The geographical distribution of public investment rarely follows a strictly economic logic. The choices regarding the location of infrastructure, public facilities, or major development programs often reflect political considerations linked to electoral weight, symbolic visibility, or the institutional entrenchment of certain areas. This political dimension of budget allocation shapes the national economic landscape in a lasting way, sometimes independently of objective development needs.

In many countries, capital cities and strategic regions concentrate a significant share of public spending, particularly in transportation, energy, and administrative services. This concentration can be explained by imperatives of efficiency or coordination, but it also tends to reinforce a cumulative agglomeration effect. Areas already well-endowed attract more private investment, while peripheral zones struggle to initiate a catch-up dynamic, thus exacerbating regional inequalities in competitiveness and hindering the integration of national markets.

These territorial imbalances have significant economic consequences. Inadequate infrastructure in certain regions limits local productivity, hinders labor mobility, and increases transaction costs for businesses. In the medium term, this uneven distribution of public investment perpetuates persistent disparities in income, access to essential services, and economic opportunities.

The political dimension of these choices also fuels social and institutional tensions. Populations in less developed regions often perceive these disparities as a form of marginalization, which can weaken national cohesion and the legitimacy of public action. Territorial demands are then expressed through increased calls for decentralization, budgetary rebalancing, or political recognition, sometimes even escalating to identity-based or autonomist claims.

A more balanced approach to public investment requires reconciling economic rationality with political realities. Introducing transparent criteria, based on infrastructure needs, productive potential, and service access gaps, can reduce geographical biases without ignoring governance constraints. The goal is not to eliminate all political dimensions from public investment, but to integrate it into a coherent and sustainable territorial strategy, supported by territorial monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure the effectiveness of rebalancing efforts.