The term ‘social contract’ is increasingly used in social science literature to describe sets of state-society relations – in particular with reference to MENA countries. Much of the literature highlights that MENA countries used to have quite similar social contracts between the 1950s and the 2010s, which were based on the provision of social benefits to citizens – such as overly generous food and energy subsidies – as a recompensation for the lack of political participation. This article defines social contracts as sets of formal and informal agreements between societal groups and the government on rights and obligations towards each other. It maintains that social contracts are – partly informal – institutions that are meant to make state-society interactions more predictable and thereby politics more stable. And it highlights that the social contracts of MENA countries degenerated steadily after 1985 due to increasing populations and budgetary problems and that the Arab uprisings 2010-11 were an expression of discontent with a situation where governments provided neither political participation nor sufficient social benefits. The main focus of the article, however, is on the question if new social contracts have emerged after 2011. In this, the article refers to the strategies that the governments of differnet MENA countries have taken to implement food and energy subsidy cuts without delegitimising their own authority – respectively provoking major social unrest. The article shows that Morocco. Egypt and Iran used distinct approaches – each of them affecting the social contract in the respective country in different ways: Morocco’s government removed some subsidies, but mainly those that benefit predominantly middle classes. It explained the need for reforms, engaged in dialogue with society and set up some compensatory measures for the poor. Thereby it tried to preserve as much as possible of the existing social contract. The Egyptian government, in contrast, dismantled subsidy schemes more radically, without consultation and comprehensive information campaigns. Also, its compensatory measures remain negligible, which shows that the government relies no longer on the provision of social benefits as a means of legitimisation but rather on repression and the claim of being the only actor that is able to guarantee the individual and collective security of citizens. Finally, Iran replaced subsidies by a very generous quasi-universal cash transfer scheme, which is more efficient and egalitarian – suggesting that the government intends to create a more inclusive social contract and thereby broaden its social support basis.