China: Africa’s New Leading Development Partner

China’s engagement in Africa dates back to the Mao era, rooted in ideological solidarity and Cold War dynamics. However, the nature and scale of this engagement changed dramatically in the early 2000s. With Western donations receding after the Cold War, China seized the opportunity to deepen ties. The 2024 Forum on China-Africa cooperation (FOCAC) pledge of $50.7 billion represents neither strategic innovation nor a fundamental shift in approach, but rather Beijing’s opportunistic response to Western aid retrenchment, leveraging established relationships whilst adjusting financial mechanisms to match China’s domestic economic circumstances and the competitive void left by reduced Western engagement (Carnegie, 2024).

FOCAC and China’s Shifting Financial Commitments

China’s recent levels of financial engagement with Africa has often mirrored its own domestic economic cycles rather than long-term developmental priorities. With Xi Jinping’s leadership marking a period of heightened but cyclical Chinese commitment to Africa that reflects domestic economic priorities rather than consistent development strategy. Forum pledges escalated from $20 billion to $60 billion by 2015 during China’s economic boom, yet contracted to $40 billion in 2021 when domestic growth slowed, before recovering to $50.7 billion in 2024 (World Economic Forum, 2024). While this demonstrates Beijing’s sustained interest in African partnerships, the pattern reveals how funding levels remain subordinate to China’s internal economic conditions. However, as traditional Western donors have reduced aid flows and attached increasingly complex conditionalities to assistance, China’s willingness to maintain financial engagement, however inconsistent, has filled a competitive void that established Beijing as a reliable alternative.

This volatility in commitment has translated into severe disruptions in financial flows, undermining development planning across the continent. Trade volumes collapsed from $203 billion in 2015 to $133 billion in 2016, while Chinese loans plummeted from $28.8 billion in 2016 to just $1 billion in both 2021 and 2022 before partially recovering to $4.5 billion in 2023 (Rand, 2025). These dramatic fluctuations created project delays and financing gaps that exposed the fundamental weakness of opportunistic engagement, yet Western donors offered few alternatives during these critical funding shortfalls.

Source: (Brookings,2024), (Boston University GDP Center, 2024)

Infrastructure Investments, High Visibility, Low Sustainability

Chinese infrastructure investments in Africa have delivered visible results but often at the cost of long-term sustainability. For instance, Ethiopia’s Addis Ababa-Djibouti Railway operates at merely 38% capacity due to inflated demand projections, while Kenya’s Standard Gauge Railway can require up to $200 million in annual subsidies that strain government budgets (Addis Standard, 2025; ADF, 2023). These failures reveal a pattern: rapid deployment often takes precedence, stemmed from prioritising Chinese contractor employment over rigorous feasibility analysis, yet they still represent tangible infrastructure advances that Western donors have been unwilling or unable to match.

Ultimately, China’s financial engagement with Africa thus remains deeply flawed yet strategically advantageous in the current geopolitical context. Despite inconsistent funding cycles and implementation problems, Beijing has successfully positioned itself as Africa’s most visible development partner while Western engagement retreats through USAID budget cuts and reduced UK economic commitments to international aid. This allows China to present itself as Africa’s reliable friend even when domestic concerns periodically constrain its financial commitments, creating a perception of partnership that exceeds the reality of its opportunistic engagement model.

Technology and Governance: China’s Competitive Advantages 

Beyond financial opportunism, China’s broader strategic advantages in Africa stem from its ability to combine governance flexibility with affordable technological solutions. Together, these factors create comprehensive alternatives to Western development partnerships. While Chinese financial flows may fluctuate with domestic economic conditions, Beijing’s approach to political conditionalities and technology deployment enables sustained engagement that Western competitors struggle to match within their more restrictive frameworks.

China’s governance approach allows African governments to access development finance without undertaking institutional reforms or accepting the transparency measures, civil society consultations, and democratic benchmarks often required by Western donors. Such an approach has effectively built public support, as many African populations, whether wrongly or rightly, view China as a reliable partner that respects sovereignty while delivering tangible infrastructure outcomes. However, engagement is not without political conditions, as shown when investments in Zambia were suspended following anti-Chinese remarks by presidential candidate Michael Sata in 2006 (Chatham, 2023). The incident revealed Beijing’s expectation of adherence to the ‘One China’ policy and its broader sensitivity to criticism of core interests.

