The Ministry of Communications and Information Technology launched the National Agenda for Tech Startups (2025–2030) as a policy framework aimed at structuring Syria’s tech startup ecosystem and positioning it as a central driver of economic recovery and digital transformation.
The agenda reflects a shift toward a more centralized and system-oriented approach to organizing the tech startup ecosystem in Syria, while signaling a growing institutional focus on tech startups as instruments of economic reconstruction and innovation in post-conflict contexts.
In the past year, Syria’s startup ecosystem has witnessed increasing activity, with a growing number of early-stage ventures, support programs, and emerging networks. Yet this activity remains structurally fragmented, characterized by weak capital circulation, uneven ecosystem development, and limited transition from early-stage experimentation to scalable and sustainable ventures.
The agenda was preceded by a series of ministry-led forums and ecosystem consultations, most notably the First National Founders Summit, which brought together more than 140 Syrian entrepreneurs in Damascus, in addition to a forum for entrepreneurial organizations attended by more than 30 organizations in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). These meetings addressed the innovation environment, the role of entrepreneurial organizations in supporting founders, and the development of a national entrepreneurship strategy.
The Ministry also supervised the launch of several national initiatives and entrepreneurial platforms as part of its broader vision to strengthen the foundations of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. According to the Ministry, some of these initiatives later evolved into independent or semi-independent networks and contributed operational insights, partnerships, and ecosystem data that helped shape the agenda and establish a basis for national coordination among ecosystem actors.
Among the most notable initiatives and platforms are:
- Syrian Alliance for Incubators and Accelerators (SAIA)
- Syria Angels Network
- Syrian Women Tech Network
Before discussing the agenda itself, it is important to note that the government’s direction appears to have shifted from developing a comprehensive national entrepreneurship agenda in its broader sense toward a narrower focus on tech startups specifically.
Within the current Syrian context, particularly in post-conflict environments, broader entrepreneurship arguably carries greater urgency given its relevance to small and micro-enterprises, community entrepreneurship, and local initiatives capable of contributing to employment generation and strengthening economic and social stability.
The current agenda, however, narrows entrepreneurship primarily to the tech startup layer, which may reflect the Ministry’s institutional mandate and operational scope.
Conceptual Framework
Entrepreneurship Ecosystem
The entrepreneurship ecosystem represents the broadest of the three concepts. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines the entrepreneurship ecosystem as the interconnected institutions, organizations, regulations, and processes that create the conditions necessary for the establishment and growth of new ventures.
Within academic literature, the ecosystem is understood as a system that includes entrepreneurs, support organizations, universities, funding providers, and government agencies interacting to enable entrepreneurial activity.
Startup Ecosystem
The startup ecosystem is a more specialized concept centered on high-growth ventures and the networks supporting them. This ecosystem includes founders, investors, accelerators, incubators, universities, service providers, and government entities that help startups validate ideas, launch operations, and scale.
Startup Genome describes this ecosystem as a geographically concentrated shared pool of resources centered around founders and startup growth.
Tech Startup Ecosystem
The tech startup ecosystem is the most specialized among the three categories, focusing on ventures built around technology such as software, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, electronics, and other innovation-driven sectors.
Beyond conventional startup support structures, this ecosystem depends more heavily on technical talent, research capabilities, intellectual property, and rapid innovation cycles.
Transparency and Research Methodology
The Ministry stated that the agenda was developed through a comprehensive phased process that included identifying key actors, available support mechanisms, and regulatory gaps. According to the Ministry, the process relied on an integrated research methodology combining desk research, field research, ecosystem surveys, and policy analyses conducted by experts and specialized institutions.
The Ministry also stated that more than one hundred academic and institutional studies and long-term research projects were reviewed.
As a research center concerned with the development of sustainable ecosystems in Syria, we note that none of these studies or research materials have been made publicly available, despite the fact that they should be accessible.
They are also absent from the agenda’s listed references, and the agenda does not clarify which experts or institutions participated in its development, as no names or affiliations are disclosed.
