Were it all about resources it would show up in the data with more investment in resource-rich nations, which it doesn't [0]: > According to her data, the top

Were it all about resources it would show up in the data with more investment in resource-rich nations, which it doesn't [0]: > According to her data, the top 20 African nations in which China is involved include not only commodity-rich nations such as Nigeria and South Africa, but commodity-poor nations like Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda. > the largest deals — which tend to be government-to-government — do in fact involve infrastructure projects and natural resources. Those are the deals that make headlines. But, she asserted, they tend to skew the total reality. When looking at all Chinese firms that invested in Africa between 1998 and 2012, she said a picture emerges of small- and medium-sized private Chinese firms whose activities have nothing to do with commodities. “The number-one industry, in fact, is in services. It’s business services; it’s wholesale and retail,” There's a separate question of how robust the environmental controls, etc. are - but a lot of that is up to the local governments. They're going to take the sweet deals rather than the more onerous US terms and all their requirements. The article below is a great read - it talks about how the African nations are including more stipulations in deals - such as quotas for local employment, educational investment etc. [0] http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/chinas-investments-in-africa-whats-the-real-story/ http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/chinas-investment...