EN中文

Journal of Geographical Sciences >

2022 , Vol. 32 >Issue 11: 2205 - 2228

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-022-2044-z

Research Articles

Evolution and influencing factors of the transnational investment network of China-Africa international cooperation parks

  • ZHAO Shengbo , 1 ,
  • WANG Xingping , 1, 2, * ,
  • LI Kailun 1 ,
  • LI Yingcheng 1
Expand
  • 1. School of Architecture, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
  • 2. Center for International Collaboration and Research on Development and Planning of Sustainable Industrial Parks, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
*Wang Xingping (1970-), Professor, specialized in economic geography, urbanization and urban planning. E-mail:

Zhao Shengbo (1991-), PhD Candidate, specialized in urbanization and urban planning in Africa. E-mail:

Received date: 2021-12-11

  Accepted date: 2022-06-09

  Online published: 2022-11-25

Supported by

National Natural Science Foundation of China(52078115)

China Association for Science and Technology (CAST) Program of International Collaboration Platform for Science and Technology Organizations in Belt and Road Countries(2022ZZGJB041422)

Fold

Abstract

Based on development data relating to China-Africa International Cooperation Parks (CAICPs) from 2003 to 2018, this study examined the transnational investment network of CAICPs using the social network analysis method. The number of CAICPs is increasing. Textiles and apparel, agricultural and food processing, trade logistics and management, building materials and construction, and electrical machinery and equipment manufacturing are the leading industries chosen by most CAICPs. These parks have promoted the economic and social development of African countries, driving the urbanization of the regions in which the parks are located, and they have also benefited China. The network of CAICPs involves China, African countries, and third-party investors. The network is becoming increasingly complex and has an increasingly high density. However, the key node countries and provincial units remain relatively stable despite changes in the network structure. The center of gravity of the network has shown noticeable deviations and regression, and inter-provincial investment cooperation has also been increasing. China-Africa cooperation drives the evolution of the network. In China, the investment of enterprises in Africa is affected by domestic policy, economic pursuit, and investment security. In Africa, the development of CAICPs is driven by development policies and achievements, and it is influenced by African countries’ business environments.

Key words： China; Africa; industrial park; investment; network

Cite this article

ZHAO Shengbo , WANG Xingping , LI Kailun , LI Yingcheng . Evolution and influencing factors of the transnational investment network of China-Africa international cooperation parks[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2022 , 32(11) : 2205 -2228 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-022-2044-z

1 Introduction

Africa is the continent with the highest concentration of developing countries globally, and it is one of the crucial destinations for global foreign direct investment (UNCTAD, 2014). The prospect of investment in Africa has attracted worldwide attention, and there have been remarkable achievements in economic reform and enhanced political stability in African countries (Piao, 2009). China has always been a substantial investment partner of Africa. According to statistics from the Ministry of Commerce of China, China’s direct investment in Africa has been growing in recent years (Figure 1). By the end of 2018, Chinese enterprises had invested in 52 African countries, with an investment coverage rate of 86.7%, and more than 3600 overseas enterprises had been established; the stock of China’s direct investment in Africa is now in excess of 46 billion US dollars (MCC, 2020).
Figure 1 Flow of China’s direct investment in Africa from 2007 to 2018
There have been numerous studies focusing on China-Africa investment cooperation. It is believed that China’s investment is bringing desperately needed capital to Africa, and this is the main driver of economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa (Pádraig, 2009); it also offers an opportunity to soften the marginalization of the region in the global economy (Ali, 2007). Industrial parks are a vital area of investment cooperation between China and Africa (Xu et al., 2016). Since the beginning of the 21st century, Chinese entrepreneurs have invested in and developed many industrial parks in cooperation with local enterprises and government departments in Africa, achieving remarkable results. Considering the diversity of industrial parks in terms of industry and development mode, herein, we refer to any kind of industrial park that is jointly invested in and developed by China and Africa as a China-Africa international cooperation park (CAICP). Specifically, this term relates to economic and trade cooperation zones, special economic zones, industrial parks, and integrated agro-industrial parks that are directly invested in and built by Chinese enterprises in Africa. CAICPs have relatively complete infrastructure, complete industrial chains, and specific driving capacity.
With the deepening of cooperation between China and Africa, transnational networks based on China-Africa investment and trade have become a topic of great research interest in fields including international trade and economic geography. To date, this research has mainly considered the overall perspective (Huang and Zheng, 2013; Su, 2015; Tian et al., 2019) or specific industries such as food (Chen and Li, 2019), natural gas (Liu, 2016), marine energy products (Han and Li, 2020), or mechanical and electrical products (Wang and Hu, 2019). Overall, the scale of China’s direct investment in Africa is increasing, with some fluctuations. This investment has the distinct characteristics of a network structure with unbalanced regional distribution (Li et al., 2020).
The spatiotemporal evolution of China’s direct investment network in Africa is considered to be affected by individual countries’ economic and social environment, economic development level, openness, political system, resource endowment, and infrastructure (Wang et al., 2020). In addition, external factors such as global environmental changes and political games (Chen and Li, 2019) also have a certain degree of influence. With the transformation of China’s investment in Africa from the transfer of capital to the transfer of technology and knowledge, cross-regional production networks as well as knowledge-transfer networks have gradually formed between China and Africa, and these focus on technology transfer, supplying information, and government decision-making (Jin et al., 2019). Population flow and international logistics based on investment and trade drive the formation of human-relationship networks and transportation-connection networks between China and Africa. These include the overseas Chinese network (Yang and Gao, 2017), port shipping network (Guo et al., 2020), and aviation network (Kefa et al., 2011). These derivative networks provide further support for China-Africa investment and trade cooperation.
As the pattern of China-Africa bilateral investment becomes increasingly complex, the impact of such a complex investment network on regional economic development tends to be increasingly significant (He and Cao, 2019). On the one hand, investment from China in Africa meets China’s need to upgrade its industrial structure and increase enterprises’ overseas investments; on the other hand, it makes up for the shortage of funds that are required for Africa’s integration into the global production network (Huang and Zheng, 2013). The industrialization carrier that CAICPs represent has a positive impact on improving the status of both China and Africa in the global production network; they promote the technological progress and economic growth of African countries, and also enhance their ability to participate in the global industrial chain (Su, 2015).
In recent years, transnational investment based on CAICPs has become an emerging part of the transnational network between China and Africa. This connection is being strengthened with the continuous development of CAICPs. Scholars and policymakers have recognized the necessity and urgency for research examining CAICPs, and the development characteristics, models, effects, problems, and strategies of CAICPs are being studied at both the overall and individual level. Although these studies can reveal the investment structures of CAICPs to some extent, they are neither systematic nor comprehensive; the key factors affecting the investment and development of CAICPs and the investment modes and logic of enterprises are yet to be thoroughly examined. Research examining this emerging economic connection has been carried out using on social network analysis (SNA) (Liu, 2016; Tian et al., 2019; Ma and Liu, 2020), complex network analysis (He and Cao, 2019; Han and Li, 2020), and other methods, and this has been helpful for gleaning a more comprehensive and systematic understanding of the network structure and its spatiotemporal evolution. However, few studies have been conducted from the perspective of the network itself.
In this study, the SNA method was used to construct an investment network model of CAICPs. This was then used to systematically examine the characteristics and evolution of the transnational investment network of CAICPs by analyzing network measurement indicators. The main influencing factors and mechanisms of the evolution of these networks are discussed in this paper. The results of this study reveal the patterns in and evolution of the transnational investment network of CAICPs and the main reasons for the changes that have occurred. The results will be beneficial to the policymaking of relevant government departments and the investment decisions of relevant enterprises.
The remainder of this article is structured follows. Section 2 presents the research data and methods. Section 3 introduces the latest development regarding CAICPs. Section 4 presents an analysis of the evolution characteristics of the transnational investment network of CAICPs. Section 5 presents an analysis of the factors influencing the evolution of the investment network. Finally, Section 6 presents the conclusions and a discussion.

