Abridged from the Paper Presented at the Inaugural Engr YUSUF LANRE SAGAYA ANNUAL LECTURE organised by the Ilorin Branch of the Nigerian Society of Engineers, NSE
25 May 2023 by Engr. Bayo Adeola, FNSE.
Preambles
The Royal Father of the day, HRH Alh (Dr) Ibrahim Sulu Gambari, the Emir of Ilorin;
The Chairman of the Occasion, Engr. Tasiu Sa’ad Gudari-Wudil, FNSE, NSE President;
Distinguished Guest of Honour, Gov Abdul Rahman AbdulRazak, Executive Governor of Kwara State; Prof Ibrahim Agboola Gambari, CFR, Chief of Staff to the President; Engr. Suleman Adamu, FNSE, FAEng, Hon. Minister of Water Resources; the Keynote Speaker, Dr Wale Babalakin, OFR, SAN; Special Guest of Honour, Engr Suleman Rotimi Iliasu, FNSE, Hon Commissioner for Works and Transport, Kwara State; Engr (Hon) S O Agboola, FNSE, Past Chairman, NSE Ilorin Branch; the host, Engr Taiwo Issa Olashehu, FNSE, Chairman, NSE Ilorin Branch; Prof Y A Jimoh, FNSE, FAEng, Planning Committee Chairman and his Secretary, Engr T O Ibikunle, MNSE.
The last time I was in Ilorin to present a paper was in November 2005, when the consulting firm founded by the icon we are celebrating today was 25 years old. It’s been eighteen years, and that company is still growing strong at 43. For the local Nigerian consulting industry, this is a phenomenal achievement. Yolas Consultants Since 1979!. There are only a few consulting engineering practices that are older.
I would like to take a cue from our musicians and acknowledge those who nurtured Engr. Lanre Sagaya. His first place of work was Ove Arup & Partners, who recruited him right from the university. Ove Arup is still in Nigeria and waxing strong. Then he worked for Osot Engineers, a consulting firm rum by Engrs. Tokun and Ogunsola. I acknowledge their contribution to his development. He then worked at Etteh Aro & Partners. Engr. Arogundade has since passed on, but Engr. Etteh is still alive, and today is his as much as it is Lanre’s.
I thank the Nigerian Society of Engineers, Ilorin Branch, for this initiative. It is well deserved, for Yolas and Engr. Sagaya put Ilorin boldly on the Nigerian consulting engineering map.
Engr. Sagaya has had a brilliant career, covering the broad spectrum of structures and geotechnical engineering, environment and water resources engineering, transportation, project management and economics studies. However, it is in the field of transportation, particularly road studies, design and supervision that he is renowned. The list of roads that he has worked on in Nigeria looks like an inventory of Nigerian roads. And he always gave a good account of himself.
In all of this, he remained modest, amiable and unassuming. He is a role model to a great many engineers, and on behalf of myself and the very many engineers to whom he is a role model, I congratulate him on this honour behold on him.
Now I go to my paper.
Infrastructure: Definition
‘Infrastructure’: A New Word from Old Roots
A solid word that’s also flexible
The Latin roots of the word infrastructure mean simply “underneath or below the structure.” This word was coined in French from Latin parts in the late 1800s, initially used to refer to the substructure or foundation of a building, road, or railroad bed.
In English, infrastructure was initially widely used in the context of building military bases, railroads, and airfields for use by NATO forces:
The vast “infrastructure” program of Allied airfields, barracks, railways, roads, depots and joint headquarters is now reported progressing well.
—The New York Times, 28 September 1952
From this initial military construction use, infrastructure quickly became a more general term for “the system of public works of a country, state, or region.” This is the now-common “roads and bridges” meaning of the term.
Engineering and Infrastructure
Contributions to the provision of infrastructures cut across several fields of human endeavours. These fields include those who notice the need for the infrastructure and orchestrate them (journalists, social critics); those who diagnose and design solutions for them (engineers, entrepreneurs); those who legislate and approve them (the legislature, executives); those who finance them (governments, investors); those who build them (contractors, manufacturers); and those who persuade the citizenry that it is good for them (social critics, influencers), among others. Each of these groups is critical to the provision of infrastructure and it will be difficult to get meaningful results without their commitments.
