The liberalisation process proved, however, selective and partial as the economy overall remained highly regulated and subsidized. [...] the economy remained restrained by a bloated, corrupt and ineffective public administration.

The process [of liberalisation] largely benefitted the educated, urban, upper middle class and saw the rise of economic oligarchs who extracted considerable wealth from virtual monopolies on newly opened business opportunities, particularly in sectors like oil, telecoms, pharmaceuticals and chemicals, electronics, agro‑business and tourism, while midrange investment activity was lacking.

[A]n organic alliance between elites within military, security and civilian state institutions and an emerging class of private sector entrepreneurs became a vital pillar of regime power. The selective liberalisation process provided instruments for co‑opting and re‑organising networks of allegiance and patronage as the resources generated by the economic openings and economic regulation were, first and foremost, exploited by regime elites and their close allies [...]. The new organic networks often involved close kinship between security, military and state officials and a new generation of business entrepreneurs.

The lion’s share of the new opportunities and market openings went to a small group of individuals associated with the regime, either through family ties and/or through public governmental positions in the military and security services. The new entrepreneurial elite received licensing and concessions within the public services and could delegate management to gain the most profitable projects, benefit from tailor‑made regulation, and enjoy privileged access to foreign investments and expatriate Syrian and Arab business communities [...]. They were therefore the ones largely benefitting from the opportunities arising from liberalisation, especially within sectors such as energy (oil and gas), telecoms and IT, duty free zones, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, electronics, agro‑business, tourism and car dealerships. [...] These people therefore owed their fortunes (or large parts thereof) to their organic relationship with regime insiders. By gathering patronage networks [...], the regime not only undercut any other collective action to rally private sector businesspeople against the regime, but by creating strategic openings to benefit its allies (and family members), the regime also assured themselves of allies through interdependence.

[T]he lucrative business openings, brought about by the liberalisation process, primarily benefitted an emerging entrepreneurial business class due to its organic and tightly knit (often family) ties to the inner core of the regime, creating a high degree of interdependence – and to some degree blurring of the distinction – between the two.

The new elites even challenged the Ba’ath traditionalists as they began seeking political representation. The party’s importance as a mobilising driver for the regime declined and was to some degree taken over by the new commercial elite. This was clearly demonstrated in the presidential referendum in 2007 where the business elite mobilised regime support, covering the costs of all meeting venues in the country. These networks have been highly active in organising and financing demonstrations and shabihas in favour of the regime during the uprising of 2011.

Membership of the chambers began in the 1980s where it became a de facto prerequisite for acquiring a commercial, industrial record and business licenses [...]. [...] [T]he chambers of commerce have always been tied to the regime and have played a limited role in representing the interests of the wider merchant class.