2 Data and methodology

2.1 Data

The first CAICP was established in Sierra Leone in 2003. In the first several years after 2003, the number of CAICPs did not change significantly. To ensure that an adequate number of research samples were used and that the differences between different years could be extracted, we selected five time nodes—2003, 2007, 2010, 2015, and 2018—to analyze the transnational investment network between China and African countries in the 16 years of the period 2003-2018 based on the investment cooperation of CAICPs.
To extract information about the overall development and evolution of the investment network of CAICPs from 2003 to 2018, we analyzed data relating to CAICPs from 2003 to 2018. This was collected through online searches, a literature review, and field research. These data include the name of each park as well as its year of establishment, spatial location, investors, the country in which it is located, its Chinese investors, the provincial unit in which it is located, its leading industry, and socio-economic statistics. The overall data relating to the employment and economic development of CAICPs was obtained from reports issued by the Ministry of Commerce of China and other departments concerned.

2.2 Methodology

The transnational investment network of CAICPs is a complex network that dynamically evolves with time. For convenience, we take the domestic provinces/municipalities/autonomous regions (hereinafter referred to as the “provincial units”) in which the Chinese investment enterprises of the CAICPs are located as the investors into the parks, and the African countries in which the CAICPs are situated are taken as the investment receivers of the parks. In this study, the transnational investment network of CAICPs was measured and analyzed using SNA and the UCINET software package. A matrix of Chinese investors and African investment receivers was established along with a matrix of Chinese investors to analyze the relationships between different parts of the network and its structure. Gephi and Dycharts were used to visualize the connections to understand the transnational investment network more intuitively. There are two main indicators that are used to describe the networks considered in this study: network density and point centrality.

2.2.1 Network density

The network density is used to measure the closeness of connections among the nodes of a social network. It is the ratio of the total number of actual relationships in a social network to the total number of theoretically most likely relationships in the network. The more relevant the participants, the greater the network density (Huang and Huang, 2016). Here, the network density is used to describe the closeness of the connections between Chinese investors and African investment receivers as well as the connections between Chinese investors in the transnational investment network of CAICPs.
The investment network between China’s provincial units and African countries based on CAICPs is a one-way network. The formula to measure its density Dinvest is:
${{D}_{\text{invest}}}=\frac{t}{mn}$
where t is the number of actual relationships contained in the network, m is the number of China’s provincial units joining in the investment, and n is the number of African countries receiving the investment. The value range of Dinvest is (0, 1]. The closer its value is to 1, the higher the network density; the closer it is to 0, the lower the network density.
In the transnational investment network of CAICPs, there is no investment cooperation among African countries, but there are joint investments among China’s provincial units. We also use network density to measure the closeness of connections among provincial units in China. The formula to measure this density Dinter-pro is:
${{D}_{\text{inter-pro}}}=\frac{m\times n!}{2\times \left( n-2 \right)!}~,\ (n>2)$
where m is the actual number of investment cooperation relationships among China’s provincial units and n is the number of China’s provincial units participating in investment in CAICPs. The value range of Dinter-pro is (0, 1]. The closer its value is to 1, the higher the network density; the closer it is to 0, the lower the network density.

2.2.2 Point centrality

Point centrality is used to measure the role of a point in the overall social network. The number of other points that are directly related to a given point is that point’s centrality. In an undirected graph, this is simply the degree of the point; in a directed graph, there are two values: the point-in degree and the point-out degree (Liu, 2016). In this work, the number of African countries cooperating with a Chinese provincial unit is taken as the point centrality of that provincial unit, and the number of Chinese provincial units cooperating with an African country is taken as that country’s point centrality.

3 Development status of CAICPs

3.1 Spatial distribution

Since the first CAICP—Sierra Leone Guoji Industry and Trade Zone—was established in 2003, CAICPs have continued to be developed, and their number has been increasing rapidly. Up to December 2018, more than 20 African countries had jointly developed industrial parks with China, and the total number of CAICPs had reached 69. Most of these are distributed in coastal areas of the continent, and those in inland areas are relatively minor; this is generally consistent with the distribution pattern of African urban systems (Figure 2). The CAICPs are mainly located in East Africa, Southern Africa, and West Africa (Figure 3). At the country level, there are relatively large numbers of CAICPs in Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda, and Tanzania.
Figure 2 Spatial distribution of CAICPs (up to December 2018)
Figure 3 Statistics on the numbers of CAICPs in the sub-regions of Africa (up to December 2018)

