Are Major Infrastructure Projects Really More Efficient in the Middle East?
Andrew Stephens
Senior Account Manager @ Bentley - Cohesive | Driving transformational outcomes in transport
A closer look at the UAE, global comparisons, and the lessons for the rest of the world
When we think of megaprojects in the Middle East—gleaming metros, futuristic skyscrapers, vast airports—there’s a recurring narrative: things simply get done. Timelines are short, delivery looks smooth, and the results are visually stunning. Compare that with Western infrastructure—often mired in debate, delays, and spiralling costs—and the contrast feels stark.
But is the Middle East truly more efficient? Or is this perception shaped as much by political culture, branding, and visibility as by engineering and project management? And crucially, are there positive lessons to be drawn from both models?
The truth is more complex than the headlines.
The Image of Efficiency in the Gulf
The Gulf states—especially the UAE, Qatar, and increasingly Saudi Arabia—have delivered a series of eye-catching projects that feed the perception of relentless efficiency:
By contrast, European and American projects often dominate headlines for the opposite reasons:
It’s no wonder many assume the Middle East has “cracked the code” of delivery. Yet the apparent difference has less to do with raw efficiency and more to do with context.
Why Projects Move Faster in the Gulf
To understand the contrasts, we need to look at the underlying conditions that shape project delivery.
1. Centralised Decision-Making
In Gulf states, infrastructure is tied to national visions—such as Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 or Dubai’s transformation into a global hub. Once leadership commits, approvals cascade quickly, and execution follows with few institutional veto points.
In the West, by contrast, projects are entangled in layers of approvals—local councils, environmental regulators, community groups, parliaments, and courts. This deliberative model slows things down but ensures broader scrutiny.
Positive takeaway:
2. Labour Structures
Large Gulf projects rely heavily on expatriate workforces—often migrant workers from South Asia—who can be mobilised quickly, live in dedicated accommodation, and work on tightly managed schedules.
Western projects operate within stricter labour protections, union agreements, and working-hour limits. This makes scaling up harder but ensures worker welfare and long-term skills retention.
Positive takeaway:
3. Financing Models
Many Gulf projects are state-backed, funded by sovereign wealth, or underpinned by oil and gas revenues. This reduces financing uncertainty—no constant renegotiations over budget cycles.
Western projects often depend on complex mixes of private finance, public funds, and political compromise, leaving them exposed to election cycles or economic downturns.
Positive takeaway:
4. Cultural Attitudes to Change
In much of Europe and North America, infrastructure expansion encounters strong public opposition—environmental groups, heritage campaigns, or simply “not in my backyard” resistance.
In the Gulf, with stronger state control over land use and planning, change happens more smoothly. Projects are framed as part of a broader narrative of progress.
Positive takeaway:
5. Prestige and Nation Branding
The Gulf uses infrastructure as a symbol of global ambition: airports as gateways to the world, skyscrapers as icons of modernity, entire cities as proof of transformation.
Western infrastructure tends to be more utilitarian—focused on functionality rather than spectacle. This reduces prestige pressure but encourages pragmatism.
Positive takeaway:
Case Studies: East vs. West in Practice
To see these dynamics in action, let’s compare landmark projects side by side.
Case Study 1: Dubai Metro vs. HS2 (UK)
Comparison: Dubai Metro demonstrates how centralised vision, financing certainty, and prestige-driven motivation deliver speed. HS2 highlights the costs of democratic debate—but also shows how local engagement and environmental scrutiny shape more accountable delivery.
Both bring positives: one embodies speed and transformation; the other embeds accountability and transparency, even at the expense of efficiency.
Case Study 2: Berlin Brandenburg vs. Hamad International Airport
Comparison: Berlin highlights the risks of over-engineering, constant design changes, and political micromanagement. Doha shows the benefits of strong vision and financing—but also the challenge of mega-project scale.
Positives? Berlin, despite its delays, delivered a technically advanced airport that will serve Europe for decades. Doha created a globally recognised hub that reinforces Qatar’s international standing. Both, ultimately, achieved their aims.
Case Study 3: NEOM vs. California High-Speed Rail
Comparison: Both represent visionary ambition, both face financial and technical challenges, and both will take decades to realise. The difference lies in narrative: NEOM is marketed as transformative nation-building, while California HSR is bogged down as a contested policy project.
The positive? NEOM shows how ambition inspires global debate about the future of cities. California HSR demonstrates how democratic processes keep public spending in check and focus on incremental progress.
The Positives on Both Sides
When we look closely, both the Middle Eastern and Western approaches bring genuine strengths:
Rather than one being “better,” they are optimised for different contexts.
What the Rest of the World Can Learn
The real value lies in cross-learning.
Imagine a model that combines:
That might just redefine infrastructure delivery for the 21st century.
Conclusion: Beyond the Myth of Efficiency
The perception that the Middle East is more efficient than the West in infrastructure delivery is partly true—but it oversimplifies a complex picture. Speed in the Gulf comes from centralised decision-making, flexible labour, and branding imperatives. Delays in the West come from democratic debate, citizen protections, and financing complexity.
Both approaches bring positives: one delivers iconic, transformative projects quickly; the other ensures accountability, sustainability, and community integration.
True efficiency isn’t just about speed. It’s about whether projects deliver lasting value, serve the people they are meant for, and stand the test of time.
In that sense, the world has much to learn from both Dubai and London, Doha and Berlin, Riyadh and Sacramento. The challenge is finding the balance—building fast and building right.
Principal Solutions Architect & Distinguished Engineer at Bentley Systems. Information Management and Digital Twin Evangelist.
4dGood article Andy well done.
Lead Information Manager @ Sizewell C | Project Management, Business Analysis
1wThis is a sharp and well-balanced piece, Andrew. Having worked on major infrastructure projects across both the UK and the Middle East, I’ve seen firsthand how dramatically different delivery models can shape outcomes. In the Gulf, the pace and ambition are unmatched—centralised authority and streamlined approvals enable rapid execution, often with striking architectural and branding vision. In contrast, UK projects tend to be more deliberative, with a strong emphasis on stakeholder engagement, environmental impact, and long-term value. What’s clear is that neither model is universally superior. The real opportunity lies in cross-pollination—adopting the Gulf’s decisiveness and scale where appropriate, while preserving the UK’s rigour and accountability. If we can find ways to blend these strengths, we might just redefine what “world-class infrastructure” really means. Thanks for sparking such a thoughtful discussion.