Coverage of modern infrastructure services in Africa is very low by global standards (Estache and Wodon 2007). Coverage of electricity is about 20 percent in Africa; 33 percent in South Asia; and more than 85 percent in East Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. Cover- age of piped water is 12 percent in Africa, 21 percent in South Asia, and more than 35 per- cent in other developing regions. Coverage of fl ush toilets is 6 percent in Africa, 34 percent in South Asia, and more than 30 percent in other developing regions. Africa’s telecommunica- tions coverage, however, compares favorably with South Asia’s and is not so far behind that of other developing regions. Africa’s low cov- erage of infrastructure services in part refl ects its relatively low urbanization rates, because urban agglomeration greatly facilitates the extension of infrastructure networks.1
Household surveys show only modest gains in access to modern infrastructure services over the period 1990–2005 (fi gure 3.1). This stag- nant overall picture masks two divergent trends. Service coverage in rural areas has seen modest improvements, whereas that in urban areas has actually declined. For example, urban cover- age of piped water fell from 50 percent in the early 1990s to 39 percent in the early 2000s, and urban coverage of fl ush toilets from 32 percent to 27 percent. Although many new connections are being made in urban areas, declining urban coverage largely refl ects the inability of service providers to keep pace with urban population growth of 3.6 percent a year.
The pace of service expansion differs dra- matically across sectors and countries. The
percentage of the population added annually to the coverage of modern infrastructure services is a good measure of the intensity of effort in service expansion—and it differs dramatically across services (fi gure 3.2). Less than 0.5 percent of the population is added each year to the net- work of piped water and fl ush toilets, whereas about 1.5 percent is added to that of electricity and cellular telephone services. For water and sanitation, the rate of expansion of alternative services such as latrines, standposts, and bore- holes is signifi cantly faster than that of piped water and fl ush toilets. These regional averages mask outstanding performances by individual countries. For piped water, Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, and Senegal reach an additional 1.5–2.0 percent of their population each year, compared with less than 0.1 percent for Africa as a whole.
Universal access to modern infrastructure services lies at least 50 years in the future for most countries. Projecting current rates of service expansion forward and taking into account anticipated demographic growth, one can estimate the year countries will reach uni- versal access to each of the modern infrastruc- ture services. The results are sobering. Under business as usual, less than 20 percent of Sub- Saharan African countries will reach universal access for piped water by 2050, and less than 45 percent will reach universal access to elec- tricity (fi gure 3.3). In about one-third of coun- tries, universal access to piped water and fl ush toilets will not be reached in this century.
Coverage varies dramatically across house- holds with different budget levels (fi gure 3.4). Source: Banerjee, Wodon, and others 2008.
35 30 25 % of households 20 15 10 0 5 1990–95 1996–2000 2001–05 piped water electricity
flush toilets landline telephone
Figure 3.1 Coverage of Network Infrastructure Services, 1990–2005
Dealing with Poverty and Inequality 89
Among the poorest 60 percent of the population, coverage of almost all modern infrastructure services is well below 10 percent.Conversely, the vast majority of households with coverage belong to the more affl uent 40 percent of the population. In most countries, inequality of access has increased over time, suggesting that most new connections have gone to more affl u- ent households (Diallo and Wodon 2005). This situation is not entirely surprising, given that, even among households with greater purchas- ing power, coverage is far from universal, and well under 50 percent in most cases. Relative to the other modern infrastructure services, electricity coverage is somewhat higher across the spectrum.
Low coverage rates can refl ect both sup- ply and demand factors. On the one hand, the household may be physically distant from an infrastructure network (and thus face an absence of supply). On the other hand, the household may choose not to connect to a network even when it is nearby (and thus express a lack of demand). Understanding this difference is important because the policy implications differ radically. By exploiting the spatial distribution of household survey samples in urban areas, one can quantify the relative importance of these supply and demand factors in accounting for low ser- vice coverage. Using this approach, one can distinguish between the percentage of popula- tion that has access to the service (those living physically close to the infrastructure) and the percentage of the population that hooks up to the service when it is available.
Lack of coverage for urban electricity supply is equally about demand and supply factors. The power infrastructure for elec- tricity is physically close to 93 percent of the urban population, but only 75 percent of those with access actually hook up to the service. This means that half of the popu- lation lacking coverage live close to power infrastructure. One can often observe this phenomenon in African cities, where informal settlements fl anking major road corridors lack power service even though distribution lines run overhead.
Overall, the coverage gap for piped water is primarily attributable to supply factors
(table 3.1). The physical extent of the piped water network is more limited, reaching only 73 percent of the urban population, and hookup rates for those in proximity are only 48 percent. In general, the role of demand
2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 piped water % of population flush toilet improved latrines standposts landline telephones
boreholes electricity cell phones traditional latrines
Figure 3.2 Expansion of Access to Infrastructure Services Each Year, Mid-1990s to Mid-2000s
Source: Banerjee, Wodon, and others 2008.
Figure 3.3 Projected Universal Access for Piped Water for Sub-Saharan African Countries, 2050 and Beyond
100 80
% of countries
60 40
piped water flush toilets electricity landline telephones 20
0
by 2050 2050–2100 2100–2200 after 2200
Source: Banerjee, Wodon, and others 2008.
Figure 3.4 Coverage of Modern Infrastructure Services, by Budget Quintile
budget quintile % of households 80 100 60 40 20 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 piped water electricity flush toilets landline
telephones
cell phones garbage collected
Source: Banerjee, Wodon, and others 2008. Note: The data are the latest available as of 2006.
90 AFRICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE: A TIME FOR TRANSFORMATION
factors is higher in middle-income countries than in low-income countries, refl ecting the fact that infrastructure networks are more highly developed in the former and have a broader geographical reach.
It may appear paradoxical that households do not universally take up connections to modern infrastructure services as networks become physically available. Clear economic reasons exist, however, why this might be so. In some cases, households may have access to cheaper substitutes, such as boreholes. More substitutes are available for piped water than for electricity, which may explain the much lower hookup rates for the former. In other cases, utility connection charges are set pro- hibitively high for low-income households. For example, 60 percent of the water utilities sur- veyed for this study apply connection charges in excess of $100. Charges range from about $6 in the Upper Nile in Sudan to more than $240 in Côte d’Ivoire, Mozambique, Niger, and South Africa. The average connection charge across the region is 28 percent of gross national income (GNI) per capita. For Niger, the charge is more than 100 percent of GNI per capita. Similarly, the fi ve water utilities in Mozambique charge more than 75 percent of GNI per capita. These comparisons illustrate how high connec- tion charges present a barrier to affordability.
The tenure status of households may also signifi cantly impede hookup to modern infra- structure services. A study of slum households in Dakar and Nairobi fi nds that coverage of piped water and electricity is more than twice as high among owner-occupiers as among ten- ants (Gulyani, Talukdar, and Jack 2008). Even among owner-occupiers, lack of formal legal titles can affect hookup to services.