3.2 Leading industry

The main industries of CAICPs are primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary industries include agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery. Secondary industries include textiles and apparel, agriculture and food processing, building materials and construction, and electrical machinery and equipment manufacturing. Tertiary industries include wholesale and retail, trade logistics and management, etc. (Table 1).
Table 1 Classification of the leading industries of CAICPs
Category Details
Primary Agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery.
Secondary Textiles and apparel, agricultural and food processing, building materials and construction,
electrical machinery and equipment manufacturing, home appliance manufacturing, automobile manufacturing, chemical industry, biomedicine, medical equipment, leather and cotton
processing, luggage and shoemaking, furniture manufacturing, non-metallic mineral products, metal products, new energy, petroleum equipment and oil processing, plastic products, aerospace and shipbuilding, power equipment, mining, wood processing, paper, printing and publishing, water production and supply, etc.
Tertiary Trade logistics and management, financial business, agricultural materials trade, agricultural machinery services, machinery and equipment repair, high-tech and technology industries, real estate, wholesale and retail, warehousing logistics, cultural industries and conferences/
exhibitions, leisure and entertainment, etc.
In terms of industry analysis, some scholars take the number of specific industry-based parks as the industrial development frequency and the frequency of a certain industry as the proportion of that industry to all industries in multiple industrial parks (Zhao et al., 2019). Using this method, it can be found that the top-five leading industries among the 69 CAICPs were textiles and apparel, agricultural and food processing, trade logistics and management, building materials and construction, and electrical machinery and equipment manufacturing; these are developed as leading industries in more than 15 parks (Figure 4). At present, the leading industries of the CAICPs are mainly labor-intensive industries, which is in line with the advantages of the relatively prominent human resources in Africa.
Figure 4 Industrial frequency analysis of CAICPs

3.3 Transnational investment cooperation

Based on analysis of the investors of CAICPs, it can be found that the CAICPs involve not only bilateral investment cooperation between China and Africa but also tripartite cooperation with third-party investors. Among these, the World Bank Group invested in one industrial park in Ethiopia, and Oman joined in the acquisition of an industrial park in Tanzania. The connection network of investors from China, African countries, and third parties based on the investment cooperation of CAICPs is shown in Figure 5 (up to December 2018). It can be seen that China is the primary source of foreign investment for CAICPs.
Figure 5 Connection network of countries involved in investment cooperation for CAICPs (up to December 2018)
The specific connection network of investment cooperation between China’s provincial units and African countries is shown in Figure 6. To December 2018, there was a relatively complex and close investment cooperation network. Beijing, Guangdong, Shandong, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang invested in more parks in Africa, and their investment destination countries also show diversity in geographical distribution. For example, the countries cooperating with Beijing are distributed in West Africa, Central Africa, East Africa, and Southern Africa. In contrast, the countries cooperating with Guangdong are distributed in North Africa, West Africa, East Africa, and Southern Africa.
Figure 6 Connection network between China’s provincial units and African countries in the investment cooperation for CAICPs (up to December 2018)

3.4 Development effect

Win-win cooperation and mutual development have always been emphasized as the core principles of China-Africa cooperation (CGTN, 2019); CAICPs are beneficial to both China and Africa. For African countries, CAICPs have promoted the economic and social development of the countries in which they are located and driven the urbanization process in those regions. According to statistics, up to December 2018, the 25 CAICPs registered by the Ministry of Commerce of China had attracted more than 430 enterprises, with a cumulative investment of more than 6.6 billion US dollars, employing 40,000 local employees and paying taxes and fees of nearly 1 billion US dollars to the host countries (CCCMB, 2019). As the above statistics do not cover all CAICPs, the actual contributions of CAICPs in terms of promoting investment, employment, and local financial growth are far beyond these numbers.
The manufacturing clusters relying on the industrial parks have greatly increased local industrialization and the level of industrial support, as well as the export abilities of those regions (Bräutigam and Tang, 2011). The large numbers of jobs CAICPs provide and the enhancements of the working skills of local labors resulting from the technical and management training they offer have made long-term contributions to engendering sustained industrial transformation and skills development (Fei and Liao, 2020). In addition, the demands of workers in CAICPs for an increasingly urban life have also significantly driven the urban development and agglomeration of service industries, which has led to an emerging trend of transformation from industrial areas to new towns (Wang and Zhao, 2019).
We take the Eastern Industrial Zone (EIZ)—the first industrial park in Ethiopia—as an example. This has been a showcase for high-quality industrial factories in many sectors of Ethiopia after years of development (Africa Business Page, 2020). The EIZ has led to remarkable achievements, with a total output value of 900 million US dollars, tax revenue of 80 million US dollars, and the creation of 14,700 jobs from its establishment in 2007 up to 2018 (Zhao, 2019). In on-site interviews with local laborers, they showed relatively high satisfaction with their work in the EIZ: their incomes had increased, their vocational skills and living standards had improved, and their unemployment risk had reduced. The EIZ has also played an active role in promoting regional urbanization. From satellite maps from different years, it can be seen that increasing numbers of local settlements have also gathered around the park as its construction has progressed, and the area around the park has been gradually transforming into a new town (Figure 7).
Figure 7 Evolution of spatial development of Eastern Industrial Zone and surrounding area (source: historical Google Earth satellite maps)
For China, first, as a vital fulcrum of China’s foreign investment, the infrastructure construction and industrial production activities driven by the park have promoted China’s continuous overseas investment and the demand for Chinese-made machinery and equipment (Bräutigam and Tang, 2014). Second, CAICPs provide a good platform for foreign companies, including Chinese ones, to invest in Africa. Most parks provide one-stop service for the enterprises they contain (Zeng, 2015). By sharing infrastructure and supporting resources, as well as industrial-chain collaboration, the threshold, risk, and costs of foreign investment in Africa have been reduced (Goodfellow and Huang, 2021). Third, by diversifying the origin of goods, Chinese companies can expand international markets and avoid trade friction and barriers to exports (Alden and Gu, 2021). Moreover, the discourse surrounding the parks publicly positions them as a transfer of China’s development success (Bräutigam and Tang, 2012). Increasing numbers of countries have learned more about China’s development philosophy and model of opening up. The positive effects of CAICPs have further promoted bilateral economic, political, and diplomatic relations between China and Africa.

