6/6 So what does all of it imply? Well, I'd urge you to have a look at the paper for that and much more!

5/6
-> Interest to develop agriculture value chains raises ? given the consortium’s focus on minerals + limited existing cross-border trade

-> Instead every country looking at its national interests bringing = age old conundrum of regional integration! Limited state capacity is a big culprit here

4/6

-> With significant Chinese presence, Western & Chinese business operations on the ground are highly intertwined, so what geopolitical competition?

-> Having experienced the worst excesses of the Cold War, corridor countries are not interested in taking sides in any sphere of influence

3/6 Our findings?

-> For all the headlines about the Corridor, actual investment figures from the EU (the focus of our paper) are hard to pinpoint.

-> The success of the corridor depends on traffic volumes, and there are quite a few questions, especially on the greenfield Lobito railway line

2/6 In highlighting the big role of the corridor in delivering geopolitical rhetoric, key factors (read commercial viability & political feasibility, beyond just the 'potential') are not critically evaluated. And by not looking at what corridor countries really want, African agency is somehow lost

Thanks Ryan and Tom! Appreciated :)