Greater transparency in this regard is necessary to enable evidence-based public scrutiny and strengthen alignment among ecosystem stakeholders.
Public Participation
The Ministry opened a public consultation process on the draft pillars of the agenda.
Expanding participation beyond state institutions to include entrepreneurs, investors, experts, and ecosystem actors is necessary for any credible ecosystem agenda. However, the participation mechanism functioned more as a consultative survey exercise than as a genuinely participatory policy-design process.
Participation was limited to:
- Rating the agenda pillars from 1 to 5
- Submitting comments and suggestions
- Answering questions measuring general impressions
According to the platform, more than 550 participants contributed to the evaluation of the agenda’s pillars. However, the agenda does not clarify to what extent these views and recommendations shaped the final draft or influenced the proposed implementation mechanisms.
Based on our monitoring of the ecosystem and our ongoing communication with ecosystem actors, effective participation in actual policy formulation still appears limited.
Strategic Pillars of the Agenda
The agenda contains six strategic pillars:
- Talent Development
- Networks and Connectivity
- Entrepreneurial Culture
- Access to Investment
- Access to Markets
- Enabling Systems
Aram Lab identifies several strengths within the agenda, including its system-level framing, its attempt to integrate multiple dimensions of ecosystem development, and the alignment of its pillars with international approaches to ecosystem design.
At the same time, the agenda’s viability depends on whether it reflects the ecosystem’s operational realities rather than its intended policy image.
Despite the clarity of its strategic objectives and priorities, the transition from strategic design to implementation remains a central challenge, particularly given the need to develop what can be described as the ecosystem’s “operational layer”: the actual mechanisms determining how actors interact, how startups move across support stages, and how regulatory, financial, and market tools align with the realities founders face.
Given Syria’s fragile context, Aram Lab emphasizes that policy design — even when framed as “non-operational” — cannot be separated from operational realities on the ground. The ability to design effective frameworks fundamentally depends on a detailed understanding of how systems function under existing constraints and conditions.
Accordingly, objectives, expectations, and performance indicators should be approached cautiously and continuously validated against evolving field realities.
From our perspective, the most effective approach depends on continuous ecosystem monitoring, understanding how actors interact within the existing structure, identifying and bridging gaps, understanding constraints and operational bottlenecks, conducting research and analysis, and developing a shared language and conceptual framework capable of aligning actors and strengthening long-term sustainability.
Governance and Concentration of Roles
The agenda introduced a governance framework through the establishment of the Technology Entrepreneurship Council under the supervision of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, tasked with implementing the national plan and coordinating efforts among stakeholders.
In this context, the National Agenda for Tech Startups attempts to address the institutional vacuum by creating a policy framework and governance mechanism connecting state institutions, the private sector, academia, civil society organizations, and international partners under unified objectives and measurable targets.
From a first-principles perspective, the agenda could have proposed an independent authority or a dedicated ministry for the digital economy and entrepreneurship, similar to models adopted in several benchmarked countries.
Instead, we observed an accelerated expansion of initiatives and platforms reflecting a tendency toward reinforcing the Ministry’s central role within the tech startup sector.
Through the agenda, the Ministry is building centralized coordination and oversight frameworks while simultaneously developing initiatives and tools that shape the ecosystem and influence its outputs, including talent pipelines and technology ventures.
This recalls aspects of the Syrian Trust for Development model during the previous regime. The critique presented here targets governance structures and policy mechanisms rather than individuals operating within the Ministry or ecosystem in good faith.
We also observed a concentration of roles among a limited number of actors, where ecosystem organization, public narrative formation, policy advising, and representation within national initiatives increasingly overlap.
This concentration of roles creates structural risks related to conflicts of interest, institutional neutrality, and unequal influence over ecosystem direction.
Accreditation and Licensing Through the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
During the launch event of the agenda, a platform was announced to enable tech startups to obtain official accreditation from the Ministry.
