Received: 27 January 2022 Revised: 7 June 2022 Accepted: 21 June 2022

DOI: 10.1002/jid.3684

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Socio-economic impact of China's infrastructure-

led growth model in Africa: A case study of the
Kenyan Standard Gauge Railway

Keren Zhu1 | Ben Mwangi2 | Lynn Hu1

1
Pardee RAND Graduate School, Santa
Monica, California, USA Abstract
2
Institute for Climate Change and Adaptation, We assessed the perceived socio-economic impact of the
University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya Kenyan Standard Gauge Railway (SGR), using an original
Correspondence survey with 132 experts and interviews with 91 community
Keren Zhu, Global Development Policy residents across five cities and towns. We found that local
Center, Boston University, Boston, USA.
Email: [email protected] and international stakeholders prioritize socio-economic
impacts over other impact domains, while there remain local
Present address
Keren Zhu, Global Development Policy tensions between economic growth and environmental
Center, Boston University, Boston, USA. conservation. SGR significantly helped tourism and
moderately enhanced employment, with winners and losers
divided by business sizes, sectors and locations. To
maximize positive impact, China's infrastructure-led model
may benefit from integrating physical infrastructure with
supporting services and facilities to promote more equitable
growth worldwide.

KEYWORDS
Belt and Road Initiative, China–Africa cooperation, infrastructure,
Kenya, programme evaluation, socio-economic impact, South–
South Cooperation, Standard Gauge Railway

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N

China's infrastructure-led approach (Schindler & Kanai, 2021) in its foreign economic engagement and in South–
South Cooperation has attracted increased attention in recent years. The proposal of the Belt and Road Initiative

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of International Development published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

614 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jid J. Int. Dev. 2023;35:614–638.

ZHU ET AL. 615

(BRI), with its emphasis on infrastructure connectivity and industrial capacity cooperation (Xu et al., 2020), further
puts infrastructure at the centre of China's international development strategy. Megaprojects—large-scale, complex
ventures that cost over $1 billion, involve multiple public and private stakeholders and bring potential transforma-
tional impact on millions of people (Flyvbjerg, 2017)—are deemed particularly significant under China's overseas
finance scheme and BRI cooperation framework. The prominence of megaprojects is evident from the percentage of
projects exceeding $1 billion in Chinese overseas investment and BRI projects. According to Chinese overseas
investment data from China Global Investment Tracker, megaprojects account for 18% of the total number of BRI
projects and 56% of BRI total investment (China Global Investment Tracker, 2021).
China's infrastructure development effort in Africa constitutes the bulk of its loan provision, accounting for 48%
to 95% of total loan provision on an annual basis from 2000 to 2019, according to data from the China Africa
Research Initiative and Boston University Global Development Policy Center (2021). Railway development is a pillar
of China's infrastructure development effort in Africa (Marson et al., 2021) and offers a critical lens for understanding
the impact of China's infrastructure-led model. Better understanding the socio-economic impact of China-funded
infrastructure projects overseas helps reveal project performance and enhances project transparency. It can also
facilitate project host country governments' data capacity building, provide the Chinese government feedback on
project improvement and offer international researchers and practitioners empirical evidence to track China's global
impact objectively.
To better understand the socio-economic impact of China-funded infrastructure megaprojects in Africa, we
focus on the Kenyan Standard Gauge Railway (SGR), a critical case in Africa–China infrastructure cooperation and
the largest infrastructure investment in the past century in Kenya's history (Taylor, 2020). Connecting coastal com-
mercial port Mombasa to the Kenyan capital Nairobi, the 480-km railway is the first modern railway that Kenya has
built since its independence and has adopted Chinese standards, technology and construction machinery (Wang &
Wissenbach, 2019a).
In this paper, we seek to provide a preliminary assessment of the socio-economic impact of the Kenyan SGR,
covering the overall economic performance and variance of impact across sectors, regions and stakeholders, with an
emphasis on the tourism sector and the labour market impact. To understand the socio-economic impact of the SGR
comprehensively, we looked at the issue from two different angles. First, we studied stakeholders' perceptions of
the importance and prioritization of different SGR impact domains to better understand the real needs and concerns
of various stakeholder groups. We then studied the actual socio-economic impact of the SGR by looking into its
influences on community residents who lived nearby.
In this paper, we seek to answer two questions:

