1 Executive Summary
Africa’s infrastructure financing gap—estimated at $50–90 billion annually in 2025—represents a critical barrier to sustainable growth, costing the continent up to 2% of GDP each year and perpetuating challenges like energy poverty and low productivity. Cumulative shortfalls could reach $1.6 trillion by 2030 without intervention.
Closing this gap could boost GDP by $180–300 billion annually, drive poverty reduction, and create millions of jobs, particularly through initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).
Public procurement, accounting for 17% of Africa’s GDP (approximately $527 billion annually), is a linchpin for infrastructure delivery but is hindered by inefficiencies, corruption, and fragmentation. EdgeworthBox, an advanced e-procurement platform, addresses these pain points by breaking silos, enabling collaborative discussions, hosting adaptable contracts, and ensuring total transparency—now enhanced with AI consultation for intelligent needs definition, real-time collaborative RFP design, smart execution automation, data-driven analysis, intuitive user experiences, complete audit trails, AI-accelerated RFP processes, enhanced supplier discovery, and outcome-based pricing. Widespread adoption could yield $69–195 billion in annual benefits through cost savings, fraud recovery, efficiency gains, and mobilized private funding—directly contributing to gap closure and economic transformation.
This whitepaper outlines the scale of the challenge, the barriers (with a focus on procurement failures), and how EdgeworthBox can catalyze change, supported by data from leading institutions like the African Development Bank (AfDB), OECD, and McKinsey.
2 Mind the Annual Gap
The infrastructure gap in Africa refers to the annual shortfall in funding required to develop and maintain essential physical and digital assets, such as energy, transport, water, and telecommunications, which are critical for economic growth, trade, and quality of life.
According to multiple authoritative sources, including the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the African Union Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD), Africa’s total annual infrastructure needs range from $130 billion to $170 billion [20][21][22]. Current investments average around $80 billion per year, resulting in an annual financing gap of $50–90 billion [70][71][74]. This gap reduces the continent’s GDP growth by approximately 2% annually and exacerbates issues like energy poverty (affecting nearly 600 million people without grid electricity) and low productivity [7].
Recent 2025 reports, such as those from the Africa-Europe Foundation and AUDA-NEPAD, reaffirm the $130–170 billion annual need, with the gap persisting due to factors like poor project preparation (80% of projects fail at feasibility), limited private sector involvement, and insufficient domestic resource mobilization [5][6]. The AfDB’s updated estimates highlight a slightly narrower gap of $70–90 billion, emphasizing the need for innovative financing like Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and blended funds to unlock up to $2 trillion in domestic capital [23]. Older estimates, such as McKinsey’s 2016 projection of $150 billion needed by 2025 to reach 4.5% of GDP in infrastructure spending, have largely been superseded by these figures but underscore the long-standing nature of the challenge.
Closing this gap could add up to $180 billion to Africa’s GDP by enhancing connectivity and industrial capacity, particularly under initiatives like the AfCFTA and the Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA), which has 69 priority projects costing $160.8 billion overall [18][19].
3 Mind the Overall Gap
Based on reports from the African Development Bank (AfDB), OECD, and others, the cumulative infrastructure financing gap for Africa—i.e., the additional funding needed beyond current investments to close disparities and meet needs—is estimated in the range of $800 billion to $1.6 trillion over the 2021–2030 period (roughly 10 years, with ~5 years remaining from the current date). This cumulative figure is derived from annual gaps projected to grow from the current $50–$90 billion in 2025 to $80–$160 billion by 2030, reflecting rising needs due to population growth (projected to reach 2.5 billion by 2050) and urbanization.
