Why projects fail in the global south: when leadership becomes the problem
Introduction
Development failure in the Global South is often attributed to capacity deficits, infrastructural bottlenecks, or post-colonial dependency cycles. However, a deeper political economy analysis reveals a more insidious driver: elite detachment and elite enrichment. These phenomena, rooted in rentierism, neopatrimonialism, and the political instrumentalization of aid, structurally undermine development outcomes. Southern Africa, with its mosaic of success stories, stagnations, and state capture cases, offers a compelling regional lens through which to examine this.
Despite decades of donor funding and well-intentioned development initiatives, many projects in the Global South continue to fail. While some blame poor infrastructure, political instability, or cultural gaps, the root cause often lies in something more direct: leaders who prioritize personal enrichment over public service.
This article explores why projects fail in countries where leadership sees donor resources as a personal opportunity, using examples from across Africa. We also reflect on how war, conflict, and confusion enable plundering and entrench a cycle of underdevelopment.
In Southern Africa, elite detachment and enrichment are not peripheral anomalies—they are central drivers of development failure. The battle for meaningful development is not only fought through projects or funding cycles but within the political economies that shape who benefits, who governs, and who decides.
Understanding elite detachment and enrichment
Elite detachment refers to the social, economic, and political insulation of ruling and bureaucratic elites from the lived realities of the populations they ostensibly serve. These elites are shielded by wealth, influence, and transnational linkages, including offshored assets and diaspora education for their families, making them structurally disincentivized from pursuing systemic reform.
Elite enrichment is the appropriation of public and donor resources by elites for personal or political gain. This is achieved through mechanisms such as clientelism, procurement fraud, inflated infrastructure projects, and misappropriation of aid funds.
Together, these practices create a “governance vacuum,” whereby development becomes performative—focused on optics rather than impact—while core systems of accountability are hollowed out.
In many fragile states, donor-funded projects fall prey to elite manipulation. Leaders and politically connected individuals see these projects not as tools for public transformation, but as opportunities to expand patronage networks and build personal wealth.
Take South Sudan, for instance. Since gaining independence in 2011, billions in oil revenue and donor funds have been siphoned off by political elites. The Sentry, an investigative initiative, revealed how warlords and politicians looted state coffers while citizens suffered from famine and displacement.
In Zimbabwe, the Command Agriculture Scheme, once hailed as a flagship food security programme, was mired in corruption allegations, with inputs distributed along party lines instead of based on need or productivity.
Even in relatively stable states like Kenya, infrastructure mega-projects such as dams and roads have been used as vehicles for inflated contracts, kickbacks, and ghost companies.
War and conflict as tools of confusion and control
Conflict zones present unique challenges to project delivery. But beyond the violence, confusion and instability can actually serve as tools for theft and impunity.
In Mali and across the Sahel, insurgencies have overwhelmed public systems. While donor funds continue to flow, monitoring is difficult and enforcement mechanisms are weak. Corrupt actors exploit this environment to divert resources without consequence.
In Mozambique, the ongoing insurgency in Cabo Delgado has displaced thousands. Yet this conflict also masks the exploitation of vast natural gas reserves, with local communities seeing little benefit despite billions in investment.
Where systems collapse, leaders can operate with near-total impunity.
Civil strife, wars and the decay of the economic and social fabric – my perspective in Southern African
Armed conflict and civil strife are not only symptoms of political breakdown—they are catalytic agents in the disintegration of a country’s economic systems, social cohesion, and institutional functionality. In southern Africa, wars have left profound scars that continue to shape post-conflict recovery and development trajectories. Protracted violence reconfigures national priorities, often subordinating development to militarization, and replaces institutions of public accountability with coercive and survivalist structures. Over time, and in many countries this has contributed to the corrosion of trust in the state, the dismantling of local economies and the rupture of social capital.
Destruction of productive systems and human capital
One of the most immediate impacts of war is the destruction of physical infrastructure and productive assets. In Angola, for example, the nearly three decades of civil war (1975–2002) obliterated much of the country’s agricultural and industrial capacity. Roads, irrigation systems and health facilities were destroyed or rendered inoperable by landmines. According to post-war recovery estimates by the World Bank and UNDP, more than 70% of rural infrastructure was non-functional by the early 2000s. Furthermore, the war displaced over 4 million people internally, severely disrupting agricultural cycles, access to markets, and the transmission of intergenerational knowledge critical to community resilience.