4 Evolution of the transnational investment network of CAICPs

4.1 Investment cooperation increasing and investment ties getting closer

Based on the total number of CAICPs, the overall intensity of China-Africa investment cooperation in industrial parks has been increasing annually; there was only 1 in 2003, and there were 5 in 2007, 12 in 2010, 31 in 2015, and 69 in 2018 (Figure 8). The number of newly established CAICPs also shows a trend of annual growth, with the most significant increase in 2017: 16 parks were founded and put into operation that year.
Figure 8 Annual changes in the total number and annual increase of CAICPs
The density values of the transnational investment network of CAICPs in 2003, 2007, 2010, 2015, and 2018 were 0.002, 0.008, 0.016, 0.056, and 0.103, respectively (Table 2). In 2003, there was only one investment link between China’s provincial units and African countries; this then reached 5 in 2007, 10 in 2010, 35 in 2015, and 64 in 2018. From 2003 to 2018, the network density increased significantly, reflecting increasingly close investment cooperation and the gradual improvement of the transnational investment network. These increases in the intensity and density of the transnational investment network show that it has become increasingly dense and complex.
Table 2 Density of transnational investment network of CAICPs from 2003 to 2018
Year 2003 2007 2010 2015 2018
Density 0.002 0.008 0.016 0.056 0.103

4.2 Shift and regression of the network’s center of gravity

Based on calculations of point centrality (Table 3), there were only two points in the transnational investment network of CAICPs in 2003: Henan Province and Sierra Leone. In 2007, Jiangsu, Henan, and Guangdong were the top-three provinces in China, while Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Ethiopia were the top-three African countries. In 2010, Beijing, Jiangsu, and Henan were the top-three provinces in China, while Nigeria, Egypt, and Sierra Leone were the top-three African countries. In 2015, Beijing, Guangdong, and Shandong were the top-three provinces in China, while Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and Uganda were the top-three African countries. In 2018, Beijing, Guangdong, and Shandong were the top-three provinces in China, while Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Egypt were the top-three African countries. It can be seen that although there are changes in the key node countries and provincial units of the transnational investment network, they remained relatively stable.
Table 3 Top-ten point-centrality values of African countries and China’s provincial-level regions since 2007
Rank 2003 2007 2010 2015 2018
China’s provincial unit African country China’s provincial unit African country China’s provincial unit African country China’s provincial unit African country China’s provincial unit African country
1 Henan (1) Sierra Leone (1) Jiangsu (2) Nigeria (3) Beijing
(4)		 Nigeria
(4)		 Beijing (10) Nigeria
(4)		 Beijing (17) Nigeria
(5)
2 — — Henan (1) Sierra Leone (1) Jiangsu (2) Egypt (2) Guangdong
(4)		 Zimbabwe (4) Guangdong (8) Ethiopia
(5)
3 — — Guangdong (1) Ethiopia (1) Henan (1) Sierra Leone (1) Shandong (4) Uganda (3) Shandong (7) Egypt (4)
4 — — Beijing (1) Guangdong (1) Ethiopia (1) Jiangsu (3) Mozambique (3) Jiangsu (4) Congo (4)
5 — — — — Zhejiang (1) Chad (1) Zhejiang (3) DR Cong (3) Zhejiang (4) Djibouti (4)
6 — — — — Tianjin (1) Zambia (1) Anhui (2) Ethiopia (3) Sichuan
(3)		 Kenya (4)
7 — — — — — — Tianjin (1) Tanzania (2) Liaoning (3) Zimbabwe (4)
8 — — — — — — Chongqing (1) South Africa (2) Hong Kong (2) Mauritania (3)
9 — — — — — — Guangxi (1) Mauritius (2) Ningxia (2) DR Cong (3)
10 — — — — — — Henan (1) Egypt (2) Anhui (2) Uganda (3)

Note: The numbers in brackets after the names of Chinese provincial-level regions and African countries refer to the number of CAICPs invested in and developed by them in the corresponding years. In 2003, 2007, and 2010, the numbers of China’s provincial units and African countries joining in the investment were all less than 10.

Through analysis of the investment network structure of CAICPs from 2007 to 2018, it was found that the center of gravity of the network showed noticeable deviation and regression (Figure 9). In China, in 2007, the capital (Beijing), central region (Henan), and eastern coastal areas (Jiangsu and Guangdong) were the centers of the investors’ spatial distribution. From 2010 to 2015, these were the capital (Beijing) and the eastern coastal areas (Guangdong, Shandong, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang). By 2018, the central and western regions (Sichuan, Ningxia, Anhui, etc.) increased their investment in Africa. In Africa, in 2007, West Africa (Nigeria and Sierra Leone) was the main destination of investment. In 2010, the main investment destinations were West Africa (Nigeria and Sierra Leone) and North Africa (Egypt). In 2015, Southern Africa (Zimbabwe, Mozambique, South Africa, and Mauritius) and East Africa (Uganda, Ethiopia, and Tanzania) became the emerging centers. By 2018, the centers of the investment network had shifted to North Africa (Egypt), Central Africa (Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo) and West Africa (Mauritania) again. The transnational investment network of CAICPs has been evolving into a relatively balanced situation while becoming increasingly complex. To a certain extent, the shift of the network’s center of gravity reflects the shift of investors in terms of spatial distribution.
Figure 9 Structural changes in the transnational investment network of CAICPs

