Britain and Kenya: The Nuance of Modern Infrastructure Deals

Boris Johnson and Uhuru Kenyatta, 2020. Source: Nairobi Wire.

Britain recently signed a lucrative billion-dollar deal with Kenya that will build up the infrastructure in Kenya as of February, 2022. Various deals in different sectors such as military training and security have been in the works for Britain and Kenya since 2020, as British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and Kenyan president, Uhru Kenyatta, have been holding productive discussions. This current deal includes features such as building a railway station and investing into sectors like climate financing . The railway station will be built by a British firm, Atkins Global. This deal can already be seen as advantageous for Britain, as investments from the East African economy consists of 10% of investments for the CDC group, a British agency, which has a four-billion-dollar investment portfolio in Africa. The advantages for Britain in this deal are clear, but what does this represent for Kenya, and what are Kenyans gaining? 

Kenya and Britain have a complicated past, as Kenya formerly was colonized by Britain in 1920. The conflicts and subjugation that came from colonialism remains relevant, and within the last decade Britain has paid reparations — worth $21.5 million — to 5,200 Kenyan victims of torture from the rebellions in the 1950s and 1960s. The relationship between former colonial powers and the nations that once were subjugated, such as Britain and Kenya, adapt. This adaptation can be seen in the domain of international business deals.

Deals between developing nations in Africa and wealthier nations such as the U.S., U.K, Russia, and China to build up infrastructure and mutual trade agreements have become increasingly popular, and at times can appear as a revitalized and modern “Scramble for Africa.” China in recent times has dominated infrastructure deals on the African continent, while the U.S. and U.K have primarily focused on resources and mutual trade agreements. It seems from the recent infrastructure deal that Britain brokered with Kenya that Britain circumvented China’s dominance on infrastructure deals. The competitive interest of wealthy world powers to invest in and secure interests in various African nations such as Kenya displays how the effects of colonial relationships still impacts world dynamics to this day because the wealthier nations that typically gained dominance on the world stage through their imperialism now continue to competitively seek the benefits that African nations hold. Even though Kenya mutually gains from this deal, the impact of colonialism still creates a need today — the trade relationship between these two nations is still influenced by colonialism because it has contributed to structures within Kenya that exist today that create an economic dependency on other nations. The main concern with this modern scramble is the dependence it can create and reinforce. 

Kenya currently has the largest informal settlements or “slums” on the continent, and they are continuously growing. The deal does not directly address the large informal settlements within the country, but aid from the U.K. is being sent while this deal comes together. The deal itself attempts to be cohesive with the “Build Back Better World” (B3W) initiative, which is an initiative that was launched under the Biden administration with the support of G7 allies. The initiative focuses on supporting and providing better infrastructure in the world through funding. 

The hope with this infrastructure deal is that it will eventually boost the economy within Kenya and lead to structural development by giving Kenya the means to invest one billion dollars in various sectors, and will provide improved means of travel for workers and merchandise, as Kenya continues to grow its infrastructure. According to African Development Bank Group, a group which strives to achieve economic progress and poverty reduction within their member nations, the success of infrastructure deals between wealthier nations and developing nations can come from encouraging “greater private sector investment” because it will accelerate “sustainable infrastructure development in Africa and attracting private capital to the region requires that investors be presented with bankable and investment-ready projects.” In the opinion of the African Development Bank Group, infrastructure deals between nations should work with the private sector as well in order to guarantee success, such as with companies like Atkin Global.

A data analysis report , “Private Sector Participation in Infrastructure in Africa,” details the various trends and outcomes of infrastructure deals in Africa. The article states that projects are important because Africa currently “is still considerably disadvantaged in all respects in the transport sector. Less than one-fifth of the roads network in sub-Saharan Africa is paved, compared to more than a quarter in Latin America and over two-fifths in South Asia…High transport costs handicap Africa’s capacities to compete within a global market.” Undoubtedly, there is a need for better infrastructure and economic development in nations such as Kenya, but there are valid concerns about the competitive nature of deals from wealthier nations in Africa.

Infrastructure development and poverty reduction is incredibly significant for a country’s health and financial success; however, it is also important to remember the nature of the international relationships that these infrastructure deals may take advantage of, and the consequences they may carry for developing countries as a modern scramble for Africa has manifested within the last twenty years as wealthier nations compete for Africas’s vast natural resources. As discussed in the research article, “Privatization in Developing Countries: What Are the Lessons of Recent Experience?” from The World Bank Research Observer, interactions between various groups or nations for infrastructure require delicacy and nuance that is well-designed and promotes equity. Without this consideration, deals such as the one recently finalized between Kenya and Britain could only serve one party, and would go against any desires to mutually better one another’s nation.