Poor investment choices and weak planning in Zambia’s road and airport projects between 2010 and 2020 cost the country an estimated US$7.2 billion in lost economic value, a new study by the Economics Association of Zambia (EAZ) has revealed. The study, titled “Did Zambia’s Road and Airport Investment Spur Growth or Deepen Debt?” and presented at a public lecture, reviewed 27 major road projects and two international airports constructed during a decade of heavy infrastructure spending. Its verdict is sobering: while a few projects delivered meaningful benefits, many others deepened the country’s debt burden without generating sufficient economic returns.
Of the 27 road projects assessed, only 10 were found to be worthwhile investments. The best performers were urban roads in Lusaka, Kitwe and Ndola, where heavy traffic volumes ensured that time savings and reduced vehicle operating costs translated into tangible economic gains. Main highways linking major cities produced mixed outcomes, while rural district roads generally performed poorly.
“The single biggest factor explaining success or failure was traffic,” the study found, noting that heavily used roads consistently generated higher returns, while low-traffic rural roads rarely justified their high construction costs. Researchers stressed that the findings should not be interpreted as an argument against rural development, but rather as a call for smarter project selection based on realistic demand and economic impact. One of the most damaging policy decisions highlighted in the report was the sharp reduction in road maintenance funding.
Read Full Article on Zambia Monitor
[paywall]
According to the study, repairing existing roads generated three times more economic value than constructing new ones. The neglect of maintenance alone cost Zambia an estimated US$4 billion in lost value. “Fixing potholes would have delivered far greater benefits than ribbon-cutting new projects,” the presentation noted.
The study further found that only seven of the 27 road projects were supported by proper feasibility and economic studies before construction began. Projects subjected to rigorous analysis performed significantly better than those that were not. Without sound studies, the report warned, infrastructure decisions were often driven by political pressure rather than economic merit.
[/paywall]