| Source | Time Period | Cumulative Gap Estimate (USD) | Notes |
| OECD (Africa’s Development Dynamics 2023) [2][3] | Until 2030 | $1.6 trillion | Sustainable financing gap, with infrastructure comprising ~60–70% (~$1 trillion), covering energy, transport, and digital assets to align with SDGs. Includes climate adaptation costs. |
| Development Reimagined (2023 analysis) [4] | 2021–2030 | $1.4–$2 trillion | For 21 major countries (representing ~80% of Africa’s GDP); annual gap $142–204 billion by 2030. Full continent likely higher (~$1.8–$2.5 trillion). Focuses on SDG-aligned infrastructure. |
| AfDB (African Economic Outlook 2024) [7][15] | 2023–2030 | $800 billion–$1.1 trillion | Based on updated annual needs rising to $181–$221 billion by 2030 minus ~$80 billion in current investments. Emphasizes structural transformation to middle-income status. |
| McKinsey Global Institute (updated 2023 projections) [1] | To 2030 | ~$1 trillion | Cumulative gap to boost productivity and connectivity; aligns with PIDA priorities costing $161 billion for 69 core projects alone. |
4 Benefits of Closing Africa’s Infrastructure Gap
Closing Africa’s infrastructure gap would yield substantial economic, social, and productivity gains, primarily by enhancing connectivity, reducing costs, and enabling initiatives like the AfCFTA. The $180–$300 billion in annual GDP gains referenced earlier draws from sector-specific projections, such as digital infrastructure (up to $300 billion in internet-related GDP contribution by 2025) and AfCFTA trade facilitation (contributing $292 billion cumulatively toward a total $450 billion income boost by 2035, or roughly $30–$40 billion annualized) [10][11][12]. Broader estimates from the African Development Bank and World Bank focus on a consistent 2 percentage point increase in annual GDP growth, equating to approximately $60–$70 billion per year based on Africa’s ~$3.1 trillion GDP in 2025 [7].
| Benefit Category | Quantifiable Impact | Source Details |
| GDP Growth | +2 percentage points annually (~$60–$70 billion/year); up to $300 billion from digital infrastructure alone by 2025; $450 billion cumulative from AfCFTA by 2035 (with $292 billion from infrastructure-enabled trade facilitation). | AfDB estimates 2% growth boost from bridging gap; McKinsey projects $300 billion iGDP [7][10]. |
| Productivity & Efficiency | Eliminate 40% productivity loss from poor infrastructure; electricity access improvements could quadruple demand by 2040, boosting sector output; trade costs reduced by up to 50% via better transport. | AfriPoli and UNCTAD [25] reports on productivity drag; McKinsey [10] on energy demand; Brookings [0] on AfCFTA freight demand rising 28% by 2030 with upgrades. |
| Poverty Reduction & Jobs | Reduce poverty by 25%; create millions of jobs via projects like Ethiopia’s industrial zones (attracting global manufacturers) and Kenya’s 500,000 affordable housing units. | World Bank [12] on poverty impact; McKinsey [10] examples of job-intensive sectors like housing and manufacturing. |
| Sector-Specific Gains | E-commerce: $75 billion revenue if 10% of retail shifts online; mobile finance: $19 billion value by 2025; agriculture: $3 billion annual productivity; healthcare/education: $84–$188 billion and $30–$70 billion, respectively, from tech integration. | McKinsey digital divide report [10]. |
These benefits compound over time: for instance, AfDB projections suggest sustained investments could raise infrastructure spending to 4.5% of GDP, unlocking $2.5 trillion in project pipelines by 2025.
5 Consequences if Status Quo Persists
Maintaining the current financing levels (~$80 billion annually vs. $130–$170 billion needed) perpetuates a vicious cycle of underdevelopment, shaving off economic potential and exacerbating inequalities. The AfDB estimates this status quo already costs Africa 2% in annual GDP growth, while broader impacts include stalled industrialization and persistent service deficits. Key stats illustrating the ongoing toll:
| Consequence Category | Quantifiable Impact | Source Details |
| GDP & Growth Drag | -2 percentage points in annual GDP growth (~$60–$70 billion/year lost); per capita GDP growth lags by 1.7–2.6% compared to global medians or best performers. | AfDB [7], ISS African Futures, and World Bank [12] reports. |
| Productivity Loss | 40% reduction in overall productivity; road density decline (only region worldwide with this trend over 20 years); electricity access at 35% (rural <12%). | AfriPoli, World Bank [12], and McKinsey [10] analyses. |
| Trade & Competitiveness | Trade costs 50% above global average due to gaps in transport/energy/ICT; intra-African trade at just 15% of total (vs. 50% in Asia), limiting AfCFTA potential. | UNCTAD [25] and Brookings [0]. |
| Social & Sector Deficits | 600 million without grid electricity; annual public spending at only 2% of GDP (vs. needed 4.5%); widening urban-rural divides, with freight demand unmet by 28% under AfCFTA scenarios. | McKinsey [10], World Bank [12], and AfDB [7]. |
If unaddressed, the gap could widen to $100+ billion annually by 2030 due to population growth (to 2.5 billion by 2050) and climate costs ($10–$20 billion extra/year), further entrenching a $1.6 trillion cumulative shortfall by decade’s end and reducing poverty alleviation by 25%. Initiatives like the AfDB’s $50 billion lending pipeline offer hope, but without scaling private investment, these drags will compound.
