Why Africa-led strategies keep failing at the national level

 

Africa does not lack continental visions. From the Africa Mining Vision to the Africa Green Minerals Strategy, the continent has produced some of the most sophisticated development frameworks in the global South. These strategies diagnose the right problems: dependence on raw exports, weak linkages to industry, and the need to align resources with long-term transformation.

Yet, again and again, they stall where it matters most: at the national level.

This failure is often blamed on limited capacity, weak institutions or poor coordination. These explanations are convenient — and largely misleading. The real problem lies elsewhere: Africa-led visions fail not because they are poorly designed, but because national futures are closed before they can be implemented.

Continental ambition, national closure

At the continental level, strategies like the AMV and AGMS expand the horizon of what is possible. They imagine mineral-led development that includes local processing, skills, regional value chains and technological upgrading. They are explicitly forward-looking.

But development does not happen at the continental level. It happens nationally — through licences, contracts, budgets and political bargains.

And it is at this level that the horizon quietly narrows and capture in anticipation.

Where the future is actually decided

National governments face intense pressure. Investors want clarity. External partners want speed. Political coalitions want revenues. Elections impose short time horizons. Under these conditions, governments make pragmatic choices: exemptions, stabilisation clauses, accelerated licensing, flexible enforcement.

Each decision appears reasonable on its own. Collectively, they close the future.

Long-term offtake agreements pre-commit output. Fiscal incentives lock in extraction-first models. Infrastructure is built to serve export, not processing. By the time national authorities invoke continental strategies, the space for manoeuvre has largely disappeared.

The future has already been negotiated — quietly, incrementally, and legally.

Elite bargains trump continental visions

This is not a failure of coordination. It is the outcome of elite bargaining at the national level.

Continental strategies rely on political commitment that must be renewed domestically. But national elites often face stronger incentives to secure short-term rents, maintain coalition stability or appease external partners than to enforce long-term transformation.

As a result, Africa-led visions are endorsed rhetorically and diluted in practice. They survive as reference points, while day-to-day decisions systematically undermine them.

The contradiction is not accidental. It is structural.

Exemptions are where strategies go to die

The most telling sign of this dynamic is the proliferation of exemptions.

Local content rules are adopted — then waived. Processing requirements are announced — then postponed. Environmental and fiscal conditions are negotiated — then relaxed. Each exemption is justified as temporary or exceptional.

In reality, exemptions are the mechanism through which continental ambition is neutralised nationally. They are not policy failures; they are political solutions to short-term pressures.

Over time, they hollow out strategy from within.

A multi-level problem, not a capacity gap

What this reveals is  what i call a ''multi-level horizonscape'' problem.

At the continental level, futures are opened. At the national level, they are closed. The two processes are not aligned in time or power.

Blaming “capacity” misses the point. Many of these decisions are made by capable actors, fully aware of the trade-offs. What is missing is not competence, but the political conditions to keep futures open long enough for continental strategies to take root.

Why reform always comes too late

This misalignment explains why reform so often arrives after extraction has begun, after infrastructure is fixed, after contracts are signed. By then, reversing course is costly and politically risky.

Industrial policy introduced at this stage appears disruptive or unrealistic — not because it is wrong, but because it confronts a future already stabilised.

Reform fails not at the moment of design, but at the moment of timing.

What would have to change

If Africa-led strategies are to matter, the focus must shift from writing better plans to protecting national decision space upstream.

That means disciplining exemptions, delaying irreversible commitments, and aligning elite incentives with long-term outcomes. It means recognising that every contract and concession is a choice about the future — not just a technical detail.

Above all, it requires political leadership willing to absorb short-term pressure in order to preserve long-term options.

The real test of Africa-led development

The success of Africa-led strategies will not be decided in continental summits or glossy documents. It will be decided in national bargaining rooms, contract negotiations and moments of exemption.

Until national futures stop being quietly closed, Africa’s continental visions will continue to inspire — and disappoint.

The problem is not ambition.
It is where, when, and by whom the future is allowed to be decided.