Authors: Sara Caria & Stefano Ghinoi | Published: September 2025 | Journal: Review of African Political Economy, Volume 52, Issue 185, pp. 361–384 | DOI: 10.62191/ROAPE-2025-0022 | Open Access
Abstract
This article explores the existence of a differentiated strategy that can be observed in Chinese development finance in Africa, between the pre- and post-BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) periods, and according to partner countries' characteristics such as the availability of natural resources and political stability. The authors aimed to identify patterns of similarities in the relationships that China has maintained with African partner countries that have received financial support between 2000 and 2021. A social network analysis is carried out based on data contained in AidData — a large dataset used in previous studies on Chinese international cooperation. The results confirm that the BRI marks a cornerstone in China's development finance to Africa. Evidence on country-specific factors is inconclusive overall: political stability seems relevant, while natural resource endowments do not emerge as a driver of specific behaviours. The findings challenge the view that Chinese engagement with African countries merely aims at securing natural resources and increasing geopolitical influence, suggesting a more complex and pragmatic approach.
Introduction and Context
The dominant narrative about Chinese development finance in Africa has, for a long time, centred on a single explanatory framework: China finances African infrastructure in exchange for access to critical raw materials and commodities. This "resource-for-infrastructure" narrative has been widely circulated in Western policy discourse and academic writing.
However, the authors note that less attention has been paid to understanding whether Chinese strategy has evolved over time and whether it has been tailored according to partner countries' characteristics, beyond this homogeneous narrative. The article asks: Is Chinese development finance in Africa actually differentiated by country? Has it changed with the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013?
These are important questions because China has become the leading bilateral lender to Africa, and the BRI has dramatically expanded the scope, scale, and institutional architecture of Chinese international development finance. If Chinese strategy is differentiated and evolving — rather than monolithic — this has significant implications for how African governments negotiate with China and for how multilateral institutions engage with Chinese-led development.
Methodology: Social Network Analysis
The authors use Social Network Analysis (SNA) applied to the AidData dataset, which tracks Chinese development finance globally. The methodology is novel in this context and involves:
- Constructing a two-mode network made up of Chinese institutions (funding agencies, state banks, policy banks) and the African countries receiving financial flows.
- Transforming this into a one-mode network made up of African countries only — where a relationship between two countries indicates a high level of similarity in terms of funding received from the same Chinese institutions.
- Comparing two types of financial flows: ODA-like (Official Development Assistance-equivalent, more grant-like, concessional) and OOF-like (Other Official Flows, more commercially oriented loans).
- Comparing two time periods: pre-BRI (2000–2013) and post-BRI (2014–2021).
This approach allows the authors to detect whether groups of African countries cluster together in terms of the Chinese institutions funding them, and whether these clusters change over time or correlate with country characteristics (natural resources, political stability).
Key Findings
1. The BRI is a genuine structural turning point
The analysis confirms that the BRI marks a cornerstone in China's development finance to Africa. The network structures change significantly between the pre-BRI (2000–2013) and post-BRI (2014–2021) periods — both in terms of the density of connections and the nature of financial flows. Post-BRI, there is greater integration and more complex institutional networks linking China to African countries.
2. Natural resource endowments do not drive clustering
Contrary to the dominant "resources-for-infrastructure" narrative, the authors find that natural resource availability is not a consistent driver of Chinese financing patterns. Countries with significant natural resources do not systematically receive more Chinese finance or form a distinct cluster in the network. This is a significant empirical finding that challenges the standard Western narrative about Chinese motivations.
3. Political stability shows more relevance
Political stability appears to play a more relevant role than natural resources in shaping Chinese financing patterns, though evidence here is also not fully conclusive. This suggests that China's financing decisions are sensitive to governance and stability conditions — consistent with protecting the commercial viability of loan-financed projects.
4. A flexible, differentiated, and complex strategy
The article's central conclusion is that Chinese development finance in Africa reflects a flexible, differentiated, and complex strategy — not a uniform grand plan. China does not treat all African countries the same, and its approach has evolved considerably with the BRI. Different Chinese institutions fund different countries for different purposes. ODA-like and OOF-like flows follow different patterns.
5. Infrastructure and connectivity remain central
The BRI's emphasis on infrastructure — connectivity, energy, transport — meets genuine development needs on the African side. The research confirms that BRI-era financing strongly emphasises these sectors, which are vital for African countries' integration into global value chains.
Discussion and Policy Implications
The authors argue that their findings challenge simplistic narratives about Chinese development finance in Africa. The picture that emerges is of a pragmatic, evolving Chinese approach that cannot be reduced to resource extraction or geopolitical positioning alone. Chinese strategy appears to respond to partner country characteristics in complex ways.
The implications are significant for African agency: a flexible, differentiated strategy on the Chinese side allows scope for more assertive negotiation by African countries — both bilaterally and multilaterally. Chinese development finance is not monolithic; African governments that understand its logic and structure can position themselves as more active negotiators rather than passive recipients.
The BRI has created great opportunities for Chinese firms to do business with loan-financed projects. On the other hand, it also meets the region's need to upgrade connectivity, energy, and transport facilities — vital for integration into global value chains as a strategy for economic growth and development. The article's SNA methodology offers a replicable approach for tracking how development finance networks evolve over time, and future research should extend the period and deepen analysis of within-country variation.
IOCSS Commentary
This article contributes to an important corrective in the literature on Chinese engagement in Africa. The dominant Western narrative — China extracts resources, spreads debt traps, and undermines democratic governance — is politically convenient but analytically imprecise. Caria and Ghinoi's network approach offers a more granular and empirically grounded picture, one in which Chinese strategy is neither uniformly predatory nor uniformly benign, but differentiated, pragmatic, and responsive to partner country characteristics.
For scholars and practitioners working on African development finance, the key implication is that African governments are not passive recipients of a predetermined Chinese strategy. The differentiated nature of Chinese engagement — varying by country characteristics, time period, and institutional channel — means there is space for negotiation, alignment, and strategic positioning. Understanding this space is essential to maximising the developmental value of Chinese finance while managing its risks.
This article summary is prepared by the IOCSS Journal Monitor. The original peer-reviewed article is available Open Access via ScienceOpen. Published in Review of African Political Economy, Volume 52, Issue 185, September 2025.