Who Gets Left Behind? Mapping Regional Inequalities in Access to Development Investment in Tunisia

Development investment is often presented through national figures: billions allocated, hundreds of projects approved, thousands of beneficiaries targeted and major programmes launched.

But national figures can hide important differences between regions.

A country can record substantial public and international development investment while communities in some areas continue to face limited access to infrastructure, employment opportunities, health services, water, transport, markets and other essential services.

This creates a central investigative question:

How equally is development investment reaching the people and regions that need it most?

Answering this question requires more than comparing the amount of money spent in each governorate. A serious investigation must examine population size, poverty and vulnerability, existing infrastructure, project implementation, beneficiary numbers, geographical distribution and the actual results experienced by communities.

The objective is not to assume that one region has been treated unfairly.

The objective is to establish, through evidence, where development investment is going, who receives it, what it produces and whether the distribution corresponds to documented needs.

National Numbers Can Hide Local Reality

A national development budget can appear substantial.

But the national figure does not explain how resources are distributed geographically.

Imagine two regions receiving the same amount of investment.

If one region has a population twice as large, the amount per inhabitant is different.

If one region has substantially greater infrastructure deficits or higher social vulnerability, the same nominal investment may also have a different significance.

This is why geographical investigation requires more than simply counting projects.

The journalist needs to examine several dimensions simultaneously.

The First Map: Where Is the Money Going?

The starting point is to build a geographical database of development projects.

For each project, investigators should record:

• project name;
• governorate;
• delegation;
• municipality;
• sector;
• financing source;
• original budget;
• contract value;
• implementation period;
• target population;
• current status;
• completion rate;
• operational status.

The resulting database can then be used to produce a map of development investment.

This allows journalists to identify concentrations of projects and areas where investment appears limited.

But a map is only the beginning.

Investment Per Person

A region receiving a large total investment is not necessarily receiving more investment relative to its population.

The basic calculation is:

Total development investment ÷ population = investment per inhabitant

This indicator can help journalists compare regions more meaningfully.

However, it must be used carefully.

Population size alone does not determine development needs.

A region with a smaller population may require significant investment because of geographic isolation, infrastructure deficits or particular economic and social conditions.

Therefore, investment per capita should be treated as one indicator among several.

Investment and Need

The more important comparison is:

Investment allocation versus documented development need.

A region may have:

• higher unemployment;
• greater poverty;
• weaker infrastructure;
• lower access to services;
• limited transport connections;
• greater exposure to climate risks;
• fewer economic opportunities.

If such conditions are documented, they provide a basis for examining whether investment patterns correspond to identified needs.

The journalist should avoid making assumptions about fairness.

Instead, the investigation should ask:

Does the geographical distribution of investment correspond to the geographical distribution of documented needs?

The Regional Development Gap

Regional inequality is not only about income.

It can also concern access to infrastructure and public services.

A community may have lower household income but relatively good access to schools and health facilities.

Another community may have similar income levels but face long distances to essential services.

A third may have significant natural or economic potential but inadequate infrastructure preventing local businesses from expanding.

Therefore, regional development should be examined through multiple indicators.

These may include:

Employment

Income

Poverty

Education

Health

Water access

Transport

Digital connectivity

Agricultural infrastructure

Business activity

Public investment

Climate vulnerability

The investigation should identify reliable indicators and compare them over time.

From Governorate to Delegation

Governorate-level statistics can still hide local differences.

A governorate may contain economically dynamic urban centres alongside rural communities with very different conditions.

For this reason, a deeper investigation should move from:

National level

to

Governorate

to

Delegation

and, where data allow:

Municipality or locality.

This geographic scale can reveal patterns that disappear in national averages.

A project serving a small number of communities may have a significant local effect even if it is invisible in national statistics.

Who Are the Beneficiaries?

The number of projects does not tell us how many people actually benefit.

One large infrastructure project may serve tens of thousands of people.

Several smaller projects may serve much smaller populations.

Therefore, the investigation should record beneficiary numbers wherever possible.

But even beneficiary counts require verification.

The journalist should ask:

How were beneficiaries identified?

Are they direct or indirect beneficiaries?

Are the same households counted across multiple activities?

Are women and men represented separately?

Are young people identified separately?

Are vulnerable groups included?

Were beneficiary figures estimated or verified?

These questions help prevent simple project counts from becoming misleading measures of impact.

Direct and Indirect Beneficiaries

Development documents sometimes distinguish between direct and indirect beneficiaries.

This distinction matters.

A project may directly support a limited number of farmers but indirectly affect a much larger community through improved roads or markets.

The investigation should therefore avoid adding direct and indirect figures together without understanding their definitions.

Instead, it should establish:

Who received the intervention directly?

Who is expected to benefit indirectly?

How were these figures calculated?

Is there evidence that indirect benefits actually occurred?