However, the focus of this paper is on engineering infrastructures. As broad as the scope of infrastructures has been defined above, underlying all of them are the physical, tangible infrastructures that are the domain of engineers. Here, I use the word ‘engineers’ broadly to include architects, surveyors, materials and equipment manufactures, and all those who operate in the built environment. The roles of these engineers in the different areas may be briefly described as follows:
The Physical Infrastructures listed above are perhaps the most obvious domain of engineers and their associates in the built environment, and does not need any further elaborations.
The role of engineers in Social Infrastructures is perhaps less obvious, the interface of practitioners with the citizenry being made up of teachers, educationists, estate surveyors, doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers, sports men and women, and sports administrators among several others. However, a brief peep behind these facades will reveal the physical infrastructures of schools, houses, hospitals and stadia along with their manufactured equipment without which the different sectors will not thrive. Indeed, some believe that the provision of clean water and sanitation through engineering does more to human health than medication. Clearly, engineers provide the basic physical infrastructures for these social services.
Just as for social infrastructures, engineers provide the backbone to support Economic Infrastructures. While entrepreneurs, investors, farmers, transporters, miners, craftsmen and traders are the primary occupier of this space, engineering and technology have, through the centuries, being the drivers of developments in the world. The agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, improvements in transportation and power, and the recent revolution in telecommunications have all been driven by engineering ingenuity. Indeed, the outputs of these infrastructures continuously generate and drive new economic activities.
The domains of Social Order, Security and Governance Infrastructures also rely heavily on engineering infrastructures. How would the Military, the Police, Civil Societies, and the Judicial System function without military equipment, buildings, transportation, power, communication, internet and all the services provided by engineering? The military is a peculiar one. At the time of the emergence of engineering as a discipline, it was indeed conceived in two parts: military engineering and civil engineering. Today, military might and technological might are synonymous. A colleague of mine in the Nigerian Academy of Engineering, Prof John Ade Ajayi, introduced the following quotation which aptly capture the relationship between politics, economics and engineering, to me:
All Military Problems are Political Problems
All Political Problems are Economic Problems
All Economic Problems are Technological Problems
Strategist Von Briver
The conclusion here is that while engineering infrastructure has a distinct domain that may be considered as exclusively its own, it is indeed ubiquitous, and is to be found in virtually all areas of human endeavour. It is the appreciation and development of science and engineering as the drivers of modern development that distinguish developed nations from underdeveloped ones.
Governments’ Responsibility for Infrastructure Development
In a very simplistic way, society may be considered in two broad groups: the governing class, and the governed or general citizenry. By some modalities, which may include wars, annexation, forced occupation, inheritance, democratic and undemocratic elections, or military coups, a governing class assumes power. Nigeria has experienced several of these options in its over 100 years of existence.
The first responsibility of a good governing class is to have a vision for the country and its citizens, and not only sell this vision to them, but also mobilise them to support it. Then it must have a plan to actualise the vision and achieve the promised benefits. For these, it needs financial and human resources. Done successfully a generally happy and prosperous nation emerges.
A critical part of the powers of the governing class is to impose and collect taxes from the citizenry. It is then its responsibility to disburse the tax to areas it considers as priority. What the citizenry expects is that the priority areas would be those that would be of the greatest benefit to them and the country.
The amount and form of tax collection, the determination of priority areas, and management of the expectations of the citizenry, are all complex areas for governments to negotiate. These are some of the things that make governance difficult. Too little tax, and there is not enough money for development. Too much tax and the citizenry feel oppressed and are disenchanted. Priorities are difficult to determine. A focus on short-term benefits might provide immediate relief and compromise long-term sustainability. Focus on long-term benefits might lead to severe discomfort in the short term. A delicate balance is always required. Too large an appropriation of resources for the comfort of the rulers breeds disenchantment, disloyalty and corruption among the followers. Too little might scuttle governments’ ability to carry out its functions. Ultimately, the answer is the generation of adequate wealth for the nation such that the poorest is adequately taken care of. Even this is a mirage that shifts continuously.
