Around the world, infrastructure has become the soft weapon of hard power. Global megaprojects are no longer just public works; they are diplomatic statements. They serve not only domestic economic needs but also strategic international agendas. In the 21st century, the road to influence is often paved with concrete, steel, and digital fibre optics.
The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 9 and SDG 11) underscore the global imperative to develop resilient infrastructure and inclusive cities. Yet in practice, this ambition is shaped not just by multilateral ideals, but by state-backed deals, bilateral loans, and private financiers. The G20’s Global Infrastructure Facility and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) have turned infrastructure into a new battleground of influence, where the competition is not just for contracts, but for allegiance, governance models, and long-term market access.
READ ALSO: Ghana Banks on Gold Hedging to Strengthen Economy and Currency
While advanced economies grapple with decarbonising ageing infrastructure, emerging markets, particularly in Africa are building anew. This is where the world’s infrastructure future is unfolding most dramatically, with political consequences that stretch far beyond the continent.
Africa’s infrastructure deficit is enormous. According to the African Development Bank (AfDB), the continent requires between US$130 billion and US$170 billion annually to close its infrastructure gap, but faces a financing shortfall of approximately US$100 billion each year. As of 2023, Africa’s external public debt had reached US$696 billion, with a worrying trend: some countries now spend over 20% of their government revenues solely on servicing this debt.
China remains a major player in this equation. Between 2003 and 2023, Chinese banks financed over 300 transport and logistics projects in Africa, amounting to US$47.3 billion in lending. However, there has been a noticeable contraction in Chinese infrastructure financing, down from US$30 billion annually in 2016 to less than US$1 billion for energy projects in 2022. This decline is partially driven by mounting global scrutiny, domestic caution within China, and African countries’ growing debt stress.
At the same time, multilateral lenders such as the World Bank, African Development Bank, and regional institutions have ramped up concessional lending and blended finance. The World Bank alone committed US$9 billion to African infrastructure in 2023. The Africa Finance Corporation (AFC), a pan-African multilateral institution with over 62% private ownership, has invested more than US$11.5 billion in infrastructure across 35 African states since its inception.
Private capital is also growing in influence, although it remains cautious. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are becoming essential to major projects, particularly in sectors like energy, digital infrastructure, and logistics. Yet despite this momentum, the median public debt-to-GDP ratio in Sub-Saharan Africa has climbed from 32% in 2010 to 57% in 2022, raising questions about fiscal sustainability.
Concrete Ambitions, Contested Blueprints
The scale of infrastructure development across Africa is staggering, but so too is the complexity of ownership and the politics behind the blueprints. While the physical manifestation is concrete and glass, the structural foundations are more often financial and geopolitical.
Across the continent, flagship projects have emerged that symbolise both modern ambition and deep external entanglement. In Kenya, Konza Technopolis dubbed “Silicon Savannah” is a US$1.3 billion smart city aiming to become East Africa’s innovation hub. Backed by the Kenyan government, the World Bank, and technology partnerships with Chinese and South Korean firms, Konza is envisioned as the linchpin of Kenya’s Vision 2030 plan. However, delays, cost overruns, and questions around inclusivity have plagued its progress.
In Nigeria, the long-anticipated Lagos-Calabar Coastal Rail Line, a 1,400 km corridor intended to link commercial and oil hubs across the South, is being constructed with Chinese involvement and funding. The project, worth over US$11 billion, exemplifies how Chinese contractors such as CCECC have become central to African transport infrastructure, often under Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contracts that limit local participation and enforce strict loan conditions.
Rwanda’s Vision City, co-developed with Rwandan and Qatari investors, showcases a different model, public-private partnership in high-end housing. But despite modern architecture and smart grid elements, questions remain over affordability and whether such projects serve the general population or cater to global elites and expat communities.
