Amid the forests of cranes and rising skeletons of new buildings that define Ethiopia’s construction boom, a deeply rooted conviction that imported reinforcing steel (rebar) is inherently superior to its locally manufactured counterpart continues to shape the very foundations of these structures. This widespread perception influences billions of birr in procurement decisions, creating a market paradox where anecdotal beliefs often triumph over empirical data. While debates rage in boardrooms and on construction sites, a closer look at the evidence reveals that the true fractures in the industry are not found within the steel itself, but in the inconsistent systems of governance and quality control that oversee it. The argument over origin is a distraction from the more critical, systemic failures that prevent the market from operating on a foundation of verified performance and trust. This disconnect between perception and reality carries significant economic weight, impacting everything from project costs to the nation’s trade balance, making it a critical issue for Ethiopia’s continued development.
The Perception vs. Performance Paradox
On-the-Ground Realities
In the practical world of construction and materials supply, the narrative of foreign superiority begins to unravel when subjected to rigorous testing. Seasoned suppliers like Zewge Meaza consistently report that locally produced rebar not only meets but frequently surpasses the performance of some imported alternatives. In standardized grading tests, it is not uncommon for domestic rebar to achieve higher scores—sometimes reaching up to 75—compared to Turkish imports that may score around 60. This tangible evidence of quality, combined with a significant price advantage where local steel costs approximately 185 birr per kilogram versus 198 birr for imports, creates a compelling case for domestic sourcing. Consequently, many contractors who prioritize verifiable performance and cost-efficiency are increasingly choosing local products. This trend highlights a growing divide between the broader market’s entrenched bias and the data-driven decisions made by informed buyers who trust what the tests, not the labels, tell them. This reality proves that quality is a measurable characteristic, not an inherent trait of a product’s origin.
This evidence-based approach is strongly supported by materials engineering experts, who argue that the only meaningful measure of steel quality is its adherence to established technical standards. Engineer Abebe Gashaw Beza emphasizes that from a scientific standpoint, a rebar’s country of origin is irrelevant; what matters is its compliance with benchmarks such as Compulsory Ethiopian Standards (CES), British Standard (BS), or ASTM International standards. These protocols involve a battery of exacting tests that assess critical properties, including diameter accuracy, yield strength, tensile strength, elongation, and chemical composition. Crucially, failures to meet these standards are documented in both domestic and imported batches of steel. This fact dismantles the myth of foreign infallibility and points to a more universal challenge. The existence of a system that can halt the production of a non-compliant local batch demonstrates that a quality control mechanism is in place, even if its application is imperfect. The core issue, therefore, is not the capability of local manufacturing but the consistent and transparent enforcement of these vital standards for all products in the market.
The Lingering Doubts
Despite compelling performance in standard strength tests, persistent skepticism surrounding locally produced rebar continues to circulate within certain segments of the construction industry, primarily centered on concerns about its long-term durability. This nuanced counter-argument is articulated by professionals like Engineer Elsa Fikresilassie, who posits that the chemical composition, or “purity,” of the steel is a critical factor that standard mechanical tests may not fully capture. The concern stems from the fact that much of Ethiopia’s domestic rebar is produced by recycling scrap metal. This process, while environmentally sustainable, can introduce impurities that may not be present in imported steel manufactured from virgin iron ore. According to this perspective, these impurities could render the local rebar more susceptible to corrosion over time. In reinforced concrete structures, where the steel is designed to work in tandem with concrete, the onset of rust can be catastrophic, reducing the rebar’s cross-sectional area and compromising its structural integrity—a particularly dangerous vulnerability for columns under significant stress.
This deep-seated concern over long-term performance and material purity helps explain why a preference for imported steel endures, especially for smaller-scale projects. On these projects, the volume of rebar required is more manageable, and project owners or contractors often have a lower tolerance for perceived risk. The additional cost of imported steel is seen as a worthwhile investment in peace of mind, an insurance policy against the specter of premature structural decay. This market behavior underscores that purchasing decisions are not made in a vacuum of technical specifications alone; they are heavily influenced by perceptions of risk, reliability, and trust in the regulatory environment. Until the local quality control system can build unwavering confidence across the entire industry, the narrative of “purity” and long-term durability will continue to provide a powerful, if not always empirically justified, rationale for choosing more expensive imported alternatives. The challenge for local producers is not just to meet the standards but to overcome a legacy of doubt that has become embedded in the market’s psychology.