4.3 Increasing inter-provincial investment cooperation in China

With the development of CAICPs, the investors of a single park are not limited to a particular provincial unit, and usually, there is investment cooperation between different provincial units. This study also analyzed the inter-provincial investment cooperation network, and we use its density to describe the evolution of this secondary network.
The density values of the inter-provincial investment cooperation network in 2003, 2007, 2010, 2015, and 2018 were 0.000, 0.003, 0.005, 0.024, and 0.056, respectively (Table 4). In 2003, only Henan Province invested; in 2007, there was only a single investment cooperation link among the provincial units, and this reached 2 in 2010, 9 in 2015, and 21 in 2018. From 2003 to 2018, the density of inter-provincial investment cooperation networks increased significantly, reflecting the increasingly close investment cooperation among provincial units in China. The number of CAICPs jointly invested in by more than one provincial unit has increased annually since 2007. The proportion of such industrial parks has remained relatively stable, even though the total number of CAICPs has increased (Table 5).
Table 4 Density of inter-provincial investment cooperation network from 2003 to 2018
Year 2003 2007 2010 2015 2018
Density 0 0.003 0.005 0.024 0.056
Table 5 Inter-provincial investment cooperation of CAICPs
Year Total number of CAICPs Number of CAICPs jointly invested by more than one provincial unit Proportion of CAICPs jointly invested by more than one provincial unit(%)
2003 1 0 0.00
2004 1 0 0.00
2005 2 0 0.00
2006 3 0 0.00
2007 5 1 20.00
2008 7 2 28.57
2009 9 2 22.22
2010 12 2 16.67
2011 12 2 16.67
2012 16 3 18.75
2013 17 4 23.53
2014 20 5 25.00
2015 31 6 19.35
2016 41 9 21.95
2017 57 14 24.56
2018 69 15 21.74
The inter-provincial investment cooperation network has been becoming denser and more complex, and this can be reflected by changes in the network structure (Figure 10). Beijing has almost always played the most crucial role in this secondary network. In 2018, Beijing had investment cooperation with 14 other provincial units and maintained more with Shandong and Jiangsu; Shandong, Guangdong, Hong Kong, Hubei, and Hebei were also essential nodes in the network, and each had collaborations with three other provincial units. Some provincial units have remained relatively independent and have not invested jointly with others. These include Henan, Gansu, Chongqing, Fujian, Anhui, and Guangxi. There was, however, joint investment among enterprises in each of these provinces; for example, two fishing companies in Guangxi cooperated to invest in the fishing industry park in Mauritania. However, links between enterprises in the same province are not represented in the network structure. The increase of inter-provincial investment cooperation shows the growing enthusiasm of China’s provincial units for overseas investment; this has been an emerging trend in China’s “going global” process.
Figure 10 Structural changes of inter-provincial investment cooperation network of CAICPs
Further analysis of the changes in investors in the CAICPs reveals that the investment modes of Chinese investors continued to diversify from 2003 to 2018. As shown in Figure 11, these investment modes include independent investment by state-owned enterprises, independent investment by private enterprises, cooperative investment by state-owned enterprises, cooperative investment by state-owned and private enterprises, and cooperative investment by private enterprises. The number of CAICPs in each mode continued to increase, and there were more parks that were invested in independently by state-owned or private enterprises. Among parks jointly sponsored by more than one enterprise, state-owned enterprises were involved in a relatively large number, while private enterprises participated in a relatively small number. In general, state-owned enterprises have played a leading role in the investment and development of CAICPs. However, in recent years, an increasing number of private enterprises has been “going global” and participating in developing parks through independent investment or cooperation with other state-owned or private enterprises.
Figure 11 Changes in Chinese investors in CAICPs

5 Factors influencing the evolution of the transnational investment network

The evolution of the transnational investment network of CAICPs is generally driven by China-Africa cooperation, and it is also affected by the investment decisions of Chinese enterprises. In this study, the influencing factors were divided into Chinese factors and African factors according to their mechanism of action (Figure 12).
Figure 12 Mechanisms influencing transnational investment cooperation

5.1 Chinese factors

On the Chinese side, domestic policies, economic pursuit, and investment security are the main factors that affect the evolution of the transnational investment network of CAICPs. In essence, the development of CAICPs is still an investment behavior of enterprises. Therefore, despite the support of policy, economic pursuit and investment security are the main factors considered by enterprises in their investment decisions.

5.1.1 Domestic policy

The Chinese government has a relatively good management system for enterprises’ overseas investment, and it can also provide consultation and guidance. Relevant domestic policies, mainly national and provincial policies, play an essential role in the development of CAICPs.
Overall, China’s Africa policy is evolving and improving dynamically (Figure 13). In particular, the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), which has been held every three years since 2000, has institutionalized China-Africa relations and has become an ideal mechanism for managing contemporary China-Africa relations and promoting cooperation (Ambrosé, 2014). Since the First Ministerial Conference of FOCAC in 2000, each successive FOCAC has formulated a three-year action plan to promote China-Africa cooperation. Cooperation in industrialization, especially in economic and trade cooperation zones, has been emphasized many times. The resulting proposals have been gradually implemented through mechanisms such as the FOCAC Bilateral Follow-up Committee. Under the framework of FOCAC, central and provincial governments, multinational corporations and their representatives, and individual actors and workers all play a role in relations with the continent (Mamoudou and Olivier, 2012).
Figure 13 Evolution of the number of CAICPs and relevant policies
In addition to the particular policies on Africa mainly represented by FOCAC, other broader international cooperation policies have also influenced Chinese enterprises “going global” and the development of CAICPs. For example, the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013 and the successful holding of the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in 2017 have facilitated the implementation of international cooperation projects across a broader range of countries, including in Africa. After the FOCACs held in 2009, 2012, and 2015, and the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation held in 2017, the numbers of CAICPs increased significantly in each of these years (Figure 13).
At the local level, in response to calls from central government, provincial units actively issue relevant policies to support the overseas investment of local enterprises or support established parks. An increasing number of provincial units in China are participating in the investment and development of CAICPs. However, the impact of domestic policies on the transnational investment network has two aspects. First, with the support of policies, an increasing number of Chinese companies are “going global.” Second, state-owned enterprises play a relatively leading role in the investment and development of CAICPs due to their advantages in technology, capital, and talents, as well as their essential role in responding to national policies and implementing development strategies (Lin et al., 2020).

5.1.2 Economic pursuit

Whether investment enterprises can obtain the expected return on their investment is a vital reference for them in terms of making decisions relating to investment in CAICPs. Attracted by the development advantages of African countries such as their natural and human resources, preferential policies, and potential markets, an increasing number of Chinese enterprises are investing in industrial parks to open up these new markets.
Taking human resources as an example, the demographic pyramid of African countries is still expanding: there is a large proportion of young people, and the population is expected to continue to grow. Compared with other countries, African countries have a higher proportion of working-age people engaged in agriculture and a lower proportion in manufacturing and services (Bandiera et al., 2022). In addition, the relative unit labor costs in some African countries such as Ethiopia and Tanzania are lower than those in China; this is especially true since 2000, as Chinese workers’ wages have grown faster than productivity (Ceglowski et al., 2015). Relatively abundant young labor and relatively low labor costs constitute a significant advantage for Africa in industrialization, attracting Chinese enterprises to invest in and develop industrial parks.
Considering the potential benefits and development prospects of industrial parks, on the one hand, an increasing number of Chinese state-owned enterprises whose primary business is infrastructure projects are gradually exploring business transformations to industrial parks. For example, Chinese state-owned enterprises, such as China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation, China Communications Construction Company, and China Merchants Group, have invested in several CAICPs in Ethiopia and Djibouti. The headquarters of relevant state-owned enterprises and development financial institutions are mostly located in Beijing, increasingly strengthening Beijing’s central position in the investment network. On the other hand, the promotion of investment by informal means (Qiu, 2005) such as interpersonal relationships or domestic geographical proximity relationships continues to grow. For example, the Changzhou Sino-African International Cooperation Industrial Park in Guinea, which was launched in 2019, was jointly established by five enterprises located in Changzhou, Jiangsu Province. These five enterprises will provide financial support together to develop this park.

