Salman Al-Jishi

6 Years After Industrial Transformation... Is It Time to Review the Impact?

July 12, 2026 - 00:02 | Last updated July 12, 2026 - 00:02

Follow Okaz channel on WhatsApp

In 2020, renaming the 'National Program for Industrial Clusters Development' to the 'National Center for Industrial Development' was not merely an administrative change, but a declaration of a shift in the philosophy of Saudi industrial policy. The mission moved from supporting scattered initiatives to leading industrial development, with financial and administrative independence and a direct link to achieving Vision 2030 targets. Six years later, the question is no longer whether the decision was correct, but rather the more important one: how do we measure its success? In advanced economies, institutions are not measured by the number of initiatives or the size of spending, but by their ability to achieve measurable results. How many factories have entered production? What is the value of new industrial investments? How much have industrial exports increased? What is the ratio of local content? And what is the economic return for every riyal spent on empowerment? More importantly, is there an independent performance review? Are achievement indicators published for the public and industrialists? Transparency is not just an administrative practice, but a tool for course correction and building trust between the public and private sectors. There is another equally important question: do we only listen to successful companies, or do we also listen to those who did not succeed? The investor who canceled his project, moved his investment to another country, or encountered regulatory obstacles possesses information that may sometimes surpass success stories themselves. Successful economies consider failure as a source of learning, not a file to be closed. China provides a clear example of this. Its industrial success was not the result of low wages as often believed, but of continuous reviews of industrial policies over four decades. The government built massive infrastructure, developed local supply chains, encouraged geographic specialization, and allowed industrial mergers that enhanced efficiency, then gradually moved from low-cost labor to advanced manufacturing, robotics, and artificial intelligence. The plan changed whenever the world changed. This leads to the question: do the five sectors identified six years ago still represent the same priorities, or do global transformations necessitate a new review? In the automotive industry, ambitions appear large, but success in this sector is not measured by the number of assembly plants, but by the existence of an integrated industrial system of local suppliers, research and development centers, supply chains, and the ability to compete in cost and quality. China did not become the largest car producer with a single decision, but by building thousands of feeder factories before building brands. In the metals sector, the question of value added emerges. Are we still exporting raw materials, or have we succeeded in manufacturing final products with higher value? In chemicals, has product diversity increased, or does growth still rely on traditional industries? In contrast, energy and water desalination appear as a different model, where the Kingdom has clear competitive advantages, accumulated expertise, and national companies that have proven their ability to compete globally. The question here is no longer about success, but about how to maximize it and transform it into new export industries. As for pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, they have clearly benefited from local content policies and the preference for national products in government procurement, a step that has proven effective. But the most important question remains: has this benefit extended to factories that supply the sector with raw materials, components, and industrial services? Or does the value chain still suffer gaps that limit the deepening of local industry? Perhaps the most pressing question today is: should we be satisfied with reviewing the performance of current sectors, or is it time to add new sectors, such as semiconductors, advanced materials, digital manufacturing, industrial robotics, and artificial intelligence technologies, which have become the focus of global industrial competition? This discussion cannot be separated from the role of the Ministry of Investment. What are the limits of its responsibility in attracting industrial investors? Where does the role of the National Center for Industrial Development begin? Are there common indicators that measure the investor's journey from the decision to invest to factory operation? The success of industrial policy does not depend on the efficiency of each entity individually, but on the integration of roles between government agencies. The most important question remains: how can Saudi and international industrialists access the real numbers? How many projects succeeded? How many failed? What are the reasons for failure? What is the achievement rate compared to what was planned in 2020? Numbers are not just a means of evaluation, but the language that builds trust, attracts investors, and helps decision-makers correct course. After six years, the real achievement may not be in defending policies or criticizing them, but in subjecting them to an independent professional review that measures results, compares them with international experiences, and redraws priorities if circumstances require. Major industrial countries did not reach where they are because they stuck to their plans, but because they had the courage to modify them when the world changed.