1. What areas of SGR's impact do different stakeholders value and prioritize? (RQ1)
2. What are the socio-economic impacts of the Kenyan SGR on the local community? (RQ2)

To answer the first question, we conducted an original survey with 132 participants from six stakeholder
groups and follow-up interviews to understand their reasoning. To answer the second question, we analysed
91 interviews with community residents that we conducted across five cities and towns along the Kenyan SGR.
The survey mainly targeted infrastructure megaproject stakeholders, including government officials, international
organization experts, researchers, SGR staff and community residents. The interview mainly targeted community
residents affected by the Kenyan SGR, including business owners, passengers and local government officials.
There is no overlap between the survey and interview participants. In addition, we present secondary data issued
by the Kenyan National Bureau of Statistics (n.d.) and the World Bank to provide broader contexts in support of
findings from our primary data.
To our knowledge, this is the first paper that employs primary data of infrastructure megaproject stakeholders
involved in the SGR and community residents affected by the SGR. Our original survey dataset (N = 132) is unique
as it captures the perspectives of hard-to-reach stakeholders, whose opinions are critical for project development
616 ZHU ET AL.

and evaluation of the SGR. Our original interview dataset (N = 91), on the other hand, closely captures the changes
in the lives of community residents affected by the project's daily operation. These two relatively large primary
datasets allow us to evaluate the social-economic impact of the SGR from two critical and distinctive perspectives. In
addition, by combining primary data with secondary data sources,1 we were able to identify a more comprehensive
impact of the SGR on the overall economy, tourism sector and the labour market.
Our paper proceeds as follows. In Section 2, we summarize the existing literature on the Kenyan SGR. In
Section 3, we introduce the analytical framework of the paper and the methodologies we applied in this paper.
Methodologies to be discussed include a multi-stakeholder survey to understand the perceived importance of impact
domains and fieldwork and interview in five cities and towns to understand the impact on affected communities.
Section 4 addresses RQ1 by presenting the importance and prioritization of socio-economic impact based on
multi-stakeholder survey results. Section 5 addresses RQ2 by first presenting trends on wider socio-economic impact
using secondary data, then analysing how SGR development created winners and losers in different sectors, across
five cities and towns, in different sections of the labour market, based on evidence from the interviews. We conclude
the paper with limitations of our approach, policy implications of our assessment and future research directions in
Section 6.

2 | LITERATURE REVIEW

Existing literature has developed approaches to assessing the environmental (Li et al., 2019), health (Mueller
et al., 2015; Waheed et al., 2018), sustainability (Verma et al., 2015), climate change (Lonergan et al., 1993), eco-
nomic (Lynch, 2000), social (Forkenbrock & Weisbrod, 2001) and safety impact (Kustra et al., 2016) of transportation
infrastructure projects. These existing assessments are generally divided into domain-specific and integrated interdis-
ciplinary assessments. Assessing the socio-economic effects of a large-scale transportation project is inherently
complex because of the need to balance benefits to users and effects on other community residents and trade-offs
between positive and negative impacts on different stakeholder groups (Forkenbrock & Weisbrod, 2001). A
multi-stakeholder approach is needed to comprehensively assess project impacts (Zhu et al., 2020, 2021).
Developing countries' realities add to this complexity due to limited statistical capacity, use of outdated data and
methods, large agricultural sector leading to highly fluctuating economic outcomes and large undercounted informal
economies and limited price data (Angrist et al., 2021).
Based on existing literature, we summarize basic information about the Kenyan SGR (Table 1) and present a map
of its proposed and completed route (Figure 1) below.
There is a growing literature on the Kenyan SGR that has provided an in-depth assessment of the political con-
tentions (Wang & Wissenbach, 2019b), state capacity (Wang, 2022) and ecological implications (Nyumba
et al., 2021) of the project. Scholars and practitioners have initiated discussions of the socio-economic impact of the
project from the perspectives of technological transfer (Chege et al., 2019), debt sustainability (Githaiga &
Bing, 2019; Irandu & Owilla, 2020), infrastructural territorialization (Lesutis, 2021), economic feasibility and cost
accounting (Ndii, 2018; Taylor, 2020). Yet no systematic socio-economic impact assessment has been attempted.
The obstacle to comprehensively assessing the socio-economic impact of the Kenyan SGR lies in the lack of
micro-level data that provide substantial evidence on economic development outcomes. This paper fills in this
gap in the literature by examining the comprehensive social-economic impact of the SGR from two critical and
distinctive perspectives: stakeholders' perceived impact of the SGR and the actual influence of SGR on local
residents. Using two relatively large primary datasets we created, combined with secondary data sources, we were
able to identify a comprehensive social-economic impact of the SGR on the overall economy, tourism sector and the
labour market.

