Tweet
The Atlantic had a very good piece in May on the infrastructure investment made by the Chinese in Africa.
The piece highlights an interesting contrast between Western aid to Africa and Chinese capital influx. For the past several decades the West has offered low-rate loans and outright aid to African nations with some strings, albeit loosely tied. This has created little incentive for the regions' governing class to to change behavior, wisely spend or properly distribute the funding. It has also created some resentment from the recipients as Western pressure periodically mounts to change the governing system.
The Chinese have chosen a different strategy. The concept of aid has been thrown out while market-rate loans and foreign ownership are in. They've made massive investments in transportation infrastructure, mining, and agriculture but have insisted on Chinese management and control. The limited evidence suggests that it's been effective, though more time needs to pass before accurate judgment can be rendered. There is significant resistance to the Chinese for their labor standards and treatment of local laborers, much of it stemming through a brief mid-90's Chinese venture into mining in Africa.
There is an interesting calculation behind China's moves. Part of it is survival, food security and natural resources for manufacturing. The other part is obviously a global power play. They're flexing their muscles to the rest of the world, succeeding where the West has failed. The final paragraph of the second article posted here closes thusly:
I'm not certain how accurate a statement this is; the lines she draws seem a bit too sharp. As with all things involving 21st century China, it will be fascinating to watch.
The piece highlights an interesting contrast between Western aid to Africa and Chinese capital influx. For the past several decades the West has offered low-rate loans and outright aid to African nations with some strings, albeit loosely tied. This has created little incentive for the regions' governing class to to change behavior, wisely spend or properly distribute the funding. It has also created some resentment from the recipients as Western pressure periodically mounts to change the governing system.
The Chinese have chosen a different strategy. The concept of aid has been thrown out while market-rate loans and foreign ownership are in. They've made massive investments in transportation infrastructure, mining, and agriculture but have insisted on Chinese management and control. The limited evidence suggests that it's been effective, though more time needs to pass before accurate judgment can be rendered. There is significant resistance to the Chinese for their labor standards and treatment of local laborers, much of it stemming through a brief mid-90's Chinese venture into mining in Africa.
There is an interesting calculation behind China's moves. Part of it is survival, food security and natural resources for manufacturing. The other part is obviously a global power play. They're flexing their muscles to the rest of the world, succeeding where the West has failed. The final paragraph of the second article posted here closes thusly:
While the West supports microfinance for the poor in Africa, China is setting up a $5 billion equity fund to foster investment there. The West advocates trade liberalization to open African markets; China constructs special economic zones to draw Chinese firms to the continent. Westerners support government and democracy; the Chinese build roads and dams. In so doing, China may wind up supporting some dictatorial and corrupt regimes, but -- and this is an inconvenient truth -- the West also supports such regimes when it advances its interests. And given the limits of the West's success in promoting development in Africa so far, perhaps Westerners should be less judgmental and more open-minded in assessing China's initiatives there.
Comment