It is the responsibility of government to ensure the growth of the economy and generate enough resources to provide the needs of the country and its citizenry, which include the physical, social, economic, security and governance infrastructures discussed above, and several others. For government to do this, it needs, not only to remunerate its own members, it needs to recruit and pay employees adequately to provide these critical services, as well as operate the infrastructures that have been provided. The cost of operating existing infrastructures and paying itself and its employees are what is referred to as recurrent expenditure. These expenditures occur every year without break, and government operations will grind to a halt without them.
Provision of infrastructures in all the areas listed above and several other developmental requirements is very expensive. Resources allocated for their achievement are called capital expenditures. The expectation is that for the recurrent expenditure to justify itself, it must generate enough revenue to meet capital expenditures.
In summary, growing the economy, generating adequate income for government, and allocation of this revenue between recurrent and capital expenditure is what government budgeting is all about.
Systems Design for Infrastructural Development
Management Science provides us with the basic steps for achieving visions as follows:
- Vision
- Strategic Plan
- Enablers
- Efficient and Effective Governance
- Financing
- Local Technological Capability
- Local Technical and Managerial Competence
- Implementation
Vision
The first step in the provision of quality infrastructure is the clarity of vision of the government of the desired deliverables. The vision is very important, for it embodies what the leadership wants to achieve for his country and people. In the area of infrastructures, this has become relatively simple for countries that are lagging behind contemporary standards. The gaps between local infrastructure and international standards are all so evident. For Nigeria, visioning exercises have taken place, and not much more needs to be done. The most recent are Vision 2010, Vision 20: 2020 and the current Vision 2050. For countries at the fore-front of development, this now includes space exploration and new energies, among others.
Strategic Plans
Elaborate strategic plans have also been prepared from time to time for the achievement of visions in Nigeria. At the national level, the visioning efforts listed above were accompanied by strategic plans. At the international level, the Millennial Development Goals and Agenda 2030 which contains Sustainable Development Goals are two of the most recent efforts.
A review of these documents shows that the plans have been competently prepared and are detailed enough for implementation. There is thus not much more that needs to be done.
Enablers
The enablers outlined above are my own thoughts. I have identified only four of them, and it is from this perspective that I will address the main theme of this paper – the Challenges and Prospects of Infrastructure Development in Nigeria.
Efficient and Effective Governance
The first enabler for me is efficient and effective governance. If there are clear visions and strategies, then why have we been unable to actualise them. My thinking is that the visions and strategies have been prepared by others, and are not understood, appreciated and owned by the government. Therefore, these visions and strategies do not constitute the primary deliverables of the ministries, departments and agencies of government. They did not drive the manifestos of the different political parties. They do not drive the annual business plans and budgets of government. They are not used to evaluate the performance of government from one SEC meeting to the other, week on week, month on month, quarter on quarter and year on year. The government does not measure its own performance against the visions and strategic objectives.
Often, the leadership of MDAs do not have the required leadership and technical competences required for the agencies they head. These positions are too often rewards for political support, rather than calls to service to deliver on mandates.
Where we have had competent leaders, we have often seen the results. Dora Akunyili was not the first head of NAFDAC, but she showed us what could be achieved with it. Prof. Ransome Kuti was not the first Minister of Health, but he showed us what could be achieved with it. We can feel the efforts of Buba Marwa in the war against illegal drug trafficking. There are a few more who have given good accounts of themselves. In each case, we can see the professional competences that empower them to perform, as well as the individual integrity required for such performances. However, most of our appointees are round pegs in square holes, without the necessary competences to deliver on mandates. It would of course be improper of me to give examples in this regard.
In summary, integrating the visions and strategic plans into the daily activities of government is the effective way of ensuring their implementation. Persons with the requisite leadership, technical and managerial competences must be appointed to lead critical MDAs, and their priorities must be aligned with the visions and strategic objectives. Their performances must be monitored and measured, and they must be held accountable for strategic deliverables.
Finance
The second enabler for me is the financing of infrastructure. Infrastructure provision is very expensive. It takes a long time to achieve. Its benefits are usually in the future and not immediate. Complex and sophisticated technologies are involved. Embedded competences and capabilities are required. Over time, the quantum of infrastructure deficit has become monstrous. To confront these challenges is too difficult. Funding of infrastructure is through capital expenditure.