The economic decay is compounded by the loss of human capital. Prolonged conflict interrupts education systems, erodes healthcare delivery and forces skilled professionals—such as teachers, doctors, and engineers—either into exile or into roles of combat and survival. In Mozambique, the 16-year civil war between FRELIMO and RENAMO (1977–1992) saw the destruction of over 45% of the country’s primary schools and nearly 60% of health facilities. The war also resulted in the exodus of skilled workers, a trend that left post-war reconstruction grappling with significant capacity deficits. These conditions foster a generation whose access to education and productive employment is severely curtailed, perpetuating cycles of poverty and dependency.
Erosion of institutions and rise of parallel government.
Wars by nature often replace formal governance systems with informal, militarized, or factional structures. In conflict zones, non-state actors assume control over territories and establish parallel institutions that prioritize extraction and coercion over service delivery and social welfare. Angola’s civil war created multiple power centres, each operating its own logistical, taxation and security frameworks. The war economy flourished through diamond smuggling and oil rent misappropriation, entrenching elite enrichment at the expense of public investment. These informal governance mechanisms persist long after peace agreements are signed, impeding post-war institutional reform and embedding corruption within the fabric of the state.
Mozambique’s post-war era has similarly struggled with the persistence of factional politics and unequal resource allocation. Despite relative peace, regions affected by the war—particularly central and northern provinces—continue to experience marginalization, which some scholars argue laid the groundwork for the current insurgency in Cabo Delgado. The failure to rebuild inclusive institutions that extend legitimacy and services to peripheral areas perpetuates instability and undermines national unity.
Fracturing of social cohesion and communal bonds
Beyond institutional and economic effects, war disintegrates the social fabric that holds communities together. Protracted violence often inflames ethnic, religious, or regional identities, weaponizing difference in pursuit of political or military gain. Zimbabwe’s liberation war (1964–1979) and subsequent Gukurahundi massacres in the 1980s created deep ethnic and political divisions between Shona and Ndebele communities. The psychological and social trauma of this period still influences political polarization and voter behaviour today. Although Zimbabwe avoided a relapse into full-scale war, the legacy of mistrust and unresolved grievances continues to constrain efforts at national reconciliation and inclusive governance.
In Angola and Mozambique, the use of child soldiers, gender-based violence, and forced displacement disrupted traditional social structures. Former combatants and war-affected individuals often returned to communities with limited psychosocial support, creating long-term challenges for reintegration, mental health, and community trust. The breakdown of extended family systems, customary authority, and communal safety nets weakens collective resilience and increases vulnerability to exploitation and poverty.
War as an instrument of resource control
Conflicts in Southern Africa have also been shaped by, and have shaped, control over natural resources. The political economy of war often revolves around access to diamonds, oil, timber, and other extractives. In Angola, the conflict was heavily financed by oil revenues in government-held areas and diamond smuggling by UNITA rebels. This war economy entrenched patronage systems and elite accumulation strategies that continue to influence Angola’s post-war political settlement. Similarly, in Mozambique, emerging tensions around natural gas exploitation in Cabo Delgado mirror earlier patterns of resource-linked grievance, with local communities largely excluded from the benefits of extraction projects despite promises of development.
Civil strife and war do not simply pause development—they reverse it. They unravel institutions, dismember economies, and fracture societies in ways that outlive ceasefires and peace agreements. Southern Africa offers a vivid tableau of how these dynamics play out, with Angola and Mozambique exemplifying post-war reconstruction struggles, and Zimbabwe offering a mixed case of political transformation hampered by unresolved internal violence.
The task of rebuilding goes beyond brick and mortar. It requires reknitting the social fabric, restoring institutional legitimacy, and creating inclusive governance models that resist the logic of war economies. Without addressing these deeper structural wounds, peace remains fragile, and development remains elusive.
Aid dependency and the cycle of failure
A key frustration in project management across the Global South is the repetition of failure. Projects are often:
- Poorly implemented due to elite interference
- Replicated without lessons learned
- Continued despite clear evidence of corruption
Donor agencies sometimes enable this by prioritizing disbursement over impact. When projects serve political ends rather than technical needs, the very systems meant to improve lives become complicit in entrenching inequality.
