The currency of influence: Soft power, economic statecraft and superpower competition in the Global South
Written by CFC Economic & Trade Policy Community Group 2 (Andres Bautista, Paula Claire Cuasay, Jack Dhillon, Peter Guo and Alex MacDonald)
Any views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views or positions of any entities they are associated with or represent.
Imagine walking through the bustling port city of Mombasa, Kenya, or through the mineral transit hubs of Kolwezi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Along the newly paved multi-lane highways, high-voltage transmission lines stretch toward the horizon, container terminals hum with automated gantry cranes, and local university students gather inside vocational training institutes learning fiber-optic networking and clean energy engineering.
To the local citizen, these developments represent long-awaited physical connectivity, upward economic mobility and direct integration into global commerce. To an international trade economist or geopolitical strategist, every bridge, submarine data cable, concessional loan agreement and cultural institute represents something far more consequential: the physical embodiment of global soft power and competitive economic statecraft in action.
Over the past two decades — and with acute acceleration between 2020 and 2026 — the architecture of international relations has undergone a structural transformation. In the classical framework articulated by political scientist Joseph Nye (1990, 2004), soft power is the ability to achieve preferred outcomes through attraction, co-optation and persuasion rather than military coercion or economic bribery. However, in today’s multi-polar geoeconomic arena, soft power has fused directly with foreign direct investment (FDI), development finance, technical standard-setting and high-level commercial lobbying, a doctrine known as economic statecraft (Baldwin, 1985; World Bank, 2023).
As the United States, China and the European Union compete for strategic influence across Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, they are deploying distinctly different soft power playbooks. Influence is no longer measured solely by diplomatic communiqués; it is negotiated through multi-billion-dollar infrastructure packages, critical mineral procurement deals, digital regulatory frameworks and multilateral voting alignment (OECD, 2025; Boston University Global Development Policy Center [BU GDPC], 2025). For developing nations, understanding these competing strategies is the key to transforming foreign interest into sovereign economic industrialization, technological transfer and sustainable development.
1. The tripartite arena: Comparing China, the US and the EU’s economic statecraft
To evaluate how superpowers deploy influence, one must compare their official financial commitments, institutional delivery mechanisms and diplomatic narratives. Empirical tracking from the OECD (2025), the Boston University Global Development Policy Center (2025), the European Commission (2024) and the US International Development Finance Corporation (US DFC, 2024) reveals three distinct models of engagement:
Beyond differences in financial scale, this comparison reveals three fundamentally distinct strategic paradigms: China operates via state-backed, rapid turnkey infrastructure paired with bilateral resource access; the US leverages private capital de-risking alongside governance conditionalities; and the EU emphasizes regulatory standard-setting and institutional co-investment. Consequently, developing nations are presented not with a single development model, but with a competitive marketplace of strategic trade-offs between speed, sovereignty, standards and capital structure. Evaluated systematically, examining the distinct benefits and drawbacks of each bloc’s approach becomes essential for host governments seeking to optimize foreign partnerships while safeguarding national interests.
Further, recent discourse surrounding USAID bilateral official development assistance (ODA) highlights growing debates over foreign assistance reform and budget allocations. Critics of proposed aid reductions argue that curtailing development assistance risks diminishing soft power, eroding diplomatic goodwill and leaving strategic vacuums in key emerging markets that geopolitical competitors can readily exploit. Official agency statements and administration proponents, however, emphasize that programmatic adjustments reflect a broader foreign policy recalibration aimed at maximizing efficiency, reducing long-term aid dependency and encouraging private capital mobilization alongside enhanced local ownership. Advocates for restructuring contend that streamlined assistance frameworks can yield more accountable, high-impact outcomes, whereas policy analysts warn that sudden funding cuts could compromise critical humanitarian, health and developmental initiatives across the Global South.
2. China’s infrastructure diplomacy: The evolution from mega-projects to “small is beautiful”
China’s deployment of soft power in the Global South over the past two decades represents one of the most extensive infrastructure financing and diplomatic engagements of the twenty-first century. According to the Boston University Global Development Policy Center’s Chinese Loans to Africa (CLA) Database (2025), between 2000 and 2024, Chinese lenders signed 1,319 loan commitments amounting to $180.87 billion with 49 African sovereign governments and seven regional multilateral institutions. These resources were directed toward Africa’s energy grid ($62.72 billion), transportation networks ($52.65 billion), information and communication technologies ($15.67 billion) and financial services ($11.98 billion).
This physical infrastructure footprint has yielded immense diplomatic and commercial leverage. By addressing critical infrastructure deficits without imposing Western-style political governance conditionalities, Beijing has established deep political goodwill. At the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), voting alignment between African member states and China on core multilateral resolutions has consistently exceeded 80 percent over the past decade (AidData, 2023). Commercially, state-backed construction and mining entities (such as CMOC, Sinohydro and China Railway Group) successfully secured strategic equity stakes in major mineral assets, notably the Tenke Fungurume and Kisanfu cobalt-copper mines in the DRC and hard-rock lithium deposits across Zimbabwe (USGS, 2025).