Meanwhile, Egypt’s New Administrative Capital, a US$58 billion megacity under construction 45 km east of Cairo, is arguably Africa’s most ambitious urban project. It aims to decongest Cairo and centralise governance, with a massive greenbelt, ministry zones, and smart infrastructure, all facilitated through Chinese financing and Gulf investment. However, this has dramatically added to Egypt’s external debt, which rose to US$153 billion in 2024 as announced by the country’s central bank, raising sustainability concerns amid IMF-led austerity measures.
Uganda’s East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), costing over US$5billion, is another emblematic case. Originally seeking Western financing, the project shifted to Chinese and Gulf backers after backlash over environmental concerns. Although EACOP promises long-term oil revenue, up to US$410 million annually, it has added to Uganda’s external debt, now approaching 50% of GDP. Critics argue the real winners are the foreign engineering firms and financiers, while communities face displacement and ecological risks.
South Africa, long held as a regional infrastructure leader, is undergoing a significant transition in the energy sector. These projects reflect more than national ambition, they illuminate how ownership, dependency, and debt are reshaping Africa’s development landscape. The continent’s urban and industrial futures are often mapped in boardrooms thousands of kilometres away, where foreign lenders and developers dictate terms, timelines, and technologies.
Power and the Price of Progress
Infrastructure diplomacy has always been a double-edged sword. While roads, ports, cities, and rails offer tangible evidence of progress, the financing model often embeds long-term obligations that outlive political cycles and administrations.
African governments increasingly rely on non-concessional loans from bilateral lenders and export credit agencies. These instruments may offer fast-track disbursement but come with interest rates that surpass traditional multilateral loans. In several cases such as Zambia, Ghana, and Ethiopia, unsustainable borrowing led to sovereign default or debt restructuring negotiations with the IMF.
The Belt and Road Initiative has further complicated the landscape. While China denies leveraging debt for strategic assets, critics point to opaque contracts and clauses that allow asset seizure in the event of default. Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port is often cited as a cautionary tale. In Africa, no such seizure has occurred, but rising debt distress in BRI-partner countries has forced renegotiations, project cancellations, and increased scrutiny of terms.
Furthermore, the dominance of Chinese EPC contracts limits domestic industrial development. African contractors are often sidelined, and technology transfer is minimal. In effect, many of these projects import not just cement and steel, but also the labour, machinery, and governance models.
Simultaneously, the growing presence of Gulf States, such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia in African infrastructure markets brings new dynamics. These countries are funding strategic ports in the Red Sea, digital hubs in North Africa, and energy corridors in East Africa. Their financial terms are often softer than China’s but still framed by broader strategic ambitions, securing trade routes, food security, and ideological soft power.
From Debt to Developmental Sovereignty
If the continent is to avoid repeating the errors of the past, where infrastructure became a vehicle for dependency rather than development, policymakers must rethink the blueprint. This begins with transparent procurement processes, sovereign digital governance in smart cities, and local participation in planning and construction.
Regional cooperation can also play a pivotal role. The African Union’s Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA), under the AUDA-NEPAD framework, aims to align national priorities with continental goals. However, implementation has been slow, hampered by weak domestic institutions and fragmented regulation.
One promising avenue lies in tapping domestic capital markets. Sovereign bonds, diaspora financing, and municipal bonds especially in growing cities like Lagos, Nairobi, and Abidjan could unlock new financing without external strings. In Ethiopia, land leasing has already financed a significant share of urban road construction. Meanwhile, decentralised renewable energy models in Nigeria and Kenya are showing how smaller-scale, community-driven infrastructure can produce outsized economic returns while avoiding foreign debt.
Ultimately, Africa must shift from being merely the construction site of the world to becoming the architect of its own future.
Who Holds the Trowel?
Africa’s infrastructure boom is real, visible, and transformative. Roads stretch further, ports run deeper, and cities rise faster. Yet beneath the surface of every tower crane and asphalt ribbon lies a deeper story, one of power, politics, and often, quiet dependence.
The continent’s leaders must ask difficult questions: Who owns the blueprints? Who writes the contracts? And when the debt matures, who really holds the trowel?
