When the builders fall silent: How South Africa’s engineering soul began to fray

Every nation has its builders. When they fall silent, a country not only loses its scaffolding; it loses part of itsimagination.

When a 123-year-old engineering house closes its doors, it is more than a business story; it is a mirror held up to a nation. According to Statistics South Africa, the construction industry contracted by 0.4% in the final quarter of 2024, even as the broader economy managed 0.6% growth for the same period, a numerical reflection of an industry under strain.

Independent reviews by the Auditor-General, the Competition Commission and industry bodies point to a pattern of slow payments, procurement inefficiencies and governance weaknesses that have compounded overtime. In 2013, the Competition Commission reported that 15 firms paid R1.46 billion in penalties for collusive tendering on projects largely executed between 2006 and 2011, a moment that damaged trust across the sector. These realities are well documented, yet they tell only part of the story.

The deeper causes lie both inside and around the institutions that once built South Africa’s physical backbone.The great builders of the twentieth century were more than contractors; they were national assets. They trained thousands of artisans and engineers, and by 2008, construction accounted for nearly 4% of GDP and over one million jobs, according to Stats SA. Together with networks such as the South African Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors and the Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of Southern Africa, these firms created an ecosystem that translated policy into progress.

Over time, the rhythm changed. Public-sector investment slowed after 2010 and many established firms expanded into multi-disciplinary portfolios spanning mining services, concessions and offshore projects. This shift was, in part, a response to falling domestic demand and to global best practice at the time, when international contractors diversified to spread cyclical risk. Yet diversification introduced complexity and cost. Management structures multiplied, risk became harder to track, and the focus on disciplined project execution often blurred.

The problem was not the model itself, but how it was managed in an economy where project pipelines and payments were uncertain. As the internal logic of expansion collided with the external logic of stagnation, stress began to travel through balance sheets and boardrooms alike. Guarantees on subsidiary obligations expose parent companies to large liabilities. International ventures that once promised growth became costly when commodity prices andexchange rates turned. Audited filings from several groups confirm that scaled-down projects and delayed payments left stranded assets and shrinking liquidity. Losses gathered like rust beneath polished forecasts.

Externally, the environment grew increasingly difficult. Stats SA’s long-term data show gross fixed capital formation declining from roughly 23% of GDP in 2008 to about 14% in 2024, less than half the National Development Plan’s 30% target. The World Bank confirms the same downward trajectory. The post-2008 global financial contraction and South Africa’s subsequent fiscal tightening also constrained infrastructure budgets just as major contractors had scaled up. Meanwhile, construction employment has seen-sawed quarter to quarter; Stats SA’s 2025 labour-force survey notes alternating gains and losses that erode continuity and mentoring.

Logistics constraints compounded the challenge. Reuters reports that rail freight volumes dropped from 226 million tonnes in 2017/18 to around 152 million tonnes in 2023/24. A recovery plan backed by a one-billion-dollar African Development Bank loan and new open-access rules aims to lift throughput to 250 million tonnes by 2029. Until those targets are met, project costs will remain volatile as suppliers struggle to move materials predictably.

Behind the balance sheets are welders whose hands have gone idle, apprentices who never finished their hours and engineers whose blueprints were never realised. A century of capability cannot simply be archived. Within this environment, the outcome was foreseeable: financial distress at the top, job losses at the base and the erosion of technical capacity in between.

The Construction Industry Development Board’s 2025 Transformation Report acknowledges progress in ownership but slower inclusion in senior engineering roles, the very spaces where design, safety and cost are decided. Empowerment and transformation are not synonymous. Equity has advanced on paper but the transformation of engineering leadership, the realm of decision-making, has lagged and that distinction is critical. Here lies South Africa’s paradox.

The country speaks of re-industrialisation and a digital economy, while the foundational industries that enable both are weakening. Construction, engineering and mining remain the arteries of the productive economy, yet they are operating below potential. A century-old liquidation is therefore not simply a corporate failure; it is evidence of a coordination gap between industrial ambition and institutional capacity.This is not a uniquely South African story. Across continents, economies that once built ships, railways and power plants now import both machinery and imagination. What is different here is that our builders still walk among us, under-employed, under-recognised and under-used.

To rebuild, South Africa must apply design discipline rather than rhetoric. Private firms may need to refocus on comparative strengths, core engineering services, transparent partnerships and steady investment in skills rather than chasing breadth at the expense of depth. The public sector likewise can reinforce its role as areliable infrastructure partner by standardising project preparation, publishing a rolling five-year pipeline and ensuring payment systems support contractor viability. These are management reforms, not ideological positions, and each has been endorsed in various CIDB and National Treasury assessments.

Recent policy moves offer grounds for optimism. National Treasury’s blended-finance instruments and the AfDB’s logistics facility demonstrate that capital is available where governance is credible. If procurement, freight and energy bottlenecks are addressed in measurable ways, through tonnage, dwell times and connection rates, the sector can rebuild confidence quickly.

Transformation, too, must evolve from compliance to capability. Inclusion of black and female engineers and entrepreneurs is an economic necessity for longevity and innovation. International studies by McKinsey and the World Economic Forum show that diverse technical teams deliver up to 20% higher productivity in complex engineering environments. South Africa’s own experience can affirm that principle if opportunity and accountability align.

As the late economist Alice Amsden once observed, industrial mastery is not inherited; it must be rehearsed in each generation. South Africa’s rehearsal was interrupted, but it need not be abandoned. The true test of ourgeneration will be whether we can build on the imagination we inherited, keeping South Africa’s engineering spirit both homegrown and future-ready, so that what was once our strength never becomes someone else’s story.

Nomvula Zeldah Mabuza is a Risk Governance and Compliance Specialist with extensive experience in strategic risk and industrial operations. She holds a Diploma in Business Management (Accounting) from Brunel University, UK, and is an MBA candidate at Henley Business School, South Africa.

*** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL.

BUSINESS REPORT