On the other hand, maintaining the status-quo in the operations of government is relatively easy. Recurrent expenses of government must be met as a matter of routine. A very large number of public appointments are made by the executive, at all levels of government, federal, state and local governments, and their expensive lifestyles must be paid for. The large number of legislators, both new and old, also at the federal, state and local governments, must be provided for. Then the salaries and benefits of senior civil servants must be paid. This is usually the first priority of government. Ironically, the generality of lower cadre public workers, including teachers and nurses, are not included in this priority.
In a situation where government revenue is dwindling, and larger percentages of these dwindling revenues are being spent on recurrent expenditures, there is less and less available for infrastructure. The infrastructure gap thus continues to widen. As the infrastructures decay, more and more money is yet required to maintain and/or recover them, and less still available for developing new infrastructure.
A brief review of government budgets in the last decade will illustrate this point.
…The main government expenditure strategy has been restructuring and rationalizing overall expenditure. However, amidst all this, the recurrent expenditure keeps rising in almost every Nigerian annual budget. According to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Nigerian recurrent expenditure stood at N4.85billion in 1981, increased to ₦36.22 billion in 1990, then ₦127.63 billion in 1995. It was ₦178.10 billion in 1998. Then on return to democracy in 1999, there was an astronomical rise to ₦449.66 billion. In 2003, it stood at ₦984.3 billion to ₦1110.64 billion in 2004, and then almost doubled in 2008 at ₦2117.36 billion. In 2012, it was ₦4004.46 billion and rose to ₦4892.36 billion in 2015, rising further to ₦5762.7 billion in 2016 and to ₦7138.7 billion in 2017.
The 2021 budget presented by President Buhari includes N5.65 trillion recurrent expenditure, about 43% of the entire budget, plus personnel cost of N3.76 trillion, and debt service of N3.12 trillion. The trend in the budget appears to continue rising; from 2011 to 2020 the cumulative Federal Government personnel costs–pensions, and gratuities rose to about N20 trillion, thus pushing the recurrent expenditure for the 2020 budget to N4.84 trillion (around 45% of the total budget).
In 2019, the recurrent expenditure also gulped 45.75% of the budget at N4.040 trillion. Though there seems to be a little drop in the percentage (43%) of the 2021 recurrent expenditure, the amount of money is still higher at N5.65 trillion as compared to 2020, 2019, and the previous budgets.
2021 Nigerian Budget: The nexus between recurrent expenditure and economic growth in Nigeria | Dubawa
An on-line article by Nairametrics presents the same information in a slightly different manner. (Nigeria spends N29 trillion on recurrent (non-debt) expenditure in last 10 years – Nairametrics}.
The Federal Government of Nigeria has spent N29.3 trillion in the last 10 years on (non-debt) recurrent expenditure. The government has earned N33.2 trillion as revenue in this period. This is according to data compiled from the budget implementation report of the federal government compiled and published by the Budget Office of Nigeria. A cursory review of the data shows that at N29.3 trillion, recurrent non-debt expenditure is about 3x more than the N10 trillion spent on capital expenditure in the last 10 years.
According to a world bank report, capital expenditure involves spending on transport, information technology, power and utilities, defence, etc.
A recent Moody’s report indicates Nigeria needs to spend about $3.3 trillion in capital expenditure over the next 30 years or $1.1 trillion a decade to close its infrastructure deficit.
This amounts to $100 billion (N45 trillion) per annum or 28% of Nigeria’s GDP of N144 trillion, a tall task considering where the country is at the moment.
Nigeria is far from this goal and may not meet this target if it continues to spend more on recurrent expenditure compared to capital expenditure.
The simple, layman’s solution to a limited resource is to fund the priority first, and then optimise the residual for the recurrent. Hopefully, the funding of the priority would lead to increased revenue in the future, and both the priority and the recurrent would improve in this process. Thus, in a poor family, sacrifice is made to send children to school so that when they graduate, they are able to improve the family resource.
We seem to do the reverse in Nigeria. We fund the luxuries first, and manage the residual for the important. Our recurrent expenditures are consistently much higher than our capital expenses, and this continues year after year.
