Kenya is once again at the threshold of a new wave of mega projects-spanning transport corridors, energy systems, urban infrastructure, and complex public-private partnerships (PPP). The scale and ambition are unmistakable, and so too is the expectation that these investments will accelerate growth, create jobs, and reposition the country competitively within the region.
Yet experience shows that the success or failure of large infrastructure programmes is rarely determined by capital availability alone. It is shaped much earlier, and far more quietly, by the quality of upstream governance: how projects are prepared, how costs are tested, how risks are identified and allocated, and how long-term fiscal exposure is understood before commitments become irreversible.
As Kenya moves faster to mobilise capital, governance must move with equal speed-not as a constraint, but as a safeguard for value-for-money, credibility, and long-term economic resilience.
This reality was underscored at the recently concluded World Economic Forum in Davos, where global investors repeatedly emphasised that capital today is mobile but increasingly selective.
What attracts long-term investment is not ambition alone, but credible project pipelines-those backed by robust feasibility work, realistic cost assumptions, transparent risk allocation, and a clear understanding of contingent liabilities. These expectations are not tested at conferences, but project by project, contract by contract, long before financial close.
As multilateral institutions have long emphasised, ‘good infrastructure is not just about spending more, but about spending better.’
One persistent source of value erosion lies in the quality of Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) cost estimates. In many cases, costs are not developed from first principles. Instead, averages from previous projects-often already inefficient-are escalated for inflation and foreign exchange movements.
This practice quietly carries forward embedded inefficiencies, meaning that projects can be over-priced before the first tender is issued. As successive layers of scope additions, risk premiums, and financing costs are added, weak cost foundations almost guarantee overruns or, in the case of PPPs, higher user-pay charges.
Implementation further compounds these challenges. Delays, coordination failures, and scope changes across the project lifecycle translate into time overruns, cost escalation, and deferred economic benefits.
Even where assets are eventually delivered, the opportunity cost of delayed or underperforming infrastructure can be substantial.
PPPs, in particular, demand advanced governance capacity. Value for money in PPPs depends fundamentally on how risks are identified, priced, and allocated. Where public sector teams face gaps in specialised expertise-especially in detailed risk mapping, probability assessment, and project finance-information asymmetry can emerge between the public and private sides of a transaction.
This may result in sub-optimal risk transfer, mispriced guarantees, or poorly understood contingent liabilities that surface years later through renegotiations or fiscal exposure.
Efficient risk allocation is not about transferring all risks to the private sector. It is about allocating each risk to the party best able to manage it.
Achieving this consistently requires disciplined appraisal, technical depth, and the ability to challenge assumptions early-particularly when delivery timelines are compressed.
Countries that have successfully leveraged infrastructure for long-term growth have recognised these challenges and responded institutionally. Independent technical review mechanisms stress-test assumptions, interrogate cost foundations, and assess fiscal exposure before projects proceed to procurement or financial close.
Their purpose is not to slow delivery, but to improve outcomes while adjustments are still feasible and relatively inexpensive.
This distinction matters because infrastructure credibility is ultimately tested in capital markets.
As global investors and institutional leaders emphasised at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, capital tends to flow where governance is strong, transparent and predictable. For countries seeking long-term, patient investment, governance quality is not an abstract principle-it is a competitive advantage.
Kenya’s infrastructure ambitions are both necessary and timely. But ambition alone does not deliver lasting value.
As the country accelerates investment, the most consequential decisions will be those that strengthen governance systems early-before projects become irreversible. When capital moves fast, governance must move faster.