Africa-Press – Botswana. The question we must ask — urgently and honestly — is whether the sheer accumulation of transport infrastructure has translated into meaningful economic and social progress. DOUGLAS RASBASH* argues that the evidence suggests otherwise.
In Botswana’s march towards “development,” the machinery is loud, paved roads have replaced gravel and earth and the ribbon cuttings have been many. Yet the question we must ask — urgently and honestly — is whether the sheer accumulation of transport infrastructure has translated into meaningful economic and social progress. The evidence suggests otherwise.
The MDA responsible for transport has become increasingly synonymous with infrastructure delivery. From its evolution through various permutations — Transport and Communications, Transport and Public Works, and now Transport and Infrastructure — we see a steady drift away from a strategic economic outlook towards a narrow construction-based identity.
This rebranding is not just cosmetic; it reflects a deeper misalignment of purpose. Fixation with infrastructure is not the pathway to economic growth.
Transport is not an end in itself. It is a means — an enabler of value creation elsewhere in the economy. When we build more roads, railways, and airports without a corresponding increase in productive activity, we do not generate wealth; we generate liabilities. We create assets that demand constant maintenance, absorb public funds, and distort economic priorities. Like energy or water, more transport is not inherently good — it is only as good as the value it unlocks.
In Botswana, this value has remained elusive. The cost of the transport sector is disproportionately high relative to the size of our economy. All major modes — road, rail, air — are heavily subsidised and largely unsustainable. Public expenditure on transport infrastructure continues to rise, yet our economic indicators move in the opposite direction. As Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF) increases, unemployment also increases. That is not just a missed opportunity — it is a signal of policy failure.
It is likely that the transport sector is unsustainable, its costs being disproportionately high.
The pie chart illustrates the holistic economic cost of road transport in Botswana, highlighting that the burden extends far beyond direct infrastructure spending. The total estimated annual cost exceeds P30 billion, revealing a complex web of financial, social and environmental consequences largely borne by individuals, businesses, and the state.
The largest component — Road Transport Energy (P10 billion) — shows the country’s heavy reliance on fuel, with all costs directly borne by users. Next, accidents (P6 billion) represent a major hidden cost, affecting public health budgets, insurance systems, and national productivity. Congestion and driver/passenger time, each estimated at P3 billion, expose how inefficiencies and poor spatial planning result in massive lost time, especially in urban areas. Government spending on road construction and maintenance accounts for P3 billion, but this is just a fraction of the total cost — undermining the assumption that infrastructure investments are the primary financial concern. Other burdens like pollution (P0.5 billion) and traffic enforcement (P0.5 billion) are usually not accounted for in the transport sector, leaving costs to be absorbed through health systems or environmental degradation.
Notably, most costs are typically excluded from policy considerations, yet they significantly increase the cost of doing business. Altogether, this pie chart challenges the prevailing view that road transport is primarily a construction issue. It makes clear that transport is a systemic economic issue with ripple effects across employment, productivity, health and the environment. The overall average long-term marginal cost of road transport in Botswana is P8.00 per vehicle-kilometre. This includes all economic, social and environmental costs as outlined in the pie chart.
Large-scale commuting
The total transport cost in Botswana is estimated at P37.5 billion, based on road transport accounting for 80% of the sector. This means transport makes up approximately 17% of GDP, much more than the 3.3% declared by Statistics Botswana and highlighting just how economically significant (and potentially inefficient) the sector is, especially for a non-industrialised country like Botswana.
In most countries — even industrialised ones — transport typically accounts for 6–10% of GDP. In highly industrialised nations, a higher transport share may be justifiable due to intense goods movement, logistics, exports, and large-scale commuting tied to manufacturing and services. But in Botswana’s case, there is low population density, meaning high infrastructure costs per person. The economy is resource-dependent rather than export-manufacturing or logistics-intensive. The private transport dominates, with no formal public transport system. A large portion of costs comes from inefficiencies, externalities (accidents, pollution, congestion), and subsidies — not productive economic activity. This suggests that Botswana is over-investing and under-performing in transport.