1
We used data from Kenyan Economic Survey, quarterly GDP reports and the World Bank from 2000 and 2021.
ZHU ET AL. 617

TABLE 1 Facts on the Standard Gauge Railway project, Kenya

Contract amount USD 3.804 billion

Funding agency The Government of the Republic of Kenya (15%)
Export–Import Bank of China provides loans for the Kenyan Government (85%)
Client Kenya Railway Corporation (KRC)
EPC contractor China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC)
Characteristics 480 km in length; single-track non-electric SGR from Mombasa to Nairobi (Phase 1) and
Naivasha (Phase 2A); freight trains of up to 80 km/h and passenger trains at up to
120 km/h
Date of commencement 12 December 2014
Date of operation 31 May 2017 (Phase 1), 16 October 2019 (Phase 2A)
Operator Africa Star Railway Operations Company (Afristar), a subsidiary of CRBC

Source: China Road and Bridge Corporation Social Responsibility Report on Mombasa Nairobi SGR Project.

F I G U R E 1 Proposed Kenyan SGR Network.

Note: The route marked grey indicates incomplete phases of the railway due to shortage of funding.
Source: Author's own based on a map from Maps Kenya

3 | METHODS

3.1 | Analytical framework

We draw our analytical framework of socio-economic impact from Cheng and Chen (2022). This meta-analysis, by
analysing 242 academic publications, is by far one of the most comprehensive assessments of railway projects'
socio-economic impact. According to this study, the socio-economic impact of a railway project falls into the follow-
ing categories: (1) change of accessibility, (2) impact on other modes of transportation, (3) environmental impact,
(4) tourism impact, (5) housing and land impact, (6) labour market and industry and (7) economic performance. We
618 ZHU ET AL.

excluded environmental impact from our analysis due to burgeoning literature in this domain and excluded the
impact on housing, land and industry due to the longer time horizon for these domains of impact to become
prominent. As a result, our analysis focused on short-term impact, that is, how the change in accessibility and
transportation modes affect the tourism sector and the labour market. We present our conceptual model or SGR
socio-economic impact assessment in Figure 2.

3.2 | Multi-stakeholder survey in assessing perceived importance of different impact

domains

To understand the perceived importance of wide-ranging impact domains that need to be considered in assessing
the Kenyan SGR, we conducted an original survey to elicit feedback from stakeholders involved in the SGR
decision-making, management and implementation, as well as communities affected by the SGR, to understand the
importance of different impact domains, as well as the impact domains that should be prioritized in an evaluation.
We also conducted follow-up interviews with interested participants to understand the reasoning behind their
choices. The interface of the online survey is presented in Figures 3 and 4.
Based on a literature review of existing evaluation frameworks and BRI literature (Zhu et al., 2020), 14 impact
domains were included in the questionnaire:

1. trade (exchange and free flow of goods and services);

2. connectivity (speed, volume, safety and efficiency of transportation routes);
3. cross-country economic integration (integration of economic activities across different countries);
4. local business development (thriving of local companies, including small and medium enterprises);
5. employment (creation of jobs opportunities in the short term and long term);
6. technological transfer (transfer the skills to build, operate and maintain the project to locals);
7. financial sustainability (the project is finished within budget, with an acceptable level of debt);
8. corruption (there is no corruption and illegal transaction in project development);
9. international relations (affecting the strategic interests of and relationship with other countries);

F I G U R E 2 Conceptual model for SGR socio-economic impact assessment.

