critical especially for a country like Jordan, does not satisfy generational ambition.

 

Yet the broader question remains structural and institutional. How does the ecosystem tasked with building the contributions of youth pick up on these initiatives and translate them into systemic widening of opportunity? How do they institutionalise steps that take us beyond exemplary success stories to a felt expansion of possibility across regions, social backgrounds and economic sectors?

 

Comparative research on youth mobility from stable states suggests that three areas tend to make a measurable difference. First, labour market alignment and ensuring that education systems are not simply producing graduates, but graduates whose skills are absorbed into expanding sectors. Countries that have reduced youth outflows often did so not by discouraging migration, but by widening the domestic economic runway through targeted sectoral growth and private-sector dynamism. Second, decentralisation of opportunity matters. When innovation and investment are concentrated in capital cities, mobility becomes geographically skewed, reinforcing perceptions of ceiling effects elsewhere. Third, transparent pathways into public service and entrepreneurship, where meritocratic entry and advancement are visibly practiced, strengthen the belief that expansion is possible within the system. When recruitment and promotion processes are perceived as fair and qualification-based, confidence in staying and investing locally increases.

 

Global literature also highlights that youth retention is not solely an economic issue. Trust in institutions, perceptions of fairness, and visible responsiveness to youth voice all correlate with lower migration intention. Where young people believe that systems are adaptable, that policies evolve in response to feedback, and that institutional doors open beyond inherited networks, outward aspiration often coexists with rootedness rather than replacing it. In that sense, the question is not necessarily how to prevent mobility but how to ensure that staying is perceived as equally viable.

 

The second century of statehood will not be judged only by stability secured, although I cannot emphasise enough how important this is, especially these days, but equally importantly by opportunity expanded. The generational question before us is not whether youth will move - some always will - but whether staying feels like a choice rather than a compromise.

 

Nermeen Murad writes on governance, statecraft and institutional politics.