In Burkina Faso, the soaring cost of cement has become a critical economic issue, with authorities frequently attributing the price surge to the expansion of community construction projects under the “Faso Mêbo” initiative. However, this official explanation appears deeply inconsistent, particularly when considering the highly debatable economic rationale of the program itself.
The price of a tonne of cement in Burkina Faso has reached prohibitive levels for the average citizen, severely impeding the construction sector and stifling the national economy. Amid widespread public discontent, the government has adopted a consistent narrative: cement is expensive because the nation is undergoing extensive development through Faso Mêbo, a presidential program focused on community works. This governmental rationale, however, suffers from two significant weaknesses. Not only is the true effectiveness of Faso Mêbo a subject of considerable disagreement, but its deployment as a justification for shortages undeniably exposes shortcomings in state planning and foresight.
Faso Mêbo: a political instrument with questionable economic utility
Positioned as a beacon of endogenous development, the Faso Mêbo initiative primarily relies on popular mobilization, volunteer efforts, and donations of materials, notably cement. While the symbolic intent of engaging citizens in nation-building is commendable, the practical economic and technical implications of this model raise serious questions.
By entrusting substantial infrastructure projects—such as roads, paving, and public buildings—to volunteer efforts and unpredictable material donations, the state deviates from established engineering standards and principles of durability. Without stringent technical oversight and guaranteed maintenance budgets, many observers fear these low-cost infrastructures could rapidly deteriorate with the onset of the first rainy season, effectively rendering popular efforts a colossal waste of resources. Furthermore, this approach often bypasses the local private construction sector, weakening national small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that typically create sustainable jobs and contribute taxes, in favor of project management that is frequently informal.
The incongruity of the official argument regarding price hikes
Even if one were to concede that Faso Mêbo consumes a substantial volume of cement, attributing the product’s high cost solely to this factor remains a logical and economic anomaly.
In a well-managed economy, the emergence of new state-driven demand is anticipated and planned for. To assert that prices are escalating because the state itself is utilizing cement is tantamount to admitting that authorities launched a nationwide program without ever assessing the industrial capacity required to sustain it. A state should not be caught off guard by its own consumption needs.
The underlying truth that this official communication attempts to obscure lies elsewhere:
- Energy suffocation of factories: The primary impediment to cement availability remains the state’s inability to provide stable electricity to local cement factories, which often operate at reduced capacity due to frequent power cuts.
- The rigid protectionism trap: By prohibiting cement imports to safeguard local factories that lack the necessary energy to produce efficiently, the state has inadvertently engineered the very scarcity it now faces.
- The institutionalized black market: This artificially created scarcity unfortunately benefits speculators, against whom the control mechanisms of the Commerce Ministry prove largely ineffective.
Blaming Faso Mêbo for the cement crisis is a fundamental misinterpretation. Either this initiative is of modest scale, rendering its impact on the overall market minimal, or it is as massive as the government claims, in which case its launch without prior industrial planning represents a grave strategic misstep. In either scenario, the high cost of living and cement in Burkina Faso does not originate from a patriotic spirit of paving roads, but rather from the deficient strategic choices of a state struggling to rationalize its economy.
