Young economist challenges conventional infrastructure wisdom in new development framework

Urban planning has long grappled with a fundamental tension: how can cities leverage infrastructure projects not merely as construction exercises, but as genuine engines of regional economic revitalization?

This question has become increasingly urgent as state governments worldwide face mounting fiscal constraints while simultaneously confronting demands for transformative public investment.

Melvin J. Oshomegie, then a Senior Associate in Strategy Consulting at PricewaterhouseCoopers Nigeria, has entered this debate with a provocative proposition. In a comprehensive research paper examining mixed-use urban development, Oshomegie argues that traditional approaches to infrastructure assessment have failed to capture the full economic potential of well-designed projects.

His work synthesizes evidence from over 100 academic studies to propose what he calls a holistic framework—one that moves beyond simple cost-benefit calculations to account for social cohesion, environmental sustainability, and long-term productivity gains.

"The problem isn't that we lack infrastructure investment," Oshomegie observes in his analysis. "It's that we're evaluating projects with tools designed for a different era."

His research points to a consistent pattern: projects that integrate residential, commercial, and recreational spaces within cohesive urban precincts generate substantially higher economic multipliers than single-use developments. Yet most government assessment models, he notes, continue to treat these benefits as peripheral rather than central to project value.

Drawing on his experience advising government agencies and private-sector clients, Oshomegie emphasizes that infrastructure decisions are fundamentally political, not merely technical. He cites examples where politically expedient projects proceeded despite weak economic justifications, while high-impact investments languished due to poor stakeholder coordination.

His proposed model attempts to address this by incorporating transparent performance metrics and explicit equity considerations—features designed to reduce the space for political manipulation while ensuring benefits reach underserved communities.

The framework Oshomegie advocates integrates multiple analytical approaches. Rather than relying solely on traditional cost-benefit analysis, it combines input-output modeling to trace inter-sectoral spillovers, general equilibrium analysis to capture distributional effects, and social return on investment techniques to quantify intangible benefits.

This multi-method approach, he argues, provides a more realistic picture of how infrastructure shapes regional economies over time.

What makes Oshomegie's intervention particularly timely is his attention to implementation constraints. Having worked extensively with public-sector clients in Nigeria, he recognizes that sophisticated models often founder when governments lack reliable data or technical capacity.

His framework, therefore, emphasizes adaptability—providing simplified pathways for resource-constrained states while maintaining analytical rigor where institutional capacity permits.

His research also addresses emerging challenges that traditional frameworks ignore. Climate resilience, for instance, rarely features in infrastructure assessments despite its obvious long-term importance.

Similarly, the rise of digital commerce and remote work is reshaping how urban spaces function, yet most evaluation tools treat infrastructure benefits as static rather than dynamic.

As Oshomegie continued to build his expertise in strategy consulting, collaborating with multinational teams on complex regulatory and policy challenges, his urban development research offered a preview of themes that would define his later work: the importance of evidence-based policymaking, the need to balance economic efficiency with social equity, and the conviction that better analytical tools can improve public decision-making.

His framework stands as both a critique of current practice and a roadmap for reform—a characteristically ambitious synthesis from a young economist just beginning to make his mark.