The Infrastructure Game in Africa: Why Both China and the West are Missing the Point

Africa’s infrastructure landscape is increasingly shaped by competition between Chinese and Western financiers, but the real story lies elsewhere. Outcomes depend less on who builds what than on the uneven strength of African states themselves, where differences in coordination, authority, and institutional capacity determine whether investment translates into lasting development. The map of infrastructure is, ultimately, a map of state capacity.

There is a particular kind of tunnel vision that afflicts great powers when they engage with the African continent. It is the tendency to see a landscape of needs and opportunities without fully reckoning with the governments and citizens who have been navigating those needs and negotiating around them long before any external partner arrived. Nowhere is this more apparent today than in the contest over African infrastructure, a competition that Washington and Brussels have framed almost entirely in terms of their rivalry with Beijing, while African governments quietly get on with the business of leveraging both sides to their own strategic advantage.

This framing problem is not merely rhetorical. It has real consequences for how infrastructure deals are structured, what conditionalities get attached, and ultimately whether the roads, railways, and energy grids being built actually serve the populations they are meant to connect. But the most consequential variable in this contest is one that neither side has adequately engaged with, namely the institutional capacity of African states themselves and the systematic failure of external partners to invest in it, because doing so would slow the deals down.

The Lobito Corridor: Promise, Minerals, and the Limits of Alignment

The Lobito Corridor is the West’s most serious infrastructure bet in Africa right now. Stretching roughly 1300 kilometres from the Atlantic port city of Lobito in Angola through to the mineral-rich borderlands of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zambia, it is simultaneously a development project, a geopolitical signal, and a critical minerals play. The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation has committed $553 million to upgrade and operate the Lobito Atlantic Railway. Total American investment has grown to over $4 billion, and the EU has mobilised more than €2 billion across the three countries. Freight shipments that once ran once a month now run twice a week (U.S. Embassy Tanzania, 2024).

But read the strategic logic carefully, and a tension emerges. The corridor exists, in no small part, because the cobalt and copper buried beneath the DRC and Zambia are essential to Western electric vehicle supply chains and clean energy ambitions. Angola, the DRC, and Zambia understand this perfectly and have made clear that their interest is in building processing capacity and value chains on African soil, not merely exporting raw materials more efficiently to Western consumers. At the 2025 EU-Zambia Lobito Corridor Business Forum, Zambian President Hichilema was unambiguous, Zambia wants investment that industrialises, not investment that extracts (European Union External Action Service, 2025).

This is the corridor’s central tension, and it is not yet resolved. Western partners have improved their rhetoric around local value addition, but the structural incentives pulling toward raw material extraction remain powerful. Whether the alignment holds as negotiations deepen will depend on something that rarely features in Western policy documents. It will depend on the DRC’s and Zambia’s respective capacity to sustain coordinated bargaining. And here the two countries diverge sharply. Zambia, with its relatively functional public financial management systems and a government that has demonstrated willingness to engage creditors on its own terms, is better positioned than the DRC, where state capacity in the relevant ministries is considerably thinner and where elite capture of resource revenues has historically undermined even well-intentioned external partnerships. The corridor is a single project spanning two very different institutional realities. That difference matters.

Kenya’s Railway: When Governance Fails on Both Sides

If the Lobito Corridor represents the promise of a new model, Kenya’s Standard Gauge Railway tells a more structurally revealing story, one that resists both the “debt trap” narrative and its mirror image.

Built by the China Road and Bridge Corporation under a no-bid contract and financed with approximately $4.7 billion in loans from China’s Exim Bank, the SGR connecting Mombasa to Nairobi opened in 2017 as a symbol of transformative ambition. By 2022, Kenya had defaulted on its Exim Bank loans. By late 2025, SGR debt payments were consuming a disproportionate share of Kenya’s total foreign debt service, with some estimates placing the figure as high as 81% in peak repayment periods (Africa Defense Forum, 2025), a trajectory confirmed in direction, if not in precise magnitude, by the Kenyan National Treasury’s own annual debt management reports (Kenya National Treasury, 2024).