Systemic Failures Beyond the Billet
Economic and Market Distortions
The ongoing debate over rebar quality is not merely a technical dispute; it carries profound economic implications for Ethiopia. The steel industry forms the backbone of the nation’s ambitious infrastructure development, with the rebar market alone accounting for a staggering 45 percent of revenue within the long steel products sector. However, this critical market is far from competitive. An analysis using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), a common measure of market concentration, yields a score of 6,993, signifying a highly concentrated industry. In such an environment, where a few major players dominate, price distortions become more common, and market perceptions can wield disproportionate power over purchasing decisions, often overriding objective performance data. This structural imbalance makes it difficult for the market to self-correct based on quality and value, allowing long-standing biases against local products to persist and influence a significant sector of the economy.
This market structure, coupled with the prevailing perception of foreign superiority, has tangible consequences for Ethiopia’s national finances. Despite a recent 18 percent increase in local steel output, the country remains a net importer of iron and steel, spending over $670 million on these imports in 2023 alone. This substantial expenditure represents a significant drain on foreign currency reserves and places a considerable burden on the national economy. The reliance on imports, driven in large part by the very quality debate in question, highlights how market sentiment can directly impact macroeconomic stability. Consequently, resolving this issue is no longer just a matter for engineers and contractors; it has become a crucial element of national economic strategy. Building institutional trust in locally manufactured steel is essential to reducing import dependency, strengthening the domestic industrial base, and ensuring that the economic benefits of Ethiopia’s construction boom are more fully realized at home.
Identifying the Core Issues
A comprehensive synthesis of expert opinions, market data, and on-the-ground reports reveals that the true problem plaguing the Ethiopian steel market is not a simple dichotomy of local versus imported. The evidence overwhelmingly points away from an inherent flaw in domestic manufacturing capabilities and toward a more systemic issue of inconsistency and weak oversight across the entire supply chain. The most frequently identified weaknesses—such as underweight bars that meet strength criteria but lack the required mass per unit length, or insufficient ductility for seismic resilience—are found in both locally produced and imported products. These are not failures of origin but rather failures of quality assurance and inconsistent enforcement. This finding shifts the focus from a flawed product to a flawed process, suggesting that the regulatory framework designed to ensure quality is not being applied with the necessary rigor and uniformity to all players in the market.
Ultimately, the debate is less about metallurgy and more about governance. Ethiopia has the necessary infrastructure in place, including established standards and testing laboratories capable of verifying product quality. The missing link is a robust, transparent, and consistently applied enforcement regime that can build and sustain market confidence. In the absence of such a system, perceptions, however inaccurate, will continue to shape market behavior. The current preference for local rebar in large-scale projects is often driven more by the practicalities of securing large quantities at a lower cost than by a universal conviction in its quality—a situation aptly described as one where “quantity usually wins.” This transactional decision-making process, based on logistics rather than institutional trust, underscores the urgent need for stronger governance. Building that trust is the key to creating a market that operates on verified performance rather than entrenched biases.
A New Foundation Built on Trust
The path forward requires a fundamental shift in focus from debating the origin of steel to strengthening the entire quality control ecosystem. Improving testing regimes, ensuring full transparency in the reporting of results, and holding all producers and importers to the same exacting standards would effectively level the playing field. Such reforms would empower the market to operate on the basis of verified performance rather than on outdated perceptions and biases. This, in turn, would benefit not only the construction sector through more reliable materials but also the national economy by fostering a more competitive and self-sufficient domestic industry. The experience of vendors who have built trust with clients, transaction by transaction, showed that confidence was earned through proven performance. For the Ethiopian rebar market to mature, that trust needs to be institutionalized through reliable, transparent, and unwavering governance, creating a new foundation for the nation’s growth.