This accreditation mechanism had previously been announced and later withdrawn without clarification regarding implementation procedures before reappearing under different names and forms, suggesting a reversal of the earlier decision.
Previously, licensing requests were submitted through the Telecommunications and Post Regulatory Authority. Today, accreditation is requested through the National Authority for Information Technology Services.
In practice, the original decision does not appear to have been fully implemented. Yet accreditation now reappears within an agenda that ostensibly aims to reduce bureaucracy and procedural complexity.
The expanding reliance on accreditation and licensing mechanisms for platforms, incubators, accelerators, and other ecosystem actors — alongside periodic reporting requirements — reflects a shift toward centralized verification and control mechanisms rather than ecosystem growth through open-market dynamics.
This raises a broader question: are tech startups best supported through imposing accreditation requirements on applications and digital platforms alongside administrative waiting periods, procedural complexity, and additional governmental requirements tied to company formation?
If we return to the first-principles approach and the benchmark models referenced within the agenda itself, this type of broad licensing structure does not appear to be universally applied across all digital platforms and applications.
In sensitive or security-related sectors, such accreditation mechanisms may be understandable. However, the current approach appears to extend to all companies operating digital platforms and applications.
Funding and Sustainability
The agenda outlines ambitious objectives related to launching one thousand startups and attracting 200 million USD in venture funding by 2028.
Aram Lab believes that achieving these objectives requires a sustainable minimum level of government investment capable of ensuring continuity even under changing market conditions, rather than relying entirely on external financing and private investment commitments.
Based on our analysis, the funding structure currently appears heavily dependent on external sources of capital.
Our research also identified a forthcoming platform being developed by the Ministry under the name “National Commitments Platform,” intended as a national digital platform allowing institutions to publicly and voluntarily register commitments supporting Syria’s tech startup ecosystem within the framework of the 2025–2030 agenda.
These commitments are reviewed and approved by the Ministry prior to publication, with the stated objective of strengthening transparency and measuring actual impact within the technology entrepreneurship environment.
At a time when the Ministry calls for active participation, it must also maintain institutional neutrality and safeguard the public interest while remaining attentive to the risks of actor capture, where organizations with greater influence or resources may steer the agenda toward serving their own interests at the expense of the broader ecosystem or newer market entrants.
This concern was not adequately addressed during the previous period.
In post-conflict environments, the primary deficit is often not capital itself, but trust and the risks of performative signaling, where institutions issue large public promises for visibility and public relations purposes without measurable implementation.
The digital commitments platform is positioned as the agenda’s flagship coordination mechanism. Its success, however, depends on whether it is grounded in meaningful accountability and follow-up structures rather than media visibility and public relations considerations alone.
Based on our monitoring of initiatives launched by the Ministry during previous years, we did not observe clear indicators of accountability or periodic impact evaluation. On the contrary, many initiatives appeared to continue operating primarily through visibility and public relations logic without measurable impact or meaningful accountability.
One example is Syria Angels Network, which was announced with the participation of 30 investors and an initial value of nearly 10 million USD to support Syrian startups in the early stages. However, the initiative’s measurable impact and current trajectory remain unclear.
The same applies to the Syrian Alliance for Incubators and Accelerators (SAIA) and similar initiatives.
Aram Lab Recommendations
Aram Lab presents the following observations, questions, and recommendations to the public and calls for action accordingly.
First: Governance and Transparency
- Ensure open access to information and publish evidence-based ecosystem performance indicators.
- Establish a clear separation between advisory and executive functions and between governmental and private-sector roles.
- Strengthen governance, transparency, and accountability mechanisms.
- Create an independent oversight body or a multi-stakeholder governance model.
Second: Ecosystem Development and Institutional Coordination
- Strengthen coordination and communication among ecosystem actors through clearly defined roles and operational pathways.
- Reduce duplication between initiatives and platforms.
- Establish continuous feedback mechanisms with ecosystem stakeholders.