Perhaps we should consider legislating an upper limit to the percentage that should be spent on recurrent expenditure, and scaling government down to this budget, thus making more money available for capital expenditure.
One additional option to financing infrastructure is to borrow, whether internally or externally, to finance them. If the infrastructures are delivered on scheduled, and the economic and social benefits are realised, then this would be an acceptable way of infrastructure finance. The situation where the borrowing is made, and the infrastructures are not delivered leads to what we call double jeopardy: the debt is being paid, and there are no benefits to show for it. The quality and discipline of government is critical to borrowing to finance infrastructure.
Yet another option is to invite the private sector to participate in the financing of infrastructure. There are different forms of this, including concessioning, Private Public Partnership, Tax Concessions, among others. What must be realised is that private sector finance is the most expensive source of finance, and unless the infrastructure is targeted at those who are able and willing to pay, it might have to be subsidised by government. The Nairametrics article has this to say about this option:
Another possible area of increasing achieving Nigeria’s infrastructure goals is via the private sector. But to do this, Nigeria will need to improve its capital formation policies that enable the private sector to invest in public infrastructure while delivering a legal path to recovering its investments and profits.
There is also the public-private partnership initiative pursued by the federal government towards funding infrastructure development in the country.
Just recently, the president approved the setting up of a $39.4 billion Infrastructure Company, wholly focused on critical infrastructural investments in Nigeria.
According to the president, “this Infrastructure company will raise funding from Central bank of Nigeria, Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority, Pension funds, and local and foreign private sector development financiers.”
Local Technology Capability
The third enabler that I listed is Technology. If infrastructure is expensive all over the world, it is even more so in underdeveloped countries where virtually all manufactured products have to be imported. Buildings and civil works are easily the most localised, Even then, virtually all construction equipment are imported, as well as a considerable quantity of electrical and mechanical fittings and fixtures. In transportation, all road, rail, sea and air vehicles are imported. In water supply, all pumps and treatment plants, and most of the consumables are imported. In the telecoms industry, all the antennae and other equipment in the industry are imported. Manufacturing, particularly the manufacture of machines and equipment for production of consumer goods, is at the heart of industrialisation.
Unless and until design and production of equipment becomes local and indigenised, production and maintenance of infrastructure would remain expensive. Technology has to be owned and domesticated. It has to feel like fashion and food and music and farming.
Again, it is not that this has not been realised for a long time. Ajaokuta Steel Complex was initiated in the 1979s and was 98% completed by 1994, yet it has never produced any steel. All of these was done with foreign expertise, equipment and machinery.
By 1986, the nation had three pulp and paper mills — the Nigeria Newsprint Manufacturing Company (NNMC), Oku-Iboku, Akwa Ibom State; the National Paper Manufacturing Company (NPMC), Iwopin, Ogun State; and the Nigeria Paper Mill (NPM), Jebba, Kwara State. Today, the three of them are moribund. All of these was done with foreign expertise, equipment and machinery.
Against the backdrop of the just commissioned Dangote Refinery, it is pertinent to note that the first refinery in Nigeria, the Old Port Harcourt Refinery, with a capacity of 60,000 barrels per day was commissioned in 1965, almost sixty years ago. Since then, several other refineries have been built – Warri Refining and Petrochemical Company; capacity 125,000 bpsd commissioned in 1978, Kaduna Refining and Petrochemical Company; capacity 110,000 bpsd commissioned in 1980 and the New Port Harcourt Refinery; capacity 150,000 bpsd commissioned in 1989. Still, all the expertise and machinery continue to be imported.
Even the rapidly growing telecommunication industry is fully dependent on imported technology.
Indigenisation of technology is a medium to long term plan, and only a strong commitment by the government can facilitate this. It will cost a lot of money, and there will be failures on the way. However, building local technological capabilities is the only sustainable way for sustainable infrastructure.