Although the governance model is not without drawbacks, it nonetheless enables more effective deployment of technological offerings across the continent by combining affordable solutions with integrated financing. Chinese firms have captured 70% of Africa’s 4G networks and had an 187% increase in solar panel export to the African continent, combining cost-competitive technology with financing arrangements that enable rapid deployment compared to Western alternatives (Tech Monitor, 2021; Energy Institute 2023). Technological integration has positioned China advantageously for future digital development, particularly as African governments seek cloud infrastructure and artificial intelligence capabilities where Chinese pricing remains significantly lower than Western providers.

The combination of governance flexibility and technological accessibility therefore reinforces the financial opportunism and creates a comprehensive development approach that appeals during periods of Western aid uncertainty. While Western companies will maintain substantial market shares in advanced technologies, China’s ability to bundle affordable solutions with simplified governance requirements creates synergistic advantages. The result is deepened African technological dependencies alongside Beijing’s positioning as a reliable partner across multiple dimensions of cooperation.

The 2024 FOCAC summit underscores China’s continued evolution as Africa’s foremost development partner, with Beijing’s $50.7 billion commitment demonstrating both domestic economic recovery and pragmatic responses to reduced Western presence, building a compelling—though imperfect—alternative to Western aid. China’s competitive advantage lies not in superior development outcomes but in its ability to bundle flexible governance arrangements with affordable technological solutions during periods of Western disengagement, creating an integrated approach that addresses immediate infrastructure needs whilst embedding technological dependencies that will constrain Africa’s future development choices.

The sustainability of Chinese influence ultimately depends on Beijing’s ability to deliver measurable developmental benefits within its domestic economic constraints whilst managing the persistent challenges of financial volatility and implementation failures. Ultimately, African nations will likely seek to balance their sovereignty interests through engagement with both China and the West; however, China’s established advantages in financial commitment, technological integration, and governance flexibility position Beijing favourably for sustained influence in the years to come.

Bibliography 

• ADF (2023) ‘Kenya’s Railway is at the Center of Struggle with China over Debt’. Africa Defense Forum. Available at: https://adf-magazine.com/2023/04/kenyas-railway-is-at-the-center-of-struggle-with-china-over-debt
• Boston University Global Development Policy Center (2024) ‘Chinese Loans to Africa Database’. Available at: https://www.bu.edu/gdp/chinese-loans-to-africa-database/
• Brookings Institution (2024) ‘2024 FOCAC Beijing Summit: A new chapter?’. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/2024-focac-beijing-summit-a-new-chapter/
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2024) ‘What FOCAC 2024 Reveals About the Future of China-Africa Relations’. Available at: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/11/what-focac-2024-reveals-about-the-future-of-china-africa relations?lang=en
• Energy Institute (2023) ‘China’s solar capacity expected to top 1 TW by 2026’. New Energy World. Available at: https://knowledge.energyinst.org/new-energy-world/article?id=138243
• Global Infrastructure Hub (2024) ‘Addis Ababa – Djibouti Railway’. Connectivity Across Borders Case Studies. Available at: https://www.gihub.org/connectivity-across-borders/case-studies/addis-ababa-djibouti-railway/
• RAND Corporation (2025) ‘Chinese Engagement with Africa: A RAND Research Primer’. Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2989-1.html
• Tech Monitor (2021) ‘Has China already won the battle for internet in Africa?’. Available at: https://www.techmonitor.ai/policy/geopolitics/has-china-already-won-battle-for-africa-internet – Vandome, C. (2023) ‘Zambia’s developing international relations: ‘Positive neutrality’ and global partnerships’. Chatham House Research Paper. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/2023-03-06-zambias-developing-international-re lations-vandome.pdf
• World Economic Forum (2024) ‘Where is China’s economy headed?’. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/06/china-economic-outlook-growth-trade/