Get Common Futures Conversations | Chatham House’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
However, facing sovereign debt restructurings in borrower nations such as Zambia and Ghana alongside domestic economic recalibrations, China has strategically retooled its approach¹. Annual lending has shifted away from multi-billion-dollar megaprojects toward the “Small is Beautiful” doctrine under the Global Development Initiative (GDI). Building on this transition, President Xi Jinping pledged 360 billion yuan ($50.7 billion) in targeted financial support through 2027 at the September 2024 Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in Beijing, emphasizing green energy transmission, localized manufacturing, Renminbi (RMB)-denominated cross-border trade settlements and technical education through over 30 Luban Vocational Workshops across the continent (BU GDPC, 2025; FOCAC, 2024).
3. Western strategic counter-offensives: The US PGII and EU global gateway
Recognizing that diplomatic rhetoric alone cannot compete with physical infrastructure, Western democracies launched comprehensive alternative frameworks designed to combine soft power values with institutional capital:
4. The mechanics of influence: How speeches, standards and lobbying secure deals
Soft power is rarely exercised in isolation; it functions as a catalytic multiplier for high-stakes commercial trade and investment negotiations. Superpowers utilize four distinct transmission channels to convert soft attraction into concrete economic alignment:
- High-level summitry and narrative framing: Summits such as FOCAC, the US-Africa Leaders Summit, the EU-CELAC Summit and the BRICS+ expansions are carefully staged diplomatic platforms. China emphasizes narratives of “anti-hegemonic South-South solidarity” and shared historical anti-colonial struggles, resonating strongly in post-colonial Africa. Conversely, the US and EU emphasize “democratic resilience, transparent governance and environmental stewardship”. These narratives set the ideological preconditions for bilateral trade accords (World Bank, 2023).
- Regulatory standard-setting (the “Brussels Effect” vs. Digital Silk Road): Soft power operates through regulatory lock-in. When the EU exports its regulatory standards, such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and digital privacy laws, foreign suppliers must align their domestic production to maintain European market access (Bradford, 2020). Conversely, China’s Digital Silk Road embeds Chinese telecom standards (Huawei, ZTE 5G networks and smart city operating systems) across dozens of developing nations, creating technological path dependency.
- Educational scholarships, technical training and knowledge transfer: Human capital development is the most enduring form of soft power. China hosts over 60,000 African university students annually with fully funded government scholarships, while establishing Luban Workshops to train local engineers on Chinese machinery. Western programs, including the Fulbright, Chevening and Erasmus+ fellowships, educate future civil servants, central bankers and legal elites, instilling Western economic paradigms and legal traditions.
- Commercial lobbying and strategic concession bargaining: State visits by heads of state and trade delegations are frequently timed to unlock commercial bottlenecks. When Western or Chinese leaders visit emerging markets, concessional aid and development grants are often signed in parallel with commercial offtake contracts for critical minerals, port operating concessions or airline purchase agreements, effectively lowering sovereign risk for their national corporate champions (OECD, 2025).
5. The strategic playbook: Turning geopolitical rivalry into sovereign development
For decades, developing countries were treated as passive arenas of great-power rivalry. Today, emerging economies across Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia are actively exercising strategic non-alignment and multi-vector diplomacy (Acharya, 2018). By refusing to choose exclusively between Washington, Beijing or Brussels, developing states can extract maximum developmental value.
Conclusion and strategic outlook
In the 21st century, soft power is no longer merely a cultural luxury; it is the primary currency of geoeconomic competition. As the race for the green transition, artificial intelligence and supply chain security intensifies through 2026 and the coming decades, the Global South holds the decisive physical assets. If developing economies navigate superpower rivalry with strategic discipline, institutional integrity and multi-vector trade diplomacy, foreign soft power can be channelled into authentic sovereign industrialization, technological sovereignty and lasting prosperity.
To operationalize this trajectory, international actors should establish a formal Critical Minerals Transparency Framework. Anchored within existing multilateral bodies such as the G20, this initiative could be implemented through four diplomatic and pragmatic steps:
1. Standardized public registries: Mandate the disclosure of essential transaction terms — including loan structures, concession durations, off-take agreements and state equity stakes — in open-access repositories to limit opaque leverage.
2. Joint environmental and social safeguards: Align technical auditing protocols across host countries and financing partners to streamline compliance while safeguarding local community rights and ecological standards.
3. Local value-addition commitments: Incorporate binding guidelines that ensure bilateral extraction deals include proportional investments in in-country refining, processing and workforce technical training.
4. Multilateral dispute-resolution mechanisms: Establish neutral mediation platforms to resolve contractual disagreements equitably, ensuring host nation sovereignty and long-term investor confidence.
Ultimately, the evolving landscape of global economic statecraft demonstrates that power is no longer unilaterally dictated, but continuously negotiated. As superpower competition intensifies, the nations of the Global South are proving that multi-vector diplomacy and assertive strategic sovereignty can reshape global governance. The challenge ahead is not merely to survive this age of geoeconomic rivalry, but to actively harness it to build a more equitable, resilient and interconnected world.
Footnotes
[1] Including China’s internal deleveraging as its total national debt-to-GDP ratio exceeded 305% (IIF, 2024/2025), Egypt’s IMF-backed $8 billion Extended Fund Facility and structural subsidy reforms (IMF, 2024–2026), and Sri Lanka’s domestic debt optimization paired with its ongoing IMF program implementation (IMF World Economic Outlook, 2024).