Local Competences & Capacity
Finally, I come to the development of local competences and capacities for engineering infrastructure. This is closely associated with the last enabler, technology. However, it is much more, as it includes entrepreneurship and business development. Successive governments in Nigeria continue to patronise foreign expertise because they want the assurance of delivery. International Financial Institutions and foreign investors support and reinforce this position. The resultant effect is that after over a hundred years, only foreign experts are entrusted with all but the smallest infrastructures. After the western world, the UK, the US and Europe, had had their fill, China and India took over. Even Turkey and Vietnam and Thailand are seeking entrance to the extremely profitable Nigerian market.
The Nigerian leadership needs to ask itself whether it just wants fish, or acquire fishing competence. With fish alone, you will always rely on others to supply the fish. With fishing competences, you will not only have as much fish as you a able to catch, you will also have the ability to supply fish to others and generate income. In bidding processes, Nigerian governments continue to ask for competences that it knows its people do not have. Not having built any railways in over forty years, a bid requiring local experience in rail construction would be ridiculous. Yet this is what happens.
On one hand, you cannot have the job because you do not have the experience. On the other hand, you cannot have the experience without having the job. So, who is going to give you the first job? It is like Catch-22, a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules or limitations. The term was coined by Joseph Heller, who used it in his 1961 novel of the same title.
There is a severe dearth of competences to produce engineering infrastructure in Nigeria, and unless this is rapidly addressed, the situation can only get worse. It is only when competences are domesticated that infrastructure provision can develop rapidly.
Implementation
The weaknesses in the enablers enumerated above make implementation very difficult, and in the few cases where projects are successfully completed (even after running significantly over budget and time), the challenges of operations and maintenance follow.
The report below is an excerpt from a study by J. Ibrahim et al of abandoned projects in Nigeria:
This investigation focuses on the needs of the growing population for infrastructure to achieve economic development: roads, bridges, airports, power generation and transmission, hospitals, telecommunications networks and so on. Governments in countries like Nigeria are responsible for providing (or enabling the provision of) such infrastructure. Governments that do not provide these infrastructures limit economic and social development. The ability of successive Nigerian governments to successfully deliver infrastructure development projects has been poor. This investigation asks why this is the case and seeks to offer recommendations to improve this situation.
The problem is not even that some of these large projects (with budgets of hundreds of millions, or even billions, of US$) were not commercially successful. It is that many of these projects were abandoned before completion, leaving husks of half-finished building structures dotted around the cities and countryside.
In 2011 President Goodluck Jonathan set up the Presidential Abandoned Projects Audit Commission. The commission visited all 36 states of the Nigerian Federation (including the federal capital territory) and identified the number of contracts/projects owned by the Federal Government of Nigeria that had been abandoned. The committee report identified a shocking figure of 11,886 federal out of (an estimated) 19,000 government-owned projects that had been abandoned across the majority of the 36 states of the federation since 1970. This represents an abandonment rate of 63%— or almost two-thirds (Abimbola, 2015).
It is challenging anywhere to ensure that very large (or “mega”) projects are successful. For example, a study by Flyvbjerg and Sunstein (2016) concluded that very large projects suffer from average cost overruns of 40% (an average that has been roughly confirmed in other studies, for example, by Endut et al. [2005] in Tailand) and a benefit underperformance of 10% on average, caused by the “malevolent hiding hand” of complexity and interest conflicts, which greatly hinder transparent management. However, a ratio of 63% of abandoned projects in Nigeria is much worse than the general project management challenges reported elsewhere.
Nigeria has no data on what has been spent on successful or unsuccessful large government projects between independence in 1960 and today. However, the sums are huge—the 38 projects alone that this investigation considers in detail represent a total budget of over $25B, almost equalling Nigeria’s total foreign debt ($27B) in 2017.
With recurrent expenditure consuming more than 50% of this budget, less than 20% of the budget remains for investments and capital expenditure. In this context abandoning 63% of large projects with budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars matters a great deal—it essentially negates the government’s ability to improve infrastructure, and thus, it destroys the ability of the country to make its economy more productive and increase its citizens’ wealth.
The central question of this book is: Why does Nigeria have such an abysmal performance in delivering large government projects? And what could be done to improve this performance? Of course, there already exist several studies on government management of large projects (albeit centred mostly on empirical evidence from developed countries). Very large projects are complex dynamic systems, where several causal factors interact in non-trivial ways; moreover, these factors change over time, for example, with the surrounding economic situation and stakeholder needs, but also as the project itself matures and the causal factors wax, wane and morph.