Accountability is the missing link
For sustainable development to take root, accountability must be the foundation. This requires:
- Funding models tied to transparency: Tools like blockchain, digital dashboards, and public audits can track resource flows in real time.
- Working beyond elite structures: Partnering directly with grassroots organizations, cooperatives, and community leaders ensures better local ownership.
- Red lines and consequences: Projects must have clear conditions, with funding suspended when abuse is evident.
Above all, donors and implementers must resist the temptation to treat corrupt actors as “necessary evils.” Short-term stability cannot come at the expense of long-term credibility.
The vicious cycle of elite capture
Elite detachment and enrichment create a self-reinforcing loop or cycle:
- Capture: Elites redirect aid and state resources for personal or political gain.
- Delegitimization: Citizens lose trust in institutions and disengage.
- Donor retreat: Development partners either disengage or shift to bypass mechanisms.
- Entrenchment: In the absence of reform, elites deepen their control, often via security apparatuses.
This loop exacerbates inequality, fuels conflict and undermines the social contract.
Case studies from southern Africa
Zimbabwe: From breadbasket to basket case
Zimbabwe’s post-independence trajectory is illustrative. What began as a promising state rapidly declined due to elite appropriation of national resources. The Command Agriculture Programme, intended to revitalize food security, became a conduit for political patronage. Inputs were distributed along party lines, while billions went unaccounted for. The economy was cannibalized by a political elite invested in parallel markets, preferential access to foreign currency, and land reform initiatives that, while necessary, were executed in ways that facilitated elite land grabs rather than equitable redistribution.
South Africa: Institutional erosion via state capture
Once heralded as a beacon of post-apartheid recovery, South Africa illustrates the corrosive impact of elite collusion on institutional integrity. The “State Capture” era (2009–2018), under former President Jacob Zuma, saw the systematic weakening of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), public procurement systems, and oversight mechanisms. The Zondo Commission exposed how entities like Eskom and Transnet became feeding troughs for politically connected individuals. The detachment of the elite from developmental goals exacerbated service delivery failures and widened inequality.
Angola: The petro-elite and parallel governance
Despite oil wealth, Angola exemplifies how resource rents, captured by an entrenched elite, can decouple governance from developmental obligations. Throughout the 2000s, oil revenues were funneled through opaque institutions, bypassing formal budgetary processes. The dos Santos family and its associates reportedly controlled vast swathes of the national economy. Despite recent reform efforts under President João Lourenço—such as the prosecution of Isabel dos Santos—the entrenched networks remain resilient.
Examples of turnaround and integrity
Botswana: steadfast in accountability
Botswana has consistently been recognized for its adherence to sound governance and low levels of corruption, relative to the region. Its diamond wealth was nationalized and managed through transparent channels like Debswana (a joint venture with De Beers), with robust oversight by institutions such as the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC). This integrity, rooted in both a cultural consensus on accountability and institutional strength, has enabled the country to avoid the resource curse.
Rwanda: Post-conflict discipline and state-led development
Though not in Southern Africa proper, Rwanda’s trajectory is instructive. Following the 1994 genocide, Rwanda’s leadership under President Paul Kagame established a highly centralized but disciplined governance model. While concerns exist regarding political freedoms, the country has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to absorb and effectively deploy aid, ensure public accountability, and maintain tight fiscal control. Decentralized service delivery and performance contracts (Imihigo) are examples of how leadership can re-orient state machinery toward developmental outcomes.
Reclaiming development for the people
The failure of development projects in the Global South is not just about inefficiency or capacity gaps. It’s about a leadership model that too often sees aid as a tool for self-preservation rather than transformation.
As wars rage and poverty deepens, citizens deserve better. They deserve systems that work, projects that deliver, and leaders who serve.
Until we challenge the political economy that enables exploitation, we will keep pouring water into broken buckets. It is time to reclaim development in the name of transparency, accountability, and true progress.
How can we disrupt elite capture
To reclaim development in the Global South, particularly in fragile democracies and post-authoritarian contexts, the following measures are essential:
- Fiscal transparency and digital tracking
- Strengthening domestic accountability
- Donor and funders
- Supporting social contracts though civil society, CBOs