The temptation is to read this as a straightforward debt trap story. That reading is too simple, and scholars have been right to push back on it. Brautigam (2020) and Jones and Hameiri (2020) have systematically challenged the evidence base for the debt trap thesis, arguing that Chinese lending is better explained by the commercial and political economy dynamics of the Chinese state rather than by strategic predation.

Research drawn from Kenya’s own executive records reinforces this. Alden and Otele (2022) show that the SGR was primarily a Kenyan initiative, with domestic elite collusion and weak institutional oversight driving the most problematic aspects of the deal. The failure was not principally a knowledge failure. It was a political capacity failure. The inability of institutional checks to resist executive pressure, elite capture, and the short-term electoral rewards of announcing a flagship project.

But this is precisely where the distinction between technical and political capacity becomes important. Kenya’s technical capacity to appraise the SGR, to model debt sustainability, assess freight demand projections, and benchmark against comparable projects, existed in pockets of its civil service and was largely bypassed.

China’s Exim Bank, for its part, entered the deal with standardised contract terms, confidentiality clauses, and a commercial playbook that was structurally compatible with, and in places quietly reliant upon, the weakness of Kenya’s political accountability mechanisms. As Malik et al. (2021) document in their comprehensive analysis of Chinese development finance, opacity and collateralisation are characteristic features of BRI-era lending, creating public financial management challenges that host governments are frequently ill-equipped to navigate.

In late 2025, Kenya negotiated a currency swap converting its railway loans from dollars to yuan, saving approximately $215 million annually, a pragmatic and creative renegotiation (Bloomberg, 2025). But it is a renegotiation of terms, not a resolution of the underlying vulnerability.

It is worth noting that neither Western development finance institutions, which have funded governance programmes in Kenya for decades, nor Chinese lenders, have shown serious interest in the kind of independent debt appraisal and procurement reform that might prevent the next version of this story. The incentive to close deals is, on both sides, stronger than the incentive to build the systems that would make deals more accountable (Hameiri and Jones, 2024).

Rwanda, Ethiopia, and the Discipline of Multi-Alignment

Rwanda is frequently invoked as a paradigmatic case of disciplined multi-alignment, and in important respects that designation is justified. It has deepened its engagement with China while simultaneously sustaining close strategic relationships with the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. Its elevation of bilateral ties with China to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership at the 2024 FOCAC summit, alongside record trade levels, reflects not episodic diplomacy but a consistent external strategy embedded within a coherent national development framework.

What distinguishes Rwanda in comparative perspective is not simply its ability to engage multiple partners, but the institutional architecture that allows it to do so with a high degree of coordination. The state’s planning apparatus, fiscal discipline, and project implementation systems are unusually centralised and technically capable, enabling it to evaluate, sequence, and absorb external finance in ways that many African states struggle to replicate. Vision 2050 functions not merely as a planning document but as a disciplining device for state action, aligning external partnerships with internally defined priorities rather than the reverse.

Yet it is precisely here that Rwanda complicates the standard narrative of “successful governance.” Its institutional coherence is inseparable from a political settlement characterised by strong executive centralisation and constrained plural accountability. The efficiency of delivery is real, but it is also politically structured. Decisions are concentrated, dissent is limited, and policy direction is tightly managed from the centre. This configuration can produce impressive short to medium-term coordination, particularly in infrastructure and investment strategy, but it raises a deeper question about institutional durability and adaptability over time.

The analytical issue, therefore, is not whether Rwanda “works,” but under what political conditions it works, and at what cost to the evolution of countervailing institutions that typically underpin long-run resilience. In this sense, Rwanda represents a form of high-capacity governance that is effective in negotiating external partnerships, yet simultaneously dependent on a particular distribution of authority that may not be easily reproduced or sustained beyond its current leadership structure. Whether this model constitutes a durable equilibrium or a historically contingent arrangement remains an open empirical question, and one that is often flattened in celebratory readings of its development trajectory.