The professional project management community has examined the success factors of mega projects for 50 years and “knows” what should be done. The challenge is that what should be done is complicated, involves many interacting variables (the framework later in this book includes around a hundred), changes over time, and requires the discipline and alignment of many actors (with frequently diverging interests) behind common goals.
J. Ibrahim et al., How Megaprojects Are Damaging Nigeria and How to Fix It,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96474-0_1
Summary & Conclusion
Summary
Infrastructure Definition: The paper has tried to define infrastructure as the foundation on which every superstructure is built. Although it derives from an engineering and construction usage, it now encompasses all areas of human endeavour. Infrastructures are therefore not only the bedrock of physical structures, but also those of social, economic and other organisational structures.
Engineering and Infrastructure: While engineering infrastructures focus on the primary physical structures of transportation, water supply, telecommunication, waste management and power supply, they also constitute the bedrock of virtually all economic and social infrastructures. Engineering infrastructures are therefore ubiquitous and are to be found in all facets of human endeavours.
Governments’ Responsibility for Infrastructure Development: The government has the primary responsibility for the development of infrastructures. This is because it is the entity that has the power to aggregate the wealth of the nation and redistribute it based on the nation’s developmental needs. The primary needs are safety and welfare of the citizenry. This it can achieve only by creating wealth and efficiently appropriating it for development. The governance class, which includes politicians and civil servants, must take responsibility for the failure in developing infrastructure.
Systems Design for Infrastructural Development: Four critical success factors have been identified in this paper for the successful delivery of infrastructure. These are Vision, Strategy, Provision of Enablers and Implementation. Nigeria has continued to focus on the first two only, and has continuously ignored the last two.
There are several vision and strategy documents that have been competently produced over the years. However, these have not resulted in development. This paper suggests that the challenges are perhaps to be found in the last two, the provision of the enablers, and effective execution.
The paper examined the enablers in some details:
Efficient and Effective Governance: There seems to be a disconnect between governance and the vision and strategy documents. Rather than the vision and strategy documents being at the centre of government activities, and the driver of party manifestos, government plans and budges, and monitored closely and regularly at the highest level of governance, each agency of government seems to have its own agenda, and all functions of government appear uncoordinated.
Finance: Next to commitment to the vision and plan above, the allocation of resources in the next greatest enabler, and it derives fully from the first. The situation in which the country spends over 50% of its budget, and up to 80% of its actual expenditure on recurrent activities leaves little for capital development. Infrastructures remain severely underfunded, and it will remain so until adequate provision is made for it. This calls for a severe reduction in the recurrent expenditure, and by implication, the size and luxuries of the governing class.
Local Technology Capability: However, we cannot just throw money at it, The bedrock for the bedrock (infrastructure) is local technological capabilities. This is a big challenge and it will take strong political will and a very long time to achieve. As long as we continue to import all technologies, without domesticating some, we will never have enough resources to provide infrastructures to the whole nation. It is only when we learn to make a significant percentage (at least 20%) locally that the situation will improve. This is a long term challenge.
Local Competences & Capacity: Local competences and capacity come with domesticating technology. Even now, there is a significant quantum of local capacity that is significantly ignored and underutilised. We need to engage this capacity and use it as a springboard for further development. This is a medium to long term development, but other nations of the world have shown us that it can be done.
Implementation: Finally, poor implementation, with the abysmal record of over 63% of large projects abandoned is unpardonable. We irresponsibly throw away large amounts of money from our severely inadequate resources. We continue to pay back debts for benefits not received.
Conclusion
The situation with the provision of infrastructure is dire, and at the centre of this is the governance class who continue to allocate resources to recurrent rather than capital expenditure and staff the critical institutions based on political rather than competence considerations. These two considerations must change.
There is dearth of technical and managerial competences to provide infrastructures at this time. However, there is some local competences that are being ignored. We must mobilise the existing local competences and use them as a springboard for national infrastructural development.
Building infrastructures, and building the competence to build infrastructures are long term programmes that must be embarked upon and sustained. There is the need for the political will and institutional framework for these.