5.1.3 Investment security

Investment security is an essential consideration for Chinese companies investing overseas, even though the CAICPs enjoy policy support and are expected to reap good economic benefits. Due to the large initial investment required and the weak infrastructure in the host countries, it takes a long period for investments in CAICPs to be recouped, and some parks continue to struggle to break even after years of operation (Xinhua Silk Road, 2018). Interviews with the operating companies of EIZ in Ethiopia showed that it took nearly ten years for the park to reach a balance of payments. However, it is worth noting that the total investment of EIZ is relatively low among CAICPs. Extra regulations, high levels of corruption, and the security environment (ODI, 2021) are among the risks limiting China’s investment in Africa. In addition, the investment doubts caused by uncertainty in the international environment also impact the transnational investment network of CAICPs. The investment panic caused by the global financial crises in 2008 and 2016 caused a relatively significant decline in China’s investment in Africa (Figure 1).
An increasing number of enterprises has preferred to jointly “go global” in recent years to cope with investment risks through joint investment, enterprise holding, and business outsourcing. Investment cooperation between enterprises from different provinces is the main reason for the increasing investment cooperation between provincial units. Compared with private enterprises, state-owned ones are better able to deal with investment risks due to their capital and resource-allocation advantages. An investment pattern dominated by state-owned enterprises is the market’s response to investment uncertainty.

5.2 African factors

On the African side, the development of CAICPs is driven by development policies and motivated by achievement. The business environment of each country also plays an important role in the investment.

5.2.1 Development policy

An increasing number of African countries regard the development of industrial parks as an essential strategy to promote industrialization and transition to middle-income countries, and they have thus established particular policies or plans to promote the development of industrial parks. Governments across the continent are now explicitly using industrial policy tools to promote industrialization through agro-processing, labor-intensive light industries, natural-resource extraction, value addition, and knowledge-intensive manufacturing (Max, 2021). The current promotion policies in some African countries cover land prices, tax incentives, export promotion, and other aspects. Relevant studies suggest that these policies are conducive to the establishment of a healthy, sustainable, and fair investment system for investors, communities, and the whole country (Hailu and Yihdego, 2018), and this plays a role in promoting Chinese enterprises’ investment in Africa.

5.2.2 Achievement motivation

Value addition of agricultural products and export diversification based on industrial park production activities have been shown to help African economies become more productive and resilient to global trends (Makhtar, 2015). The successful development experience of industrial parks, especially the flagship projects in Africa, has inspired an increasing number of countries across the continent; some have achieved the breakthrough of developing their first industrial park, and some have synchronized the development of their industrial parks, referring to the development experience of CAICPs.
As the first industrial park in Ethiopia, the EIZ has been shown to play a catalytic role in the industrialization and development of industrial parks in Ethiopia (Giannecchini and Taylor, 2018). Since 2007, some China-Ethiopia cooperation parks have been built and put into operation. In 2014, the Industrial Parks Development Corporation of Ethiopia was established and since then, it has been actively formulating plans and implementing strategies to develop industrial parks across the country. It was also in 2014 that Ethiopia launched its first federal industrial park, the Bole Lemi Industrial Park. The “demonstration effect” of the early industrial parks has had a noticeable impact on the expansion of the transnational investment network of CAICPs, especially in terms of the growth of the number of African countries in the network.

5.2.3 Business environment

The business environment of African countries is an important factor for Chinese enterprises to consider when investing in industrial parks. To ensure returns on their investment and avoid risks, Chinese enterprises tend to choose countries with a certain level of economic development, a relatively stable political situation, no large-scale wars or conflicts, and a relatively good business environment. Countries with more CAICPs, such as Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda, and Tanzania, all have relatively stable political situations, basic industrialization foundations, and higher regional ranking in the business environment. Conversely, countries that do not have any cooperation parks, such as Libya, Somalia, South Sudan, Mali, and Central Africa, are not very politically stable and have frequent regional conflicts and relatively weak development foundations, making it difficult for them to attract foreign investment. In addition, social and cultural customs, religious beliefs, and attitudes toward Chinese people and enterprises will also affect investment decisions in China. Although these factors are not commonly used in the evaluation of the international business environment, the informal evaluations formed through the dissemination in Chinese social networks and industry networks has become an essential reference for investment decisions.

6 Conclusions and discussion

6.1 Conclusions

This study reviewed the development status and the effects of CAICPs, analyzing the structure and evolution of the transnational investment network of CAICPs using SNA and further discussing the influencing factors of this evolution. The main conclusions are as follows.
(1) The number of CAICPs is increasing, with the main distribution in East Africa, Southern Africa, and West Africa. Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda, and Tanzania are countries with more CAICPs. Textiles and apparel, agricultural and food processing, trade logistics and management, building materials and construction, and electrical machinery and equipment manufacturing are the leading industries chosen by most CAICPs. CAICPs have not only promoted the economic and social development of African countries and driven the regional urbanization process, but they have also benefited China.
(2) CAICPs involve not only bilateral cooperation between China and Africa but also tripartite cooperation with third-party investors. There has been a relatively complex and close investment cooperation network in industrial parks between China and Africa. Beijing, Guangdong, Shandong, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang have invested in more CAICPs, and the investment destinations of these provincial units also show diversity in geographical distribution.
(3) The intensity of investment cooperation in industrial parks between China and Africa has increased annually. The number of newly established CAICPs also shows a trend of annual growth. The network has become increasingly complex and showed increasing density from 2003 to 2018.
(4) Based on the analysis of point centrality, it was found that the key node countries and provincial units of the transnational investment network remained relatively stable. However, the center of gravity of the network showed apparent deviation and regression. Overall, the network has tended to be balanced while becoming increasingly complex.
(5) The density of inter-provincial investment cooperation networks in China relating to CAICPs increased significantly from 2003 to 2018, showing increasingly close cooperation between different provincial units. Beijing has almost always played a critical role; Shandong, Guangdong, Hong Kong, Hubei, and Hebei are also essential nodes. Some provincial units invest independently. Inter-provincial cooperation of enterprises for joint “going global” has become an emerging trend.
(6) The evolution of the transnational investment network of CAICPs is driven by China-Africa cooperation. From the perspective of China, the investment of enterprises in Africa is affected by domestic policies, economic pursuit, and investment security; in Africa, it is driven by development policies, motivated by achievements, and influenced by the business environments of African countries.