Ethiopia occupies a distinctive position in Africa’s infrastructure and development landscape, large enough to matter systemically, strategically located in the Horn of Africa, and sufficiently central to regional security and trade flows that neither China nor Western partners can meaningfully ignore it. Its engagement with external actors, including China’s renewed push for cooperation in infrastructure, green industry, and emerging technologies, reflects this structural importance rather than purely domestic strength.

On paper, Ethiopia’s macroeconomic profile reinforces this significance. Sustained periods of high growth, a population exceeding 120 million, and ambitious state-led development planning have positioned it as one of the continent’s most prominent developmental states. In infrastructure terms, this has translated into large-scale investments in transport corridors, energy generation, and industrial parks, often financed through a combination of Chinese lending, multilateral support, and domestic mobilisation.

However, Ethiopia’s external leverage coexists with a more uneven internal institutional landscape. The post-conflict reconstruction period following the Tigray war has exposed the fragility of coordination between federal authority, regional administrations, and key economic ministries. This matters because Ethiopia’s ability to translate external financing into durable infrastructure outcomes depends less on project identification than on implementation coherence across a fragmented administrative system.

Unlike cases where institutional capacity is consistently consolidated, Ethiopia’s governance system operates through periodic surges of centralisation followed by episodes of institutional strain. Economic ministries possess pockets of technical expertise, particularly in macroeconomic planning and engagement with multilateral institutions such as the IMF, but these capabilities are not always matched by stable cross-government coordination or predictable policy enforcement. As a result, Ethiopia’s infrastructure strategy is often ambitious in design but uneven in execution.

This creates a distinctive form of leverage that is not equivalent to institutional resilience. Ethiopia can attract and absorb external capital at scale, but its bargaining position is shaped as much by its geopolitical indispensability as by the internal strength of its negotiating institutions. External partners engage not only with Ethiopian capacity, but also with the costs of disengagement, given the country’s role in regional stability, migration flows, and security architectures in the Horn of Africa.

The key analytical point, therefore, is that Ethiopia does not resolve the tension between external financing and internal capacity; it suspends it. Its scale allows it to continue attracting infrastructure investment despite unresolved institutional constraints, rather than overcoming those constraints in a systematic way. This distinguishes it sharply from cases like Rwanda, where coordination is high but tightly structured, and from the DRC, where resource abundance is not matched by comparable administrative capacity.

In this sense, Ethiopia illustrates a third configuration in Africa’s infrastructure politics- strategic indispensability without full institutional consolidation. It is a position that generates leverage, but it also embeds long-term uncertainty into the trajectory of infrastructure development and debt sustainability.

The contrast with the DRC sharpens the analytical picture. The DRC possesses arguably the most extraordinary endowment of strategic minerals on earth, cobalt, coltan, lithium, copper, and yet consistently finds itself on the receiving end of infrastructure deals whose terms it is poorly equipped to evaluate or enforce. The gap between the DRC and Rwanda is not a gap in natural resources. It is a gap in the technical and political capacity to convert those resources into durable bargaining power. That gap is not incidental to African infrastructure politics; it is central to it, and it is the variable that both China and the West have found most convenient to ignore.

Taken together, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and the DRC illustrate three distinct configurations of state capacity and bargaining power in Africa’s infrastructure politics, each shaping how external finance is absorbed, negotiated, and ultimately constrained. Rwanda represents a case of consolidated administrative capacity, where strong central coordination enables disciplined engagement with multiple partners and alignment of external finance with domestically defined priorities, albeit within a highly centralised political settlement that structures the boundaries of institutional autonomy. Ethiopia, by contrast, reflects a model of scale-mediated leverage, its demographic size, strategic location, and regional indispensability allow it to attract and sustain large volumes of infrastructure investment despite uneven coordination across state institutions, producing a form of bargaining power rooted less in internal coherence than in external reliance on its stability and systemic relevance. The DRC occupies a different position again, where exceptional natural resource endowment is not matched by comparable bureaucratic or negotiating capacity, resulting in a persistent asymmetry in which external actors play a disproportionately large role in structuring, interpreting, and enforcing the terms of infrastructure engagement.