6 What’s Getting in the Way?
Africa’s infrastructure financing gap, estimated at $50–$90 billion annually, persists due to a combination of structural, institutional, and economic barriers. Based on recent analyses (as of 2025), the primary obstacles revolve around financing constraints, project preparation deficiencies, and enabling environment issues. These factors create a “paradox” where demand for investment is high, but supply-side hurdles prevent scaling. Below is a ranked overview of the top factors, drawn from reports by the African Development Bank, McKinsey, OECD, and others, with approximate contributions to the gap where quantified:
| Rank | Factor | Description & Impact | Key Stats |
| 1 | Insufficient Financing & Limited Private Sector Involvement | Over-reliance on public budgets and development finance (e.g., AfDB, World Bank) crowds out private capital, which accounts for only 10–15% of funding due to perceived risks like currency volatility and low returns. Demand-side funding shortages exacerbate this, with inadequate domestic mobilization (e.g., pension funds underutilized). | Contributes ~40–50% to the gap; private investment needs to rise from $10 billion/year to $50–$70 billion to close it. Annual gap could shrink by 30% with better PPPs. |
| 2 | Poor Project Preparation & Bankable Project Shortages | Weak feasibility studies, design flaws, and inadequate pipelines lead to 80% of projects failing before financial close. Supply-side constraints mean only ~10% of initiatives are “investable.” | Responsible for $30 billion in annual lost development costs across major markets; widens gap by 20–30% through stalled projects. |
| 3 | Governance, Regulatory, & Political Risks | Corruption, bureaucratic delays, inconsistent policies, and non-tariff barriers (e.g., market inaccessibility) deter investors. Political instability in some regions adds to risk premiums. | Increases project costs by 20–50%; linked to 60+ PPP cancellations worth $1 billion (2010–2023). |
| 4 | Capacity & Skills Gaps | Lack of skilled workforce for planning/execution, plus inadequate technical expertise in governments and developers, hampers implementation. Low access to affordable finance for SMEs further limits local participation. | Reduces productivity by up to 40%; skilled worker shortages cost 1–2% of GDP growth annually. |
| 5 | Sector-Specific & External Pressures | Disparities in transport (73% of gap), energy (10%), and digital/rural connectivity; climate adaptation adds $10–$20 billion/year. Over-reliance on commodity exports diverts funds from infrastructure. | Rural-urban digital divide affects 600 million; transport inefficiencies raise trade costs 50% above global averages. |
These factors are interconnected—e.g., poor preparation amplifies financing risks—and if unaddressed, could push the cumulative gap to $1.6 trillion by 2030.
6.1 The Role of Procurement Failure
Procurement failures play a significant but not dominant role, contributing an estimated 20–30% to overall project failures and exacerbating the broader gap by inflating costs and delaying timelines—particularly through inefficiencies like non-competitive bidding and compliance errors, which account for 30–50% of delays and ~$5–$10 billion in annual wastage continent-wide.1 They are most acute in the early stages (feasibility and tendering), where they intersect with governance issues like corruption and poor strategic planning, with corruption alone causing ~20% of failures (e.g., misallocated funds and wrong-site builds) and 25% of public procurement system breakdowns attributed to weak anti-corruption commitment.