Source: Adapted from Cheng and Chen (2022) based on Kenyan SGR analytical needs
ZHU ET AL. 619

F I G U R E 3 Online Survey Interface 1.

Source: the author's questionnaire design

F I G U R E 4 Survey Interface 2.
Source: the author's questionnaire design

10. security (free from danger or threat from other countries' military presence and terrorism);
11. environment (changes in natural and built environment, pollution and natural disasters);
12. health (physical and mental health conditions of individuals in the affected community);
13. demographic changes (migration pattern, age, gender, ethnicity, education and income level of the affected
population); and
14. community attitude (community's acceptance of and support for the project).

We applied convenience and snowball sampling in recruiting participants, starting from stakeholders directly
connected in our social network, then branching out to their colleagues and collaborators through referral. In total,
132 participants took the survey. Sample sizes of each type of survey participants are summarized as follows:
scholars studying global infrastructure and Chinese overseas finances (N = 40), community residents living in
affected communities along the SGR (N = 32), Kenyan SGR managers and staff (N = 18), Chinese government
officials (N = 14), Kenyan government officials (N = 14) and international organization practitioners specialized in
infrastructure (N = 14).
To analyse stakeholders' responses on the perceived importance of impact domains, we converted respondents'
importance ratings into scores for different impact domains, with 1 signifying ‘very unimportant’, 2 ‘unimportant’,
3 ‘neutral’, 4 ‘important’ and 5 ‘very important’. Then, we calculated the mean score and standard deviation of each
impact domain for stakeholders at large and for each stakeholder group. Based on the ranking of the mean score of
each impact domain, we identified the most important domains.
To analyse stakeholders' prioritization of impact domains, we calculated the frequency of occurrence for
each impact domain the ranked order them to identify the impacts that require prioritization in resource-limited
settings.
620 ZHU ET AL.

3.3 | Socio-economic impact on SGR-affected communities: Fieldwork and interviews

We conducted fieldwork between September and November 2021 across five cities and towns along the SGR and
interviewed 91 individuals including business owners and operators, passengers and SGR staff to understand the
actual impact of the SGR on the local community, with a focus on the transportation and tourism sector. We
recruited respondents through convenience sampling, reaching out to manufacturers, transport operators, hotel and
restaurant owners and government officials (with a pre-set number range of respondents for each category) 1, 5 and
10 km from the five SGR stations covered. For every other interviewee, we seek to recruit a female respondent.
The five cities and towns are selected for their significance in railway and road transportation and the notable
impact of SGR on the local economy because of their location and economic structure and status. Figure 5 repre-
sents the locations of the five sites selected, and Table 2 summarizes basic information about the sites selected for
fieldwork and interview. For larger cities including Mombasa and Nairobi, we covered both neighbourhoods in the
vicinity of the SGR and renowned commercial districts to ensure the representativeness of the informants.
The number of interviewees we recruited is largely in the proportion of the economic scale of the city or town,
with an intentional over-recruitment in smaller towns to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the local
socio-economic impact of the SGR. Key question topics covered in the interviews include (1) professional affiliation,
(2) view on the Kenyan SGR (benefits of the SGR, negative outcomes after SGR development and areas of improve-
ment for sustainable SGR development) and (3) socio-economic impact of the SGR (types of goods and services pro-
vided, change in the variety and quantity of goods and services sold, change in the variety and quantity of goods and
services purchased, change in monthly revenue of the interviewee's organization or establishment, change in

F I G U R E 5 Phases 1 and 2A of the Kenyan SGR and locations covered in our fieldwork.
Source: The author's own mapping
 ZHU ET AL.

TABLE 2 Summary of fieldwork and interview sites

City/town

Mombasa Voi Mtito Andei Nairobi Suswa

Population based on 1,208,333 111,831 14,686 4,397,073 5592
2019 Census
County Mombasa Taita Taveta Makueni Nairobi Narok
County share of gross 4.7% 0.7% 1.4% 21.7% 2.2%
county product, 2017
Location in relation Railway terminal adjacent Major entrance to the In the middle of highway Key transit