Many countries around the world, especially in the Arab region, are focusing on building new administrative capitals from scratch, designed to serve as centers of governance and administration. These often serve as alternatives to overcrowded traditional capitals burdened with congestion, pollution, and structural infrastructure deficits. These cities are not just massive urban projects but represent political and economic ambitions simultaneously, promising development and investment attraction, yet also sparking debates due to their enormous costs and long-term viability.

Theoretically, the idea behind new administrative capitals is to relieve pressure on old cities, transforming them into more specialized heritage or economic centers, while moving sovereign and administrative institutions to a modern urban environment that meets “smart city” standards. This model is often proposed as a way to stimulate economic growth through large infrastructure projects, job creation, and attracting local and foreign investors. However, these goals often clash with harsh economic realities, as the high costs weigh heavily on national budgets and raise questions about priorities.

In the Arab world, Egypt’s new administrative capital is the most prominent recent example. Located about 45 kilometers east of Cairo, the project is expected to cost around 58 billion dollars, at a time when the country faces severe economic challenges, from high inflation rates to foreign currency shortages. The main goal is to ease pressure on Cairo, which has over 20 million residents. Yet, the debate remains heated: would it have been better to invest these billions in upgrading existing infrastructure and improving citizen services? Especially since the “New Administrative Capital for Urban Development Company” responsible for the project is 51% owned by the military and 49% by the Ministry of Housing, raising questions about the equitable distribution of benefits.

Besides Egypt’s experience, similar ideas have been proposed in some Arab countries, though not to the same level of implementation. In Morocco, the government is working on developing Rabat through the “Rabat, City of Lights” program, aiming to modernize administrative and cultural infrastructure without officially relocating the capital. In Jordan, plans to build a new administrative city east of Amman have been discussed repeatedly to ease pressure on the capital, with infrastructure allocations made, but the project remains in early stages and faces funding challenges.

Egypt is not alone in this experience. In Latin America, Brazil moved its capital to Brasília in 1960, aiming to develop the interior and connect the peripheries to the center. The project cost between 1.5 and 2 billion dollars at the time, equivalent to about 15-20 billion dollars today, which was a heavy burden on Brazil’s economy then.

In Asia, Indonesia is building its new capital Nusantara on the island of Borneo with a budget estimated at around 30-35 billion dollars. The declared goal is to address environmental and demographic challenges in Jakarta, which suffers from gradual sinking. The government plans to finance only about 20% of the project, relying on private investments and partnerships for the rest, posing a significant challenge amid a volatile investment climate and some investors like SoftBank pulling back.

Nigeria moved its capital from Lagos to Abuja in 1991, aiming to build a more neutral and central administrative hub away from coastal chaos. Although the total cost is hard to determine precisely, it has exceeded billions of dollars over decades, with ongoing major investments such as a light rail network costing about 823 million dollars.

In Central Asia, Kazakhstan provides another example by making Astana its new capital in 1997 instead of Almaty. The project was a massive investment from oil and gas revenues, transforming a small city into a modern metropolis with towering skyscrapers and futuristic architecture. Although the city was known as Nur-Sultan between 2019 and 2022, it has officially reverted to its original name, Astana.

These examples reveal that new administrative capitals have a dual nature: on one hand, they are major national projects that can transform infrastructure and redistribute development; on the other hand, they are costly ventures that burden economies and raise questions about priorities in countries mostly struggling with fundamental challenges in education, health, and public services.

Despite high ambitions, the outcomes remain mixed: Brasília did not fully solve Brazil’s developmental disparities, Abuja still requires massive investments to fulfill its role as a capital, while Egypt and Indonesia bet that their new capitals will prove viable in the long term.

Between these extremes, the lesson remains that cities are not built only with cement and steel but with prudent management based on an integrated vision balancing political ambitions and economic and social necessities.