6.2 Discussion

Using the SNA method, this study examined the structure and spatiotemporal evolution of the transnational investment network of CAICPs with a view to gleaning a better understanding the investment cooperation between China and Africa regarding industrial parks. Unlike previous analyses of geo-economic linkages based on a single investment, a single trade (Isaac and Eugene, 2018; Oqubay and Lin, 2019), or international relations (Ayodele and Sotola, 2014), the multi-subject and multi-period transnational investment linkages considered in this study are more objective and comprehensive. The investment links between African countries, China, and third parties illustrate the characteristics of multi-participation in CAICPs. The investment relationships between African countries and China’s sub-administrative units reveal the regional differences in the investment and development of CAICPs under the framework of China-Africa cooperation. The results of this study help to clarify the development and evolution rules of the investment links of industrial parks between China and Africa; they are also helpful for extracting the core factors affecting the development and cooperation of CAICPs. Enterprises settled in manufacturing and production activities are key to the sustainable development of CAICPs. In addition to investment in park development, the follow-up capital brought by enterprises in the park also constitutes an integral part of the transnational investment network. However, this investment connection was not analyzed in detail in this study.
In general, CAICPs are the result of comprehensive strategic cooperation between China and Africa, and they further promote this bilateral relationship. China’s investment in Africa is jointly affected by policy and the market, although the majority of Chinese investors are currently state-owned enterprises. The continuous efforts of China’s enterprises and successive policies from African countries show the opportunities and prospects of industrial-park development in Africa, and this is in line with the development stages and demands of African countries. However, proper operation is the key to sustainable development of these parks, and this depends on the capacity of the operating company; it also has much to do with the stability of African countries’ development policies and their determination to promote industrialization and a better business environment. Hence, further policy recommendations are proposed.
First, through consultation and communication between multilateral stakeholders, Africa and China could jointly formulate a more targeted development policy and a more stable environment to promote sustained investment in and proper operation of industrial parks. Second, African countries should narrow the infrastructure gap, strengthening transport links between inland and coastal areas, urban and rural areas, and countries. This will improve the quality and efficiency of service, which will in turn help to reduce the cost of international investment and trade and create a better business environment for foreign investors.
This study did not go deep into the theoretical level; the analysis was mainly related to the transnational investment network, and the discussion regarding the influencing factors and mechanisms is relatively limited. Due to limitations on the available data, the calculated network density only considers the number of CAICPs without examining the flows of capital. As such, the transnational investment network of CAICPs cannot be fully described based simply on the investment cooperation relationship. Furthermore, the capital flows of the parks and the supply-chain networks of manufacturing enterprises are more diversified and widely linked. Therefore, a network based on the internal enterprise units could more comprehensively and accurately elucidate the global production network formed through CAICPs. This is worthy of further study.

We sincerely thank Mr. Yan Yiran from School of Architecture, Southeast University, China for his suggestions on the network analysis and visualization that improved the manuscript considerably.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
Africa Business Pages, 2020. Chinese-built industrial park provides new momentum to Ethiopia’s growth. Available at: https://news.africa-business.com/post/eastern-industrial-park-ethiopias-africa. Cited 09 Dec 2020.

[2]
Alden C, Gu J, 2021. China-Africa economic zones as catalysts for industrialisation. IDS Policy Briefing 182. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Available at: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/16629.Cited05April2022.

[3]
Ali Z, 2007. The growing relationship between China and Sub-Saharan Africa: Macroeconomic, trade, investment, and aid links. World Bank Research Observer, (1): 103-130.

[4]
Ambrosé D P, 2014. The forum on China-Africa cooperation, ideas and aid: National interest(s) or strategic partnership? Insight on Africa, 6(2): 113-130.

DOI

[5]
Ayodele T, Sotola O, 2014. China in Africa: An evaluation of Chinese investment. Initiative for Public Policy Analysis: 1-20.

[6]
Bandiera O, Elsayed A, Smurra A, et al, 2022. Young adults and labor markets in Africa. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 36(1): 81-100.

DOI

[7]
Bräutigam D, Tang X Y, 2011. African Shenzhen: China’s special economic zones in Africa. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 49(1): 27-54.

DOI

[8]
Bräutigam D, Tang X Y, 2012. Economic statecraft in China’s new overseas special economic zones: soft power, business or resource security? International Affairs, 88(4): 799-816.

DOI

[9]
Bräutigam D, Tang X Y, 2014. “Going global in groups”: Structural transformation and China’s special economic zones overseas. World Development, 63: 78-91.

DOI

[10]
Ceglowski J, Golub S S, Mbaye A A, et al, 2015. Can Africa compete with China in manufacturing? The role of relative unit labor costs. April 2022.

[11]
CGTN, 2019. President Xi says China-Africa cooperation always yields win-win results. Available at: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-06-28/President-Xi-China-Africa-cooperation-always-produces-win-win-results-HTaBDoIaDC/index.html. Cited 05 April 2022.

[12]
Chen Y W, Li E L, 2019. Spatial pattern and evolution of cereal trade networks among the Belt and Road countries. Progress in Geography, 38(10): 1643-1654. (in Chinese)

DOI

[13]
China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCMB), 2019. Seminar on China Africa economic and trade cooperation zone successfully held in Changsha, Hunan Province. Available at: http://www.cocz.org/news/content-321497.aspx.Cited09Dec2020.

[14]
Fei D, Liao C, 2020. Chinese Eastern Industrial Zone in Ethiopia: Unpacking the enclave. Third World Quarterly, 41(4): 623-644.

DOI

[15]
Giannecchini P, Taylor I, 2018. The eastern industrial zone in Ethiopia: Catalyst for development? Geoforum, 88: 28-35.

DOI

[16]
Goodfellow T, Huang Z L, 2021. Manufacturing urbanism: Improvising the urban-industrial nexus through Chinese economic zones in Africa. Urban Studies, 59(7): 1459-1480.

