Africa's high-speed railway network is on track
Africa's high-speed railway network is on track
You're viewing a single thread.
Im scared for the countries getting caught in Chinas debt trap. With maintenance contracts being forced (for more than 90 years!), billions in outstanding loans in each country there is no way to climb out the hole. Everyone can see these extravaganza projects are not what Africa needs, but what China wants.
Extravagant projects are exactly how China got out of it's poverty hole (and, if you think about it, also how a lot of Europe recovered post-WW2 as well).
Only in the US is infrastructure condemned so strongly.
indeed
Extravagant projects are exactly how China got out of it’s poverty hole
Ah right I forgot those glass bridges that killed a bunch of people.
Funny.
There is no China debt trap. That's just concern trolling western trolls invented
- https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/
- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3745021
- https://www.eurasiareview.com/01022021-chinese-investment-in-africa-has-had-significant-and-persistently-positive-long-term-effects-despite-controversy/
- https://theconversation.com/china-and-africa-ethiopia-case-study-debunks-investment-myths-177098
- https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/gild/2021/01/26/how-chinese-investment-shape-new-growth-patterns-in-africa/
- https://www.asiafinancial.com/china-debt-trap-claims-in-africa-stem-from-us-rivalry-study
- https://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/chinas-infrastructure-investment-helps-fast-track-development-in-africa-expert/
African countries are foregoing Western investment because of the number of strings attached. Chinese loans are pretty straightforward: here's some money, here's a (very) competitive interest rate, and here's how the infrastructure will be kept alive even if the country runs out of tax revenue to fund it. Critically, the project's operation isn't hindered by financial mismanagement and can keep delivering economic benefits to the region.
It isn't quite like that.
China doesn't give money to countries to build these projects. The money is given directly to Chinese State Owned Enterprises to build the projects. That can be a great way to keep costs low, but it also means there is no transfer of knowledge for building these of projects to locals.
Chinese deals are for a very long time, with some going for 100 years. China may also write the deals to trade for commodities instead of money, so there is risk that the commodity price goes up and China makes money on the deal.
Also, China makes a lot of these deals for China's best interests. It could align with the host country's interests, but not always. Of course, it isn't like Western countries don't do the same, but it is something to look out for.
I can see why countries would choose China as a partner to finance and build infrastructure, but it is important to know the fine print of the deal, or in this case, several deals.
Nobody's forcing a country to sign a deal. Why does it matter that the project aligns with China's best interests? The fact that the deal is signed means that both parties agree that it's mutually beneficial... People aren't running a charity.
And again, people assume transfer of knowledge like it happens between China and the US (two very well-educated countries)... But frankly, a lot of African countries are at the stage China was in right after the Cultural Revolution. You can't simply transfer the knowledge of complex HSR technologies when most people don't have the education needed to become a construction worker. There's also the issue of experience: even the US, a country with an extremely highly-educated workforce, can't build proper HSR (see: California HSR's ballooning budget). It's a difficult problem and African countries don't have $100 billion dollars to spend on connecting Merced and Bakersfield.
The length of these deals is also not exactly the strong "gotcha" you seem to think it is. It's a fact that a lot of African governments are rather unstable. With an outsourced maintenance scheme, the project remains viable through regime change. Plus, even stable governments like the US have shown that they have a tendency to aggressively underfund rail (see: Amtrak's tens of billions of dollars worth of maintenance backlogs). The project is useless if it isn't maintained, so why shouldn't these countries sign that maintenance into effect now while they still have the power to do so?
The US has shown how to completely destroy a domestic passenger rail industry... People aren't super keen on replicating that model with short maintenance contracts and "America First" policy.
Nobody's forcing a country to sign a deal.
And I never claimed that. I'm just saying that the negotiations may need to keep this in mind.
You can't simply transfer the knowledge of complex HSR technologies when most people don't have the education needed to become a construction worker.
I said that in direct response to someone saying it would be good to go for monumental design as it will train the workforce in construction. That is why I would recommend starting with trying to keep costs low in building out a new system.
The length of these deals is also not exactly the strong "gotcha" you seem to think it is.
A lot can change in 100 years. People who aren't born now will be subject to that agreement. This includes China being able to project power enough to keep these farflung businesses in operation. I'm not treating to as a "gotcha", just that it is risk.
The US has shown how to completely destroy a domestic passenger rail industry...
The USA also used to have the best rail industry in the world 100 years ago, including building some alignments that would be near high speed standards today. But even then, I never suggested that the US build the rail network described now.
