For much of modern history, the African continent has been a hunting ground for all kinds of exploiters—from colonialism to kleptocratic governments. Today, as we navigate the mid-2020s, the People’s Republic of China is undeniably the dominant external economic force, shifting the geopolitical balance and fueling a global debate: Is this a new era of mutually beneficial development, or a sophisticated form of subjugation?
Advertisement
The past six years have only amplified the scale of China’s engagement, deepening the ties and making China one of the continent’s single most important economic partners.
The Economic Earthquake Continues
The raw numbers from the period spanning 2005 to 2018 placed Chinese investments and contracts in sub-Saharan Africa at a staggering $299 billion. Since then, the financial commitments have continued, albeit with a shifting focus.
Following the 2024 Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) Summit in Beijing, China announced a new package of financial support, with recent pledges of over $50 billion committed to African projects for the 2025-2027 period. This commitment, made despite China’s own economic challenges, signals a robust, long-term strategy.
However, the reality remains that the China-Africa relationship extends far beyond state action.
-
Private Sector Dominance: Over 10,000 Chinese firms continue to operate across Africa, with roughly 90% being privately owned. These firms are responsible for an estimated 12% of Africa’s total industrial output, bringing significant capital, technical know-how, and entrepreneurial energy.
-
Infrastructure Lead: China’s market share in African infrastructure remains pronounced, with nearly half of all internationally advertised construction contracts still going to Chinese companies.
-
A Shift to New Sectors: While traditional investments in energy and resources continue, recent trends, highlighted in the 2024 FOCAC agenda, show a major pivot toward:
-
Industrialization and Manufacturing
-
Digital Innovation and Green Development
-
Pharmaceuticals and Agriculture
-
The Local Impact: Progress Amidst Ethical Lags
Contrary to common belief, the massive economic infusion generates significant local employment. Studies continue to estimate that native-born Africans account for an average of 89% of the total workforce in Chinese firms. Furthermore, improved technology and greater economies of scale have lowered consumer prices for goods and services.
Yet, ethical and moral challenges persist:
-
Employment rates for indigenous Africans in managerial and supervisory jobs remain disproportionately low.
-
Reports of poor working conditions and illegal overproduction of delicate resources like timber and fish, though less common than a decade ago, still surface, underscoring the distance many Chinese businesses must travel to meet global ethical standards.
Advertisement
The sheer scale of this engagement means that a significant portion of the recent surge in national GDP growth across the continent can be traced back to Beijing, whether critics acknowledge it or not.
The ‘Debt-Trap’ Debate: The Crisis Point
The most prominent accusation levied by Western institutions—the theory of “debt-trap diplomacy”—has intensified as a number of African nations face significant debt distress in the mid-2020s.
The mechanism described years ago remains the same: China offers loans for large infrastructure projects, secured by the project itself or natural resources. The inevitable failure of African governments to meet repayments then grants China the legal right to seize control of valuable assets.
However, the narrative is not monolithic:
-
The Critics’ Case: Repayments on Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) loans, peaking in the mid-2020s, have placed an enormous financial strain on developing economies. Critics point to the economic fallout from COVID-19 and rising global interest rates that have undermined the ability of many African nations to service their sovereign debts.
-
The African Counter-Argument: African leaders and many academics strongly refute the “debt-trap” label, arguing that it minimizes the agency and sovereignty of African decision-makers. They point out that China’s lending only accounts for a fraction of Africa’s total debt (which includes significant debt to Western private creditors and multilateral institutions), but it has provided funding where others would not.
African governments, from Rwanda to South Africa, maintain that the outcome of these resource-backed loans ultimately depends on the political will and competence of African states to ensure the infrastructure projects generate sufficient returns to meet their obligations.
A New Era of Partnership or a New Form of Control?
The prevailing view among African elites continues to see China as a pragmatic and reliable ally—a nation that respects sovereignty and cultural differences, and one that has firsthand experience in overcoming poverty and foreign imperialism. This contrasts sharply with the often-perceived paternalism of traditional Western approaches.
China’s recent pledge to eliminate tariffs on 98% of imports from the least-developed African nations with diplomatic ties further illustrates a strategic move to foster trade over aid and address long-standing trade imbalances.
Ultimately, the China-Africa relationship is a high-stakes gamble. Chinese investment capital offers African governments a vital alternative to the conditional, and often slow, lending of the IMF and the World Bank. The question remains: can African governments defy expectations and successfully manage the risks associated with Chinese-term funding?
If they can rise to the occasion, the China-Africa partnership may yet prove to be the most significant driver of sustainable development across the continent in the 21st century. If they fail, the critics’ fears may well be realised.