Across these cases, the central insight is that infrastructure outcomes in Africa are not primarily determined by the identity or intent of external financiers, but by the domestic institutional environments through which those engagements are mediated. Rather than a linear spectrum of governance quality, what emerges is a differentiated field in which administrative coherence, geopolitical centrality, and resource endowment generate distinct and non-substitutable forms of bargaining power. The analytical implication is that “who wins” in Africa’s infrastructure landscape cannot be reduced to China-versus-West competition; it is ultimately determined by the uneven distribution of state capacity through which external capital is translated into infrastructure outcomes.

The Question that Neither Side is Asking

Both the Chinese model and the emerging Western alternative suffer from a structural blind spot- they are better at announcing infrastructure than at building the conditions under which African partners could hold either of them accountable.

China’s pivot at the 2024 FOCAC summit toward “small yet beautiful” projects, smaller, more targeted initiatives focused on livelihoods and education, reflects a recognition that the era of big-ticket railway announcements has generated friction (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2024). It also reflects fiscal constraints making African governments more cautious about new large-scale sovereign debt. The West, for its part, has developed more sophisticated conditionality frameworks and a genuine emphasis on local value addition, but Hameiri and Jones (2024) argue persuasively that serious Western competition cannot simply be willed into being by geopolitical intent; it is structurally constrained by the political economy of donor countries, where the incentive structures of development finance institutions consistently subordinate slow-burn governance investment to visible, attributable deals.

A sceptical reader might push back that Western development finance institutions do fund governance programmes. Treasury reform, procurement systems, and public financial management are not absent from the agenda. The honest response is that they are present but structurally subordinated. When a DFI must choose between a governance programme that will take a decade to show results and an infrastructure deal that can be announced at a summit, the incentive structure is not ambiguous. The governance work gets funded in the margins. The deal gets the headline. This is not a conspiracy; it is the predictable outcome of institutions operating under political and commercial pressures that reward visible, attributable investments over slow-burn institutional reform.

What neither side has seriously grappled with is the implication that without African-side capacity in independent debt appraisal, transparent procurement, and political accountability, no infrastructure partnership, however well intentioned, will consistently produce durable development outcomes. This is not a romantic aspiration. It is a structural precondition, and it is being systematically underinvested in by every major player in this space.

These configurations are not merely abstract institutional patterns, they are visible in the everyday material outcomes of infrastructure systems across the continent. In contexts resembling the DRC, where resource abundance is not matched by comparable bargaining or administrative capacity, communities living atop some of the world’s most valuable mineral reserves continue to experience limited translation of extractive wealth into basic public goods, including education, reliable services, and functional infrastructure. In settings closer to the Ethiopian case, large-scale ambition and geopolitical centrality generate significant infrastructure expansion, yet uneven coordination across state institutions produces discontinuities in service delivery, where connectivity and reliability do not always match the scale of investment. In more administratively consolidated systems such as Rwanda, infrastructure delivery is more coherent and predictable, reflecting stronger alignment between planning capacity and implementation, even as the political settlement that enables this coordination simultaneously defines its institutional boundaries.

Taken together, these outcomes underscore a consistent pattern. Infrastructure outcomes are not simply a reflection of how much is invested or who provides the finance, but of how effectively states are able to convert external resources into sustained public goods through their internal institutional structures. The Zambian farmer whose harvest fails to reach regional markets because transport infrastructure remains unreliable, the Kenyan entrepreneur constrained by inconsistent energy supply despite large-scale investment in generation capacity, and communities in mineral-rich regions of the DRC where extractive value has not translated into visible local development each reflect different positions within this broader spectrum of mediated state capacity. These are not isolated development failures; they are empirical expressions of the underlying typology that structures infrastructure outcomes across the continent.