I don't disagree with all of your points, I'm just claiming that short maintenance contracts and onshoring all production might not be feasible in the volatile environments that these countries are in.
Fact is, China has a more stable government than a lot of African countries (and a decent track record of maintaining their own HSR) and there's no reason to expect significant backtracking on China's economic liberalization.
Other fact is, onshoring has a pretty strong record of blowing through budgets and timelines for minimal net gain (especially since Chinese companies aren't actually making that much money off the top). Massachusetts tried to onshore subway train manufacturing and ended up with trains riddled with manufacturing defects. California tried to do HSR development and, well... Stuff happened. Britain is still struggling to get their HSR project off the ground and it's already blown through the budget.
It might make a project in 20 years 20% cheaper, but it'll make the current project maybe 500% more expensive. I don't think that's worth it.
I can't imagine they're actually planning to tunnel through mountains for an initial HSR network, right? That shit is insanely expensive and it would make much more sense to just run flights+a roundabout HSR route for that connection.
Africa has plenty of well educated people in a variety of fields, what they don't have is economic opportunities. Sure, Africa probably couldn't sustain the entire project all at once, but they could very likely provide enough educated people to handle several lines.
Africa has a brain drain problem. Anyone well off enough to get a decent education but isn't well connected enough to get into one of the few opportunities that exist immigrates to another country. India used to be the same way, but they're finally starting to create opportunities to keep their people in the country, and the solution wasn't mega projects funded and completed by a foreign country, but direct investment in local jobs. That's also how China is doing it.
So if Africa wants long term prosperity, they don't need a high speed rail service to be built for them, they need to build one themselves, and perhaps hire an outside firm to oversee it. If that means the can only build part of the system, that's what they should do. It'll take longer, but it'll provide jobs and build expertise in the meantime and result in less total debt. They should focus on the most economically important links, and build the rest later.
The problem is that Africa isn't a single entity. I'm absolutely sure that across the entire continent you could build a dream team of engineers... But in each country? That's a bit more challenging, especially when your goal is to connect the continent.
This is even true in Europe, where each country has a different railway power standard that makes connecting their HSR systems very complicated.
But they can all agree to outsource it? Surely it's not that much more work to convince member countries that DIY within the continent is better than outsourcing.
But then you get a bunch of political issues between countries. Hell, different US states can't even agree on anything and they're in the same country.
Outsourcing is easier because everyone wants to get closer to China's economic engine.
I don't see why they want to get closer to China though. From my perspective, China wants access to cheap natural resources, so they have no incentive to actually help Africa prosper.
Hopefully they can form something more similar to the EU where cross-country agreements can work. Relying on China to fill in the gaps will likely just lead to more imperialism.
Indeed, and China also does a lot of loan forgiveness because they want to establish long term mutually beneficial relationships as opposed to just strip mine these countries the way the west does.
African countries are foregoing Western investment because of the number of strings attached
What strings?
here’s a (very) competitive interest rate
IMF loans are cheaper. Every person with two braincells will realize corrupt officials will take the chinese loans with higher interest rates because of the bribes. A 90 year maintenance contract is nonsense and you cant defend it.
IMF and World Bank loans in years past have had strict rules regarding economic liberalization and cutting government spending.
IMF loans are cheaper. Every person with two braincells will realize corrupt officials will take the Chinese loans with higher interest rates because of the bribes.
[citation needed]
I like how you wont comment on the maintenance contracts.
So... No citation, right?
First result in Google. You cant even Google so im pretty sure you dont know what the hell you are talking about lol.
Rescue loans are not the type of loans being used to build these railway networks lol. It's pretty funny watching someone not understand the problem they're talking about.
Also, the US fed rate is 5% right now... That means loaning money to the safest and most stable economy in the world pays 5% today. Even in your (misguided) context, 5% is a fucking bargain.
Rescue loans are not the type of loans being used to build these railway networks lol.
Do you even know how IMF rescue loans work? Did you try Google buddy?
I wont even entertain your dumbass ramble about different countries because we arent talking about that.
My home country has one of those loans, and I have no idea whether it's beneficial or not since it's classified for 30 years as is the Russian nuclear power plant contracts or the money we spend on our oligarchs.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=8fGcf3GODKE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I like how you ignored the part in which chinese companies force the governments to sign 90+ year maintenance contracts. Convenient as it isnt part of the loan, just part of the bribery.