The Sector Map

Geographical inequality can also be examined by sector.

One region may receive substantial investment in roads.

Another may receive agricultural infrastructure.

Another may receive social programmes.

Another may receive water-related projects.

Therefore, journalists should create separate maps or datasets for:

• transport;
• water;
• health;
• education;
• agriculture;
• employment;
• digital infrastructure;
• local economic development;
• social protection;
• environmental projects.

This allows investigators to examine not only where money goes, but what type of development reaches each region.

Rural Areas Require Special Attention

Rural communities can be difficult to capture through national indicators.

A rural population may be dispersed across many small settlements.

Infrastructure costs can be higher because distances are greater.

Public transportation may be limited.

Access to markets may be difficult.

Health and education facilities may be farther away.

Development programmes targeting rural populations therefore need indicators adapted to these realities.

A project can technically cover a large number of beneficiaries while still leaving isolated communities without adequate access.

This makes field verification particularly important.

The Distance Test

One practical investigative method is the distance-to-service test.

Instead of asking only whether a service exists, ask:

How far must residents travel to access it?

This can be applied to:

• health facilities;
• schools;
• administrative services;
• markets;
• transport;
• water infrastructure;
• employment services.

A facility may exist within a governorate but remain difficult to access for remote communities.

Geographical accessibility is therefore an important dimension of development impact.

The Infrastructure Test

The existence of infrastructure is not sufficient.

An investigation should examine whether it is:

completed,

operational,

accessible,

maintained,

and

used by the intended population.

A newly constructed facility that remains closed does not provide the same public benefit as a functioning facility.

A road that requires major repairs shortly after completion raises different questions from a road that remains usable and maintained.

The field test connects investment figures to physical reality.

Investment Versus Implementation

A second important comparison is between allocated investment and actual implementation.

For each region, investigators can examine:

planned projects

versus

contracted projects

versus

projects under implementation

versus

completed projects

versus

operational projects.

This creates a regional implementation chain.

A region may receive a significant allocation but experience slow implementation.

Another may have fewer projects but a higher completion rate.

Both dimensions matter.

The Delay Map

Project delays can also be mapped geographically.

For each project, record:

Original completion date

Current completion date

Months delayed

Reason for delay

Current physical status

This can reveal whether implementation problems are isolated or concentrated geographically or by sector.

Again, the presence of delays does not automatically establish misconduct.

The purpose is to identify patterns that deserve further investigation.

Public Investment and Local Economies

Development investment can affect local economies in different ways.

Infrastructure can reduce transportation costs.

Agricultural projects can improve access to markets.

Business support can facilitate investment.

Training programmes can strengthen skills.

Public facilities can create local employment during construction and operation.

But these effects should not be assumed.

The investigation should look for evidence.

For example:

Did local businesses report improved market access?

Did transportation times change?

Did employment increase?

Did household income change?

Did new enterprises survive?

Did farmers increase production or sales?

Did the infrastructure remain operational?

The answers require data and field reporting.

Women and Young People

Regional investment should also be examined through demographic groups.

A programme may be geographically distributed but still reach different groups unevenly.

For example:

Women may face different barriers to employment.

Young people may have limited access to economic opportunities.

Rural households may face transportation constraints.

Persons with disabilities may encounter accessibility barriers.

The investigation should therefore examine beneficiary data by gender, age and other relevant categories where reliable data are available.

This does not mean assuming unequal treatment.

It means checking whether the stated target groups were actually reached.

Climate Risk and Regional Investment

Climate change adds another dimension.

Different parts of Tunisia face different environmental pressures.

Water scarcity, drought, heat and other climate-related risks can affect agriculture, infrastructure and livelihoods.

Development investment should therefore be examined against local climate vulnerability where relevant.

A region exposed to significant water stress may require different infrastructure priorities from another region.

The investigation can ask:

Are development investments responding to documented climate risks?

Are projects designed to remain functional under changing conditions?

Are climate-resilience indicators included in project monitoring?

These questions are increasingly relevant to long-term development planning.

Development Investment and Local Participation

Another important question concerns participation.

Were local communities consulted during project design?

Were municipalities involved?

Were local organizations or community representatives consulted?

Did beneficiaries participate in identifying priorities?

Was feedback collected during implementation?

Participation does not guarantee successful implementation.

But understanding how priorities were established can help explain why some projects respond more closely to local needs than others.

The Regional Development Evidence File

For each region selected for investigation, journalists can create a standardized evidence file.

1. Population

Population size and demographic characteristics.

2. Development indicators

Employment, poverty, income, services and infrastructure.

3. Investment

Public and development-financing allocations.

4. Projects

Project names, sectors and locations.

5. Implementation

Physical and financial progress.

6. Beneficiaries

Direct and indirect target groups.

7. Accessibility

Distance and practical access to services.