Instead of enabling growth, the transport sector may be dragging down overall productivity, consuming scarce public funds, and fuelling inequality and urban congestion — all without delivering commensurate economic returns. In short, 17% is a warning signal, not a point of pride. It demands a serious rethink about transport policy, priorities, and the way value is defined in infrastructure investment.
The assumption that new infrastructure generates jobs is seductive but misleading. Analysis done for in 2023 showed that as gross fixed capital formation increased (representing the accumulated value of infrastructure), so did unemployment. This is exactly the opposite to what development is meant to achieve.
Moreover, construction jobs are temporary, and may give a little respite to unemployment, but do not solve the structural issue. The long-term effects of misallocated capital are permanent. Roads that lead nowhere, airports without passengers, and railways without freight create illusions of progress while draining the very resources that we need to stimulate sectors that could deliver inclusive growth — agriculture, manufacturing, tourism, digital services.
This is not an argument against transport investment but a plea for smarter investment and more holistic sector management. Every new project should be subjected to a rigorous economic test: Will it catalyse growth? Will it create sustainable employment? Will it reduce poverty, enhance environmental outcomes and improve wellbeing? If the answer is no to any of these, it must not proceed. Transport must be reframed — not as a collection of projects but as a system of services. Efficiency and effectiveness must replace scale and scope as the measures of success. We need better connections, not just more of them. We need multimodal integration, data-driven planning, and pricing models that reflect actual use and economic benefit. A bus that runs full is more useful than a highway that remains empty.
Most importantly, we need institutional clarity. The bundling of transport with public works and infrastructure is like merging foreign affairs with defence — two adjacent but fundamentally different functions. Transport requires economic insight, regulatory finesse, and strategic foresight. Infrastructure delivery, by contrast, is an engineering and project management function. The conflation of the two creates tunnel vision.
Economic misalignment
Beyond the economic misalignment, the obsession with physical infrastructure has exacted a subtler but equally damaging toll on well-being and social cohesion. By equating mobility with development, our policies have encouraged ever greater transport intensity — longer distances, faster speeds, more fuel, more roads — without regard for the human consequences. This approach undermines spatial equity. Investments have favoured corridors and urban centres while leaving rural areas with skeletal service provision, prompting a steady drift of people towards towns and cities. The result is rural depopulation, collapsing village economies, and the withering of traditional livelihoods. In urban areas, the influx of people meets inadequate housing, overstretched services, and insufficient job creation. Dislocation, unemployment, and frustration fester — often erupting in social dysfunction.
Paradoxically, more roads do not mean more access — especially not for the poor. The commuter from Moleps to the CBD may be more mobile than the colleague that walks to the same office, but the latter has far greater accessibility. If the cost of travel rises with distance, and if the infrastructure favours private vehicles over affordable public transit, then mobility becomes a privilege rather than a right. Poor households are forced into longer commutes or unsafe travel options, which can expose women and girls to greater risks of sexual harassment or assault. Crime, both petty and violent, tends to rise in environments marked by poor spatial planning, weak social networks and economic marginalisation.
In short, the transport sector has not delivered on its implicit promises. It has not reduced poverty. It has not created sustained employment. It has not improved safety, inclusivity, or well-being. If anything, it has often made things worse — dividing rather than connecting, burdening rather than enabling. A truly developmental transport policy must shift from celebrating movement for movement’s sake to maximising meaningful access: to jobs, to services, to community, to opportunity. Only then can we claim that our transport investments are contributing to the kind of society we wish to build — one that is just, inclusive, and genuinely connected.
It is time to separate the bulldozers from the balance sheets. The MDA responsible for transport must return to its true role as an enabler of national economic transformation, not just a builder of things. We must stop measuring success in kilometres and mega projects and start measuring it in livelihoods improved, emissions reduced, and enterprises empowered. The road to progress is not always paved, yet alone in gold. Sometimes, it requires stopping, rethinking, and choosing a smarter path.
Source: Botswana Gazette
For More News And Analysis About Botswana Follow Africa-Press
