Column: The Triple Optic
— The Promise, The Pitfall, and The Path Forward
Across many developing nations, industrial parks are heralded as symbols of transformation. These are state-led efforts to shift from raw material exports to high-value manufacturing. From Nigeria to Ethiopia, Ghana to Bangladesh, these parks are presented as fast tracks to jobs, investment, and growth. In Nigeria, however, the model often stalls between political performance and practical paralysis, offering optics without outcomes.
Industrial parks here are pitched as bold leaps into the future but often remain stuck in the present. They are poorly executed, institutionally unsupported, and logistically unmoored. They are launched with fanfare, with grand unveilings, superlative claims, and glossy brochures. But behind the banners lies a recurring void where power, water, planning, and policy should be.
The Promise
Nigeria adopted the industrial park model as a solution to deep structural problems such as youth unemployment, import dependence, and a mono-product economy. The parks were designed as ready-made ecosystems with clustered industries, streamlined services, and sectoral specialization. These included textiles in the North, agro-processing in the Middle Belt, and pharmaceuticals in the South.
The concept was not without merit. Many saw in it a break from past failures. Investors hoped for a stable entry point and communities hoped for jobs. Parks such as the Calabar Free Trade Zone and the Lagos-based Lekki Industrial Corridor raised expectations of Nigeria becoming a manufacturing hub for West Africa. For a moment, the narrative seemed promising.
The Pitfall and the Deeper Omission
But too often, the promise yielded to disappointment. Many parks became zones of half-built infrastructure, unclear mandates, and idle potential. Their failure was not just in the execution but in the original design.
Several parks, including the Abuja Technology Village and the Enyimba Economic City in Abia State, struggled to take off. Despite years of announcements and allocated land, core enablers such as power, logistics, and policy coordination remained elusive. Some lacked road access while others were disconnected from ports or labor pools.
Beyond technical faults, institutional dysfunction ran deep. The promised one-stop shop for investors never materialized in most cases. Agencies worked in silos. Incentives were unclear or inconsistently applied. Land disputes lingered and environmental approvals were bypassed.
Critically, the planning ignored past lessons. The underwhelming Ajaokuta Steel project and the collapse of Nigeria’s textile boom were treated as isolated events, not as cautionary signals. Likewise, local stakeholders such as small manufacturers, universities, and host communities were excluded from conception to rollout.
There was also no built-in feedback. Even as parks failed to attract tenants, the model persisted without evaluation. Policymakers clung to outdated templates rather than reforming strategies based on changing realities in global manufacturing. These include the rise of automation, green supply chains, and digital infrastructure.
The Path Forward
Despite these setbacks, the idea is salvageable but only with an honest reset. First, Nigeria must publish a full audit of all parks. This should include their location, funding status, infrastructure readiness, and legal constraints. That transparency would restore credibility.
Next is aligning parks with actual economic strengths. Not every region needs an industrial park. Those that are built must serve clusters with clear comparative advantage, proximity to raw materials, labor availability, and access to export routes.
Policy integration is critical. Multiple ministries and agencies must coordinate rather than compete. Power must be guaranteed, land tenure secure, and trade policy stable.
More importantly, government must stop treating parks as real estate ventures. Instead, they must be seen as collaborative ecosystems. Partnerships with the private sector should go beyond plot leasing to include shared governance, training programs, research and development hubs, and performance-based incentives.
Nigeria should look to countries such as Morocco and Vietnam. In these countries, industrial zones are part of national export strategies and are tied to logistics, talent, and tax regimes. These parks are plugged into global value chains rather than isolated from them.
Modern industrial parks must reflect today’s manufacturing reality. They must be smart, sustainable, and digitally enabled. This means integrating clean energy, modular design, and technology infrastructure from the outset.
The Core Lesson
The failure of Nigeria’s industrial parks reveals a deeper institutional gap. It reflects the tendency to substitute pageantry for planning and visibility for viability. Infrastructure alone is not strategy. Concrete structures cannot replace coordination, capability, or credibility.
Development must be process driven rather than performance driven. Nigeria must build a new culture of public service that values delivery, evidence, and adaptation over theatrics.
If Nigeria can fix this, it could set a continental precedent. A well-functioning industrial park system in Nigeria could become a model for peers facing similar challenges across Africa and South Asia.
But it starts with clarity. The triple optic—what was promised, what failed, and what must change—should guide all future efforts.
Conclusion
The parks themselves are not the problem. The illusion lies in believing that physical structures can replace institutional rigor. Real development is not measured by drone footage or ribbon cuttings but by whether jobs are created, products exported, and ecosystems sustained.
Industrial parks can still become engines of growth but only if stripped of illusion and rebuilt with strategy, honesty, and humility.