Third: Regulatory and Operational Environment
- Simplify company formation and operational procedures.
- Review accreditation and licensing mechanisms and ensure proportionality with the nature of tech startups.
- Align regulatory policies with market realities and operational conditions.
Fourth: Funding and Sustainability
- Improve capital circulation within the ecosystem rather than focusing solely on increasing funding volume.
- Address barriers related to profitability and financial infrastructure.
- Strengthen alignment between investors and startups.
Fifth: Talent and Growth
- Support startups in transitioning from early-stage development to growth and scaling phases.
- Align talent development efforts with market realities.
- Develop clear and sustainable support pathways for founders.
Ultimately, post-conflict environments urgently require such measures, as their absence leaves ecosystems vulnerable to becoming closed networks that constrain innovation, trust, and investment.
Any national agenda for tech startups presents an important opportunity to move from fragmented activity toward a more coherent ecosystem. Realizing this potential, however, depends on grounding policy design in a genuine understanding of ecosystem behavior and actors, and on the ability of implementation mechanisms to bridge the gap between structure and function.
Conceptual Framework Appendix
Entrepreneurship Ecosystem
The entrepreneurship ecosystem refers to an interconnected set of actors, factors, and institutions interacting within a specific geographic or economic context to support the emergence and growth of entrepreneurial activity. This ecosystem includes entrepreneurs, universities, investors, incubators, government entities, policies, culture, networks, markets, and financial and human resources. From this perspective, entrepreneurship is not understood as an isolated individual act, but rather as the outcome of interactions among multiple elements that enable individuals to identify opportunities and transform them into ventures with economic or social value. This definition draws on Stam and Spigel, who define the entrepreneurship ecosystem as a coordinated set of interconnected actors and factors that enable productive entrepreneurship within a particular region.
Startup Ecosystem
The startup ecosystem represents a more specialized subset of the broader entrepreneurship ecosystem, focusing on the environment that enables the establishment, development, and growth of startups under conditions characterized by uncertainty and the continuous search for scalable and repeatable business models. This ecosystem consists of founders, investors, accelerators, incubators, mentors, universities, service providers, large corporations, and regulatory bodies, in addition to the social and professional networks that facilitate access to funding, knowledge, talent, and markets. According to Ziakis et al., the development, success, and sustainability of startups are shaped by contextual factors within a regional entrepreneurial ecosystem involving multiple stakeholders and can be analyzed through the Quadruple Helix model, which integrates universities, industry, government, and society.
Tech Startup Ecosystem
The tech startup ecosystem refers to the specialized environment that supports the establishment and growth of startups relying on technology and digital or technical innovation as the primary source of their competitive value. This ecosystem includes technical talent, digital infrastructure, universities and research and development centers, technology-focused investors, digital platforms, intellectual property protection frameworks, innovation-supportive policies, and markets capable of adopting technological solutions.
Accordingly, this ecosystem differs from the broader startup ecosystem in that technology is not merely an operational tool, but a core component of the product, service, or business model itself. This definition draws on the literature surrounding digital entrepreneurial ecosystems, where Sussan and Acs link the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem to digital platforms, users, and digital markets, while Elia et al. argue that digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping both the entrepreneurial process and its surrounding environment.
References
Stam, Erik, and Ben Spigel. “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.” Utrecht School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 16, no. 13 (2016). Utrecht University.
Ziakis, Christos, Maro Vlachopoulou, and Konstantinos Petridis. “Start-up Ecosystem (StUpEco): A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Research.” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 8, no. 1 (2022): 35.
Sussan, Fiona, and Zoltan J. Acs. “The Digital Entrepreneurial Ecosystem.” Small Business Economics 49, no. 1 (2017): 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9867-5.
Elia, Gianluca, Alessandro Margherita, and Giuseppina Passiante. “Digital Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: How Digital Technologies and Collective Intelligence Are Reshaping the Entrepreneurial Process.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 150 (2020): 119791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119791.
