How can we make the private sector more attractive to Kuwaitis?
For decades, the public sector has remained the first choice for young Kuwaiti graduates, thanks to the job security, clear benefits, and safer career path it offers. In contrast, despite years of Kuwaitization policies, subsidies, and incentives, the private sector has yet to become a viable alternative to government employment for a significant segment of the youth. However, the question we should be asking today is not why Kuwaitis are reluctant to work in the private sector, but rather: How can we make the private sector more attractive, so that Kuwaitis choose it willingly and stay?
The answer begins with changing the approach to Kuwaitization. Government support should not focus solely on hiring Kuwaitis, but on their retention and professional development within the company. There is a significant difference between hiring a national to meet a quota and investing in them as part of the company’s future. From this perspective, the current support system can be evolved toward what can be termed “job security support.” For instance, a company that retains a Kuwaiti employee for three years could receive an incentive, with the incentive increasing for those who stay for five years. Additional benefits could be granted to companies that offer genuine training and qualification programs and promote national talents into supervisory and leadership roles.
Furthermore, the government could establish a “National Labor Sustainability Index” to measure the average tenure of Kuwaitis in companies, their retention rates after three and five years, promotion rates, and the volume of training they receive. This would ensure that the Kuwaitization rate is no longer the sole metric for evaluating a company’s performance.
The second factor is salary and benefits. It is unreasonable to expect young Kuwaitis to choose the private sector if the disparity in benefits and stability heavily favors government jobs. The goal is not necessarily to impose unrealistic burdens on companies, but to create competitive benefit packages that include health insurance, performance bonuses, savings and supplementary retirement programs, and productivity-linked incentives. Equally important is paying greater attention to work-life balance. Some jobs allow for flexible hours or hybrid work models, which companies can leverage to attract talent, particularly in roles that do not require constant physical presence at the workplace.
Equally critical is the existence of a clear career path. Young employees want to know what their future looks like in five or ten years. Therefore, large companies should have clear programs for career progression, training, and promotion, with competence and performance serving as the true basis for advancement.
Here arises a new challenge that cannot be ignored: artificial intelligence. Companies are increasingly using automation and smart technologies to perform tasks that previously required larger workforces. The solution, therefore, should not be simply to eliminate jobs, but to reskill and train employees in new skills, ensuring that AI becomes a tool to enhance employee productivity rather than a reason for them to exit the labor market.
Moreover, reforming the relationship between education and the labor market has become a necessity. It makes no sense to graduate large numbers of young people in fields that the economy does not need, and then expect the private sector to absorb them. There must be genuine partnerships between universities and companies to identify future skill and specialization requirements.
Finally, we must be realistic: making the private sector more attractive cannot be achieved merely by imposing additional obligations on companies. The private sector needs an active economy, fair competition, stable legislation, and ease of doing business, growth, and investment. The more successful a company is and the more it grows, the greater its capacity to offer better jobs and higher salaries. The goal is not for private jobs to replace public ones, but to provide young Kuwaitis with two strong options: a good government job and a good private-sector opportunity. At that point, competition will shift from job seekers looking for security to companies competing to attract and retain talent.
If we want to reduce reliance on government employment, it is not enough to tell young people to go to the private sector. We must first ask ourselves: What have we done to make the private sector a place where Kuwaitis want to build their future? This is where the real treatment begins, and here, too, Kuwaitization policies can transform from mere numbers and percentages into a long-term investment in human capital and the economy.
Waleed Ibrahim Al-Khabizi