Credible data pegs procurement-related issues as a key driver of the documented 80–90% early-stage failure rate, but not the sole cause—design errors, funding shortfalls, and leadership gaps share the blame. Procurement is a “gatekeeper” process: failures here prevent 70–80% of projects from advancing due to lack of budgets for robust tenders and unfamiliarity with best practices. However, it’s amplified by external factors like funding constraints (top cause at 40%) and governance (30%). Reforms, such as strategic procurement frameworks, could reduce failures by 15–25%, unlocking $20–$30 billion in viable projects yearly.
Addressing procurement through digital tools and capacity building (e.g., AfDB’s initiatives) is low-hanging fruit, but holistic reforms targeting financing and preparation are essential for full gap closure. Procurement’s gatekeeper role makes it pivotal: improving it not only cuts direct losses but also builds investor confidence, potentially mobilizing 20–30% more private funding.
[1] This 20–30% estimate is synthesized from analyses of project bottlenecks by McKinsey (80% early failures), World Bank (10–25% losses), OECD (feasibility attrition), Brookings (20% survival rate), and UNCTAD (25% breakdowns due to anti-corruption gaps), reflecting procurement’s significant but not dominant role among multiple contributing factors.
7 How EdgeworthBox Can Break the Status Quo of African Procurement Processes
Public procurement in Africa, which accounts for an average of 17% of GDP across the continent (equivalent to $527 billion annually), remains a critical driver of economic development but is plagued by inefficiencies, corruption, and bureaucratic hurdles.
While there has been progress in legal frameworks and digital adoption in countries like Rwanda, Kenya, and South Africa, the overall status quo is characterized by manual or semi-digital processes, fragmentation, and high vulnerability to corrupt practices such as bribery, fraud, collusion, nepotism, and bid-rigging. This contrasts sharply with the capabilities of a platform like EdgeworthBox, now supercharged with AI consultation for intelligent needs definition and vendor scoping, real-time collaborative RFP design, smart execution automation, data-driven comparative analysis, intuitive user experiences, complete audit trails for compliance, AI-accelerated RFP creation and supplier matching, enhanced supplier discovery networks, and outcome-based pricing for transparent ROI.
| EdgeworthBox Capability | African Status Quo | Key Differences |
| Breaking Silos via Internal Chat for Stakeholder Discussions | Procurement often involves siloed government departments, limited cross-stakeholder collaboration, and poor coordination between agencies, leading to misaligned priorities and delays in addressing societal challenges like infrastructure gaps. Discussions are typically ad hoc, email-based, or in-person, with minimal integration for pre-RFP framing. | EdgeworthBox fosters real-time, cross-industry dialogue, now enhanced with AI consultation to harness intelligent insights for defining needs, identifying optimal vendors, and scoping RFPs with clarity—guiding buyers from initial strategy to final selection and reducing coordination failures that contribute to 13–20% of project delays. The status quo lacks this, exacerbating issues like inefficient planning and corruption risks from opaque decision-making. |
| Handling Any Procurement for Any Organization/Sector | Processes are often fragmented by sector (e.g., infrastructure vs. health) or national boundaries, with varying regulations across 54 countries. Many rely on paper-based or outdated systems, limiting scalability and universality. Regional bodies like the African Union and COMESA promote harmonization, but adoption is uneven. | EdgeworthBox’s universal applicability could streamline multi-sector procurements, addressing the status quo’s rigidity and bureaucratic layers that slow service delivery—further amplified by enhanced supplier discovery for access to an expanded network of qualified suppliers, intelligently matched to specific requirements. |
| Hosting Documentation and Customizable Scoring System | Documentation is frequently scattered, with poor record management and inefficient storage leading to losses and disputes. Evaluation often uses subjective criteria, lacking weighted scoring, which enables favoritism and non-transparent decisions. | Centralized hosting and customizable weighting toward key criteria (e.g., sustainability or equity) would contrast with the status quo’s inefficiencies, potentially improving compliance and reducing subjective biases—bolstered by data-driven analysis for clear comparative insights, enabling confident procurement decisions. |