The infrastructure contest in Africa is therefore real, consequential, and ongoing. Both China and the West will continue to play significant roles, and in some cases their competition will generate substantial investment flows. But the determining variable is neither geopolitical rivalry nor financing volume. It is the institutional capacity of African states to direct, evaluate, and hold accountable the partnerships they enter. That capacity is unevenly distributed, between Rwanda’s administrative coherence, Ethiopia’s scale-derived leverage, and the DRC’s structural vulnerability. Closing that gap is not simply a development objective among others; it is the precondition for transforming infrastructure from a site of geopolitical competition into a consistent mechanism of public value creation.

The deeper question, then, is not who is winning the infrastructure race in Africa. It is which configurations of state capacity allow infrastructure investment to become development in the first place.

Bibliography

• Africa Defense Forum (2025) Kenya feels financial squeeze of China’s Standard Gauge Railway loans. Available at: https://adf-magazine.com/2025/10/kenya-feels-squeeze-of-chinas-railway-debt-trap/
• Alden, C. and Otele, O.M. (2022) ‘Fitting China in: local elite collusion and contestation along Kenya’s Standard Gauge Railway’, African Affairs, 121(484), pp. 443–466. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adac026
• Bloomberg (2025) ‘Kenya snags $215 million in savings after Chinese loan currency swap’, Bloomberg, 7 October. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-07/kenya-snags-215-million-saving-after-chinese-loan-currency-swap
• Brautigam, D. (2020) ‘A critical look at Chinese “debt-trap diplomacy”: the rise of a meme’, Area Development and Policy, 5(1), pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/23792949.2019.1689828
• European Union External Action Service (2025) EU-Zambia Lobito Corridor Business Forum 2025. Available at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/zambia/eu-zambia-lobito-corridor-business-forum-2025-0_en
• Hameiri, S. and Jones, L. (2024) ‘China, international competition and the stalemate in sovereign debt restructuring: beyond geopolitics’, International Affairs, 100(2), pp. 691–710. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae017
• Hameiri, S. and Jones, L. (2023) ‘Why the West’s alternative to China’s international infrastructure financing is failing’, European Journal of International Relations, 30(3), pp. 697–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661231218573
• Jones, L. and Hameiri, S. (2020) Debunking the myth of ‘debt-trap diplomacy’: how recipient countries shape China’s Belt and Road Initiative. London: Chatham House. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-08-19-debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy-jones-hameiri.pdf
• Kenya National Treasury (2024) Annual Public Debt Management Report 2023/2024. Nairobi: National Treasury of Kenya. Available at: https://www.treasury.go.ke
• Malik, A., Parks, B., Russell, B., Lin, J., Walsh, K., Solomon, K., Zhang, S., Elston, T. and Goodman, S. (2021) Banking on the Belt and Road: insights from a new global dataset of 13,427 Chinese development projects. Williamsburg, VA: AidData at William & Mary. Available at: https://www.aiddata.org/publications/banking-on-the-belt-and-road
• Reuters (2026) ‘China, Ethiopia pledge closer cooperation in areas from infrastructure to AI’, Reuters, 8 January. Available at: https://www.reuters.com
• Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (2024) FOCAC 2024: Moving Away from Large Infrastructure Deals towards Normative Power of China (Megatrends Spotlight 38). Berlin: SWP. Available at: https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/megatrends-spotlight-38-focac-2024-towards-normative-power-of-china
• U.S. Embassy Tanzania (2024) Fact sheet: Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment in the Lobito Trans-Africa Corridor, 5 December. Available at: https://tz.usembassy.gov/fact-sheet-partnership-for-global-infrastructure-and-investment-in-the-lobito-trans-africa-corridor/