Of course you’re right that roads – particualrly those linking with other countries (but much less so in Ghor I believe) – do help the economy. But I still feel the benefits of this is limited to a minority, and distrust any development approach that basically relies on the trickle down effect. I also wonder how, if roads sometimes decrease security as you say, this then helps the places they run through economically. A question of whose security and whose economy I guess.

As you say, roads by themsleves are not going to ’solve’ poverty that has deeper roots. That’s what gets me; when roads are held up as a panacea, given as more than they are worth. ‘What this place needs is a good road’, rather than ‘this place needs x, y and z, and a good road would help as well.’

Anyhow, thanks for dropping by! I’ll be out of Kabul again soon so able to resume reading Registan uncensored.

Thanks for the comment! I think you raise a good point, in that it’s important not to over-sell roads from an economic perspective. But at the same time they do wonders for the economy. Kabul, for example, didn’t see an economic boom until the newer, more accessible Kabul-Jalalabad-Peshawar road was built. Similarly, in many places in RC-East, the construction of paved roads (done smartly, of course, which is the real trick) actually has had noticeably economic and political gains. And even if roads only benefit “a few traders and big businessmen,” isn’t that one of the primary drivers of economic development, since they also usually control investment? Roads by themselves are not just about “solving” poverty, because Afghanistan’s poverty has far deeper roots than a paved highway. But they are an important component.