Infrastructure expenditure, project completion and development benefits represent different measures of infrastructure performance. Drawing on South Africa’s public infrastructure expenditure figures, audit findings, economic research and comparative infrastructure indicators, this article examines the relationship between investment, operational performance and inclusive economic and social development. It considers the role of governance and institutional capacity in translating infrastructure investment into functioning assets, reliable services and sustained development benefits.
South Africa has established an extensive infrastructure planning and governance architecture. The National Infrastructure Plan 2050 provides long-term strategic direction, while the Medium-Term Development Plan (MTDP) 2024–2029 identifies infrastructure as an important enabler of inclusive economic growth and development.
Infrastructure delivery frameworks, including the Infrastructure Delivery Management System (IDMS) and the Framework for Infrastructure Delivery and Procurement Management (FIDPM), provide mechanisms for translating infrastructure priorities into implementation.
Within this planning and governance context, infrastructure expenditure, project completion and development benefits must be recognised as distinct measures of performance.
The central question is how infrastructure investment translates into functioning infrastructure, reliable services and economic and social benefits for people, businesses and communities.
Infrastructure Expenditure and Delivery Performance
According to National Treasury's 2026 Budget Review, public-sector infrastructure expenditure amounted to R291.7 billion in 2024/25. For 2025/26, expenditure was estimated at R345.2 billion, reported as a revised estimate rather than a final outcome.
National Treasury further projects approximately R1.066 trillion in public-sector infrastructure expenditure over the 2026/27–2028/29 Medium-Term Expenditure Framework.
These figures demonstrate the scale of resources directed towards infrastructure. They do not, however, establish whether the intended infrastructure has been completed, commissioned or translated into reliable services.
The Auditor-General's 2024/25 Consolidated General Report on National and Provincial Audit Outcomes provides a different perspective.
Of 152 infrastructure projects audited, with a combined estimated cost of R47.39 billion, 136 projects (89%) had audit findings. The average project delay was 41 months, compared with 35 months in the preceding reporting period.
The audit identified weaknesses in project planning, procurement, contractor management, execution, oversight and maintenance. In the human settlements sector, some completed housing projects lacked essential services, including electricity, water and sanitation. The Auditor-General also found that national departmental oversight of human settlements grant funding to provinces focused on expenditure rather than project completion.
These findings illustrate why financial expenditure and physical completion must be distinguished from infrastructure that is operational and capable of delivering its intended services.
Infrastructure Performance and Economic Benefits
Infrastructure contributes to economic development through more than construction expenditure.
During implementation, infrastructure investment can stimulate demand for goods and services, support employment and create opportunities for businesses. Once operational, reliable infrastructure can reduce production and transaction costs, improve connectivity, facilitate trade and strengthen economic participation.
The World Bank's July 2026 analysis of South Africa's infrastructure reforms identifies unreliable electricity, underperforming freight transport and deteriorating water services as significant constraints on investment, productivity, economic growth and employment.
Its economic modelling projects that improvements associated with the broader reform programme could support the equivalent of almost 600,000 additional and better-paid jobs by 2032. This is a projection of potential economic effects, not evidence of jobs already created.
Similarly, Mbanda and Bonga-Bonga's (2024) peer-reviewed research examines the potential economy-wide effects of public infrastructure investment in South Africa, including implications across economic sectors and categories of labour.
These studies help explain how infrastructure improvements may generate benefits beyond the sectors in which investment occurs. However, modelled economic effects must be distinguished from observed development outcomes.
The economic significance of infrastructure therefore depends not only on investment activity, but also on the performance of infrastructure services and their contribution to productive activity and economic opportunity.
What Comparative Infrastructure Indicators Reveal
The Infrastructure for Good Barometer figures reproduced in the Government Technical Advisory Centre's (GTAC) March 2026 Bi-Annual Infrastructure Trends Report provide a further perspective on South Africa's infrastructure environment
Source: Infrastructure for Good Barometer, as reproduced in GTAC's March 2026 Bi-Annual Infrastructure Trends Report.
South Africa scores slightly above the global average on economic benefits and empowerment, but below it on governance and planning, social and community impact, and environmental sustainability and resilience.
The underlying indicators reveal further differences. Local industry and economy falls within the highest performance band, while economic opportunity and job creation falls within a lower band. Community engagement and support, together with protections for workers and communities, fall within the lowest band.
These comparisons highlight an important consideration: performance across economic, social and governance dimensions is uneven, and an aggregate score does not convey the full picture of infrastructure-related development benefits.
The Barometer offers comparative indicators, while the Auditor-General provides findings from specific audited projects. They offer complementary perspectives, but do not measure the same projects or establish a direct causal relationship between expenditure, delivery and development outcomes.
Governance and Institutional Capacity
The relationship between infrastructure investment and development benefits also raises questions about the institutions responsible for planning, delivering, operating and sustaining infrastructure.
In its broader conclusions on national and provincial government audit outcomes, the Auditor-General identifies three cross-cutting root causes of inadequate progress: governance failures and weak accountability, inadequate institutional capability, and weaknesses in oversight and intergovernmental coordination.
Importantly, these are findings across the wider audit environment, not conclusions derived exclusively from infrastructure projects.
The Auditor-General also emphasises that persistent weaknesses are not necessarily attributable to the absence of mandates, institutional structures or funding, but to roleplayers in the accountability ecosystem not fulfilling their responsibilities effectively.
This broader institutional perspective is relevant to infrastructure delivery.
My research, published in the DBSA African Journal of Infrastructure Development, advances the conceptual Governance–Capacity–Inclusivity (GCI) Model, which proposes governance–capacity alignment as an enabling condition for inclusive infrastructure delivery.
The model identifies five interconnected institutional capacities: coordination, analytical, operational, regulatory and adaptive capacity.
Although the model has not been empirically validated, it provides a conceptual perspective for examining how institutional arrangements and capabilities may influence the progression from infrastructure delivery towards inclusive development benefits.
Connecting Investment, Infrastructure and Development Effectiveness
The evidence considered in this article points to three related but distinct dimensions of infrastructure performance:
Investment effectiveness: The extent to which financial resources are translated into intended infrastructure assets.
Infrastructure effectiveness: The extent to which those assets become operational, function reliably and provide the intended services.
Development effectiveness: The extent to which infrastructure services contribute to economic participation, productivity, employment, social well-being and other intended development outcomes.
These dimensions are interconnected, but each requires different evidence. Expenditure figures cannot establish operational performance, while completed infrastructure does not automatically demonstrate that inclusive development benefits have been realised.
This distinction is consistent with the G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment, which recognise economic efficiency, social inclusion, environmental sustainability and effective infrastructure governance as important considerations.
South Africa produces substantial evidence through financial reporting, infrastructure audits, economic studies and comparative performance indicators. Reading these sources together provides a more comprehensive perspective, provided that the different purposes and limitations of each are respected.
Ultimately, the value of infrastructure investment lies not only in the resources committed or spent, but in the infrastructure delivered, the services sustained and the economic and social benefits realised by people, businesses and communities.