Urban Fortunes and Skeleton Cityscapes: Real Estate and Late Urbanization in Kigali and Addis Ababa

In many parts of Africa, societies that remain primarily rural are experiencing accelerated urban growth and highly visible booms in property development. In the absence of significant industrialization, investment is pouring directly into what Lefebvre and Harvey characterized as the ‘secondary circuit’ of capital. Debates about the drivers of investment in real estate are longstanding in relation to the global North, but have given little consideration to low‐income and late‐urbanizing countries in Africa. Yet such contexts offer important opportunities to reflect on existing theory. Focusing on Kigali and Addis Ababa (both transformed virtually beyond recognition over the past two decades), this article explores the drivers and consequences of investment in urban real estate in countries striving to structurally transform their economies. It argues that a range of formal and informal incentives and constraints have led to high‐end real estate being viewed as the ‘safest bet’ for those with resources to invest, even where demand is limited and governments are promoting other kinds of investment. While some people are reaping urban fortunes in largely untaxed rents, much of the construction is purely speculative, creating landscapes of unused and underused high‐end properties in contexts where investment is desperately needed elsewhere.     

The Economic Value of Time: Evidence from Africa

When excessive and inefficiently implemented, government interventions can result in significant economic losses for citizens. These include the often‐significant cost of lost time. This paper thus aims to estimate the potential economic welfare benefit of reducing public office waiting times. Based on data from Johannesburg, Lagos and Addis Ababa, we show that a one‐hour reduction in waiting time improves welfare by 66‐74% of the average local wage. High‐income earners, college graduates and private‐sector employees enjoy higher gains. Moreover, we note that the proxies currently used to quantify time‐saving benefits diverge significantly from the rate at which individuals substitute time for money. Our analysis also indicated a substantial delay‐induced citywide efficiency loss. Introducing public–private partnership and charging premium fees for faster service delivery are justifiable both on grounds of equity and efficiency.