8. Outcomes

Evidence of measurable change.

9. Field observations

Site visits, photographs and interviews.

10. Institutional response

Official explanations and responses to findings.

This allows different regions to be investigated using comparable criteria.

Comparing Regions Without Creating Misleading Rankings

Regional comparisons can be useful, but they must be constructed carefully.

A simple ranking based only on money received can produce a misleading picture.

Instead, journalists can present several separate indicators:

Investment per inhabitant

Investment relative to documented need

Project implementation rate

Completion rate

Operational rate

Beneficiary coverage

Access to services

Outcome indicators

These indicators should be presented separately rather than reduced to a single score.

This allows readers to understand the complexity of regional development.

Following One Region Over Time

A particularly valuable investigation can follow the same region for several years.

The journalist can establish a baseline and then return periodically.

For example:

Year 1: projects announced.

Year 2: contracts awarded.

Year 3: implementation progress.

Year 4: completion.

Year 5: operational results.

This longitudinal approach can reveal whether investment produces durable change or whether improvements remain temporary.

The Field Investigation

Data should guide field reporting.

Once the database identifies projects or areas requiring closer examination, journalists can visit selected locations.

The field investigation should document:

• what was promised;
• what exists;
• what is functioning;
• what residents use;
• what remains unfinished;
• what changed;
• what problems remain.

Interviews should include beneficiaries as well as responsible institutions and, where relevant, contractors or project-management representatives.

What Happens When the Numbers Look Good?

A region may show high investment and strong implementation figures.

That should not end the investigation.

The journalist should ask:

Are the projects operational?

Are beneficiaries using them?

Are outcomes measurable?

Are benefits sustainable?

Is maintenance funded?

Has the original problem actually improved?

High expenditure can coexist with limited long-term impact.

Conversely, a relatively modest project can sometimes produce significant local benefits.

The investigation should therefore focus on evidence of change, not simply expenditure volume.

What Happens When the Numbers Look Bad?

The opposite situation also requires caution.

Low investment figures may reflect the fact that a region's development needs are being addressed through national programmes, private investment or projects classified under another geographic level.

Therefore, low visible expenditure in one database does not automatically prove underinvestment.

The journalist should search across relevant sources before drawing conclusions.

Transparency as a Regional Right

Access to information is particularly important for communities that want to understand development decisions affecting them.

Residents should be able to ask:

Which projects are planned for our area?

How much will they cost?

Who will implement them?

When will they be completed?

Who will benefit?

What is their current status?

What has changed since the project began?

Transparent information allows communities to participate more effectively in discussions about development priorities.

The Central Investigative Question

The investigation ultimately returns to one question:

Who gets left behind?

To answer it responsibly, journalists should not begin with a conclusion.

They should begin with evidence.

Map the money.

Map the projects.

Map the beneficiaries.

Map implementation.

Map access to services.

Compare the evidence with documented needs.

Then go to the field.

Speak with residents.

Verify the infrastructure.

Examine the data.

Ask institutions to explain the differences.

This approach can reveal where development investment is reaching communities effectively and where important questions remain unanswered.

Conclusion

Regional development cannot be understood through national averages alone.

A meaningful investigation must examine the geographical distribution of investment, the needs of different communities, the implementation of projects and the actual outcomes experienced by beneficiaries.

The key questions are straightforward:

Where is the money going?

Which regions receive it?

Which sectors receive investment?

Who are the intended beneficiaries?

Are projects completed?

Are they operational?

Do they correspond to documented needs?

What has changed on the ground?

Which communities remain underserved?

The purpose of such an investigation is not to produce a simplistic regional ranking.

It is to make the development map visible.

When public and international development resources are mapped against needs, implementation and outcomes, citizens can better understand how development decisions translate into real changes in their communities.

The strongest regional investigation therefore does not stop at asking where money was spent.

It asks:

Where did the investment produce measurable change, where did it not, and what evidence explains the difference?

---

Investigative Methodology

This report proposes a geographical, document-based, data-driven and field-reporting methodology for investigating regional inequalities in access to development investment.

The investigation should combine public budget information, procurement records, project documents, monitoring reports, statistical indicators, financing information, beneficiary data and field observations.

Comparisons should use consistent definitions and reference periods. Investment figures should be examined in relation to population, documented development needs, project implementation and measurable outcomes. National, governorate and local-level data should not be mixed without explaining their different geographical coverage.

Where evidence is incomplete, the limitation should be clearly identified. Where discrepancies appear between official reporting and field observations, responsible institutions should be contacted and given an opportunity to respond.

The investigation should avoid reducing complex regional development patterns to a single ranking or score. Instead, separate indicators should be presented so that readers can examine the evidence themselves.

A document- and data-based investigative report
Prepared and published by: Mohamed Chaieb Barhoumi
ATEP MED – Arabic Digital Center for Media & Development