DOI

[17]
Guo J K, Guo S, Qin Y F, et al, 2020. Change of China-Africa container shipping network and its ability to support economic and trade ties. Resources Science, 42(11): 2145-2157. (in Chinese)

DOI

[18]
Hailu M B, Yihdego Z, 2018. The law and policy of foreign investment promotion and protection in Ethiopia:an appraisal of theories, practices and challenges. Ethiopian Yearbook of International Law 2017. Cham: Springer, 13-47.

[19]
Han M W, Li S L, 2020. Network characteristics and community structure of marine energy products trade among the countries along the Belt and Road. Economic Geography, 40(10): 108-117. (in Chinese)

[20]
He Q, Cao X S, 2019. Pattern and influencing factors of foreign direct investment networks between countries along the “Belt and Road” regions. Sustainability, 11(17): 4724.

DOI

[21]
Huang M B, Zheng Y X, 2013. Global production network and China’s investment in Africa. Journal of International Economic Cooperation, 10: 58-64. (in Chinese)

[22]
Huang X, Huang X J, 2016. Evolution of economic linkage pattern evolution of economic linkage pattern based on social network analysis in Guanzhong-Tianshui Economic Zone. Human Geography, 31(2): 113-119. (in Chinese)

[23]
Isaac K-A, Eugene C N, 2018. Africa-China investment and growth link. Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies, 11(2): 132-150.

DOI

[24]
Jin S Y, Zhou X L, Gu J J, 2019. Analysis of knowledge transfer network structure of Chinese enterprises’ direct investment in Africa. Journal of Jiangxi University of Science and Technology, 40(4): 48-56. (in Chinese)

[25]
Kefa M O, Ben D, David B, et al, 2011. Airline connectivity as a measure of the globalization of African cities. Applied Geography, 31(2): 609-620.

DOI

[26]
Li W, Wei S Q, Wei S B, et al, 2020. Spatio-temporal characteristics and influencing factors of the direct investment network in the Belt and Road region. Areal Research and Development, 39(6): 6-11. (in Chinese)

[27]
Lin K J R, Lu X Y, Zhang J S, et al, 2020. State-owned enterprises in China: A review of 40 years of research and practice. China Journal of Accounting Research, 13(1): 31-55.

DOI

[28]
Liu J S, 2016. Evolution of world natural gas trade pattern based on social network analysis. Economic Geography, 36(12): 89-95. (in Chinese)

DOI

[29]
Ma S Z, Liu M H, 2020. Spatial correlation effect of China’s outward foreign direct investment in countries along the One Belt and One Road. Pacific Economic Review, 25(2): 228-249.

DOI

[30]
Makhtar D, 2015. Lessons for Africa from China’s Growth. World Bank, Washington, DC. April 2022.

[31]
Mamoudou G, Olivier M, 2012. Reordering international affairs: The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation. Austral: Brazilian Journal of Strategy & International Relations, 1(1): 51-74.

DOI

[32]
Max W, 2021. Industrial policy makes a comeback in Africa. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. April 2022.

[33]
Ministry of Commerce of China (MCC), 2020. Report on Development of China’s Outward Investment 2019. Beijing. Available at: http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/i/jyjl/k/202006/20200602973606.shtml. Cited 05 April 2022. (in Chinese)

[34]
Oqubay A, Lin J Y, 2019. China-Africa and an Economic Transformation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[35]
Overseas Development Institute (ODI), 2021. Investors should see Africa as a place to make a decent profit. Available at: https://odi.org/en/press/investors-should-see-africa-as-a-place-to-make-a-decent-profit-2/. Cited 05 April 2022.

[36]
Pádraig C, 2009. An Asian-driven economic recovery in Africa? The Zambian case. World Development, 37(7): 1197-1207.

DOI

[37]
Piao Y J, 2009. China’s direct investment in Africa: Country, path and strategic choice. West Asia and Africa, (7): 55-60. (in Chinese)

[38]
Qiu Y, 2005. Personal networks, institutional involvement, and foreign direct investment flows into China’s interior. Economic Geography, 81(3): 261-281.

DOI

[39]
Su H, 2015. FDI, technology transfer and cross-regional production network: A case of China’s direct investment in Africa. Proceedings of 2015 Annual meeting of China Society of Emerging Economies and 2015 Emerging Economies Forum: 69-81. (in Chinese)

[40]
Tian Z, Zhang Y, Jin S Y, 2019. Analysis of economics and trade cooperation network between China and important countries in Africa under the construction of B&R. Journal of Guangxi University of Finance and Economics, 32(3): 65-74. (in Chinese)

[41]
UNCTAD, 2014. Economic Development in Africa Report 2014. New York and Geneva.

[42]
Wang F, Hu Q G, 2019. Trade network structure of mechanical and electronic products of the countries along “the Belt and Road”. Asia-Pacific Economic Review, (5): 49-58, 50. (in Chinese)

[43]
Wang X, Liu B L, Zhang Z K, 2020. Analysis of the spatio-temporal distribution of foreign direct investment in Africa and its influencing factors. World Regional Studies, 29(6): 1125-1135. (in Chinese)

DOI

[44]
Wang X P, Zhao S B, 2019. Urbanization in Africa: Power of industrial parks. China Investment, (8): 45-46. (in Chinese)

[45]
Xinhua Silk Road, 2018. 2017 Overseas Economic and trade Cooperation zone ecological survey: Stage results have been achieved. April 2022.

[46]
Xu J B, Wang X P, Xu W B, et al, 2016. Study on the mode of industrial parks in Sino-African capacity cooperation. African Studies, 9(2): 105-120. (in Chinese)

DOI

[47]
Yang Y P, Gao Y, 2017. The choices of investment location for the countries along the Belt and Road: Perspectives on institutional distance and overseas Chinese networks. Economic Perspectives, (4): 41-52. (in Chinese)

[48]
Zeng D Z, 2015. Global experiences with special economic zones: Focus on China and Africa. April 2022.

[49]
Zhao S B, 2019. Research on the implementation evaluation of the planning of China’s overseas industrial parks[D]. Nanjing: Southeast University. (in Chinese)

[50]
Zhao S B, Wang X P, Hu X F, et al, 2019. Research on the development of China’s international cooperation parks along the Belt and Road: Status quo, effect, and trend. China City Planning Review, 28(2): 60-72.

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