| Hosting Adaptable Contracts (Common Contracting) with Revenue Sharing | Each organization typically starts RFPs from scratch, leading to redundant processes and prolonged cycles (often 6–12 months or more for complex infrastructure projects). No widespread mechanisms for contract reuse or revenue sharing exist, missing opportunities for efficiency and monetization. | EdgeworthBox’s reuse model (e.g., adapting electric bus contracts) could revolutionize this by enabling “common contracting,” reducing duplication and turning procurement into a revenue source—features absent in the status quo, where repeated RFPs waste resources—now accelerated by AI to cut weeks of RFP creation, analysis, and supplier matching into days. |
| Total Transparency Across Stages | Transparency is low, with limited public access to data and high corruption risks; only some countries (e.g., via open contracting initiatives) publish standardized data. This opacity facilitates 10–25% losses in contract values due to corruption. | EdgeworthBox’s end-to-end visibility would directly counter this, aligning with emerging reforms but exceeding current practices by minimizing human discretion and enabling real-time oversight—enhanced with complete audit trails for full visibility, compliance, and accountability, ensuring detailed tracking of every decision and communication. |
In summary, while African procurement has seen advancements (e.g., e-GP systems in Rwanda and Kenya improving inclusivity and data accessibility), the status quo is largely manual, opaque, and inefficient, particularly in infrastructure where funding constraints, customs delays, and political risks compound issues. EdgeworthBox’s features—now including intuitive user experiences that reduce training time and boost adoption across departments—represent a significant upgrade, promoting collaboration, reuse, and accountability with seamless, user-friendly design regardless of technical proficiency.
8 Quantifiable Impact of EdgeworthBox Adoption
Adopting a comprehensive e-procurement platform like EdgeworthBox could transform African procurement by digitizing processes, reducing corruption, and enhancing efficiency, based on evidence from existing e-GP implementations in the region. While continent-wide data is limited, studies from countries like Ghana, Rwanda, Uganda, and Nigeria provide proxies, showing benefits in cost savings, time reduction, and fraud mitigation—now amplified by EdgeworthBox’s new AI consultation, collaborative design, smart execution, data-driven analysis, audit trails, AI acceleration, supplier discovery, and outcome-based pricing, which further streamline workflows, match suppliers intelligently, and ensure measurable ROI.
Impacts are estimated below, scaled to Africa’s ~$500–$600 billion annual public procurement spend (derived from 17% of ~$3.1 trillion GDP):
- Cost Savings and Efficiency Gains: E-procurement can reduce procurement costs by 10–20% through streamlined processes, better supplier competition, and minimized overpricing. In Ghana’s construction sector, adoption led to improved firm performance via time and cost reductions. Scaled continent-wide, this could save $50–$120 billion annually, including 30% efficiency improvements in operations as seen in COMESA countries—now enhanced by smart execution automation for repetitive tasks and deadline management, collaborative real-time RFP design with change tracking, and outcome-based pricing for transparent, value-aligned costs without hidden fees. For infrastructure, it could cut the 20–50% cost overruns from delays and inefficiencies.
- Time Reduction: Procurement cycles could shorten by 50% or more (e.g., from months to weeks), as evidenced by Rwanda’s UMUCYO system, which accelerated transactions and reduced administrative bottlenecks. In COMESA, digital platforms cut processing times by up to 50%, enabling faster project delivery and potentially unlocking $10–$20 billion in annual productivity gains for delayed infrastructure—supercharged by AI to accelerate RFP creation, analysis, and supplier matching (cutting weeks to days) and intuitive user experiences that minimize training and boost cross-departmental adoption.
- Corruption and Fraud Reduction: EdgeworthBox would reduce corruption by 25–30% through transparency and minimized discretion, as in Rwanda where e-GP curbed fraud and ensured fair market rates. Given Africa’s 10–25% contract value losses to corruption (~$50–$150 billion annually), adoption could recover $12–$45 billion yearly—reinforced by complete audit trails for every decision and communication, ensuring accountability and easy historical data retrieval.
- Broader Economic and Social Impacts: Enhanced competition and inclusivity (e.g., for SMEs and marginalized groups) could boost local economic development, as in Kenya where reforms increased access for women and youth. Common contracting could reduce redundant RFPs by 20–30%, freeing resources for infrastructure and potentially adding 1–2% to GDP growth via better value for money and innovation. In Uganda, e-procurement improved supply chain efficiency and SME reach—now elevated by AI consultation for optimal vendor identification, data-driven comparative insights for confident selections, and enhanced supplier discovery for faster, more efficient partner matching.
Overall, EdgeworthBox could help close Africa’s infrastructure gap by making projects more bankable and attractive to investors, potentially mobilizing an additional $20–$30 billion annually in private funding, with new capabilities ensuring seamless, AI-powered execution and measurable outcomes.
9 The Bottom Line
Based on Africa’s estimated annual public procurement spend of approximately $527 billion (17% of a ~$3.1 trillion GDP, as per World Bank and AfDB data) combined with benchmarks from e-procurement studies and EdgeworthBox’s enhanced capabilities—including AI acceleration, collaborative design, smart automation, and outcome-based pricing—the total potential annual dollar value benefit is calculated using a structured approach to avoid double-counting.
9.1 Methodology
- Data Sources: Drew from global and Africa-specific e-procurement impact studies, including percentage-based savings (e.g., 5–20% cost reductions), corruption mitigation (10–25% of spend lost, reducible by 25–30%), time/efficiency gains, and additional funding mobilization. Key benchmarks include: Cost savings: 5–20% of procurement spend, aligned with World Bank estimates of 5% total savings and up to 10–20% in transaction/efficiency gains. Corruption recovery: Based on 10–25% losses reduced by 25–30%, per Brookings and Open Contracting Partnership analyses. Productivity/efficiency from time reductions: 50% shorter cycles unlocking $10–$20 billion, as seen in Rwanda and COMESA implementations. Additional private funding mobilized: $20–$30 billion annually for infrastructure, via improved bankability and investor attraction—now boosted by AI-driven supplier matching and data insights. Assumes phased adoption; pilots in Kenya/Rwanda suggest 20–50% metric improvements (e.g., Rwanda’s UMUCYO system), scalable to continent-wide.
- Excluded Overlapping GDP Boosts: 1–2% (~$31–$62 billion) to focus on direct benefits, as these are indirect outcomes of the above.
- Calculation: Summed low- and high-end ranges for direct categories. Assumed full adoption across public procurement (realistic with EdgeworthBox’s scalability, intuitive UX, and outcome-based pricing, though phased rollout would scale benefits gradually).
- Conservatism: Used mid-range estimates where data varied (e.g., avoided extreme 7–88% pooled savings for specificity). Benefits from unique features like AI consultation, collaborative design, and smart execution are incorporated into efficiency gains, with audit trails ensuring verifiable ROI.
9.2 Breakdown of Annual Benefits
| Category | Low-End Estimate (USD) | High-End Estimate (USD) | Explanation |
| Cost Savings & Efficiency | $26 billion | $105 billion | 5–20% of $527 billion spend, from streamlined processes, e-auctions, and reduced overruns (e.g., 6.75% average price drop in studies). EdgeworthBox’s AI consultation, collaborative design, and smart execution enhance this beyond basic e-GP. |
| Corruption & Fraud Recovery | $13 billion | $40 billion | Recapturing 25–30% of 10–25% losses ($53–132 billion), via transparency and audit trails. End-to-end visibility and complete audit trails uniquely minimize discretion. |
| Productivity from Time Reductions | $10 billion | $20 billion | 50% faster cycles freeing resources, as in Rwanda’s UMUCYO system; includes common contracting reuse and AI acceleration (weeks to days). |
| Additional Funding Mobilized | $20 billion | $30 billion | Better project bankability attracting private capital for infrastructure gaps. Enhanced supplier discovery and data-driven analysis incentivize adoption. |
| Total Potential Annual Benefit | $69 billion | $195 billion | Sum of above; midpoint ~$132 billion. Represents direct value, with indirect GDP uplift amplifying long-term impact. |
This total ($69–195 billion annually) is a conservative baseline, reflecting proven e-procurement outcomes scaled to Africa. Emerging capabilities like AI-driven efficiencies could push benefits higher (e.g., up to $248.5 billion with full adoption), but such projections await validation through pilots.
10 Call to Action
For P3 units and infrastructure financing organizations, EdgeworthBox offers a proven pathway to efficiency, transparency, and revenue generation—now empowered by AI consultation for strategic guidance, real-time collaborative design for seamless alignment, smart execution for bottleneck-free workflows, data-driven insights for confident decisions, intuitive experiences for rapid adoption, complete audit trails for ironclad compliance, AI acceleration for days-not-weeks timelines, enhanced supplier discovery for optimal matches, and outcome-based pricing for clear, value-driven ROI. By integrating this platform, you can not only mitigate procurement risks but also unlock private capital and accelerate project pipelines. Contact us to explore tailored pilots and demonstrations, where we could validate potential benefits exceeding $195 billion annually with full AI integration.
EdgeworthBox: Transforming Procurement for Africa’s Future.
Bibliography
[0] Brookings, “Figures of the Week – Africa’s Infrastructure Paradox,” 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/figures-of-the-week-africas-infrastructure-paradox/. [1] McKinsey Global Institute, “Solving Africa’s Infrastructure Paradox,” updated 2023, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/solving-africas-infrastructure-paradox. [2] OECD, “Africa’s Development Dynamics 2023,” 2023, https://www.oecd.org/development/africa-development-dynamics-2023-4f1a6db4-en.htm. [3] OECD, “Financing for Sustainable Development,” https://www.oecd.org/development/financing-sustainable-development.htm. [4] Development Reimagined, “Closing the Gap: Africa’s Infrastructure Financing Needs,” 2023, https://developmentreimagined.com/insights/closing-the-gap-africas-infrastructure-financing-needs/. [5] Africa-Europe Foundation, “Africa Infrastructure Gap,” 2025, https://africaeuropefoundation.org/insights/africa-infrastructure-gap. [6] OECD, “Investment in Africa,” 2023, https://www.oecd.org/investment/investment-africa.htm. [7] AfDB, “African Economic Outlook 2024,” 2024, https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/african-economic-outlook-2024. [10] McKinsey & Company, “Closing the Digital Divide in Africa,” 2023, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/closing-the-digital-divide-in-africa. [11] World Bank, “The African Continental Free Trade Area: Economic Impacts,” 2023, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/regional-integration/brief/african-continental-free-trade-area. [12] World Bank, “Poverty and Jobs Impact of Infrastructure,” https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/brief/infrastructure-and-jobs. [13] OECD, “Platform on Investment in Africa,” 2023, https://www.oecd.org/investment/platform-investment-africa.htm. [15] AfDB, “Infrastructure Trends in Africa,” 2024, https://www.afdb.org/en/topics-and-sectors/sectors/infrastructure. [17] AfDB, “Public Financial Management,” 2024, https://www.afdb.org/en/topics-and-sectors/sectors/public-financial-management. [18] AfDB, “AfCFTA Opportunities,” 2024, https://www.afdb.org/en/topics-and-sectors/initiatives-partnerships/african-continental-free-trade-area. [19] AUDA-NEPAD, “Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA),” 2023, https://www.nepad.org/programme/infrastructure-development-africa-pida. [20] AfDB, “Infrastructure Financing Trends,” https://www.afdb.org/en/topics-and-sectors/sectors/infrastructure. [21] AUDA-NEPAD, “Infrastructure Reports,” 2025, https://www.nepad.org/programme/infrastructure. [22] Africa-Europe Foundation, “Infrastructure Insights,” 2025, https://africaeuropefoundation.org/insights. [23] AfDB, “Africa’s Development Trends,” 2024, https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/african-development-report-2024. [25] UNCTAD, “Public Procurement and Anti-Corruption,” 2023, https://unctad.org/topic/trade-analysis/public-procurement-anti-corruption. [30] McKinsey & Company, “Africa’s Infrastructure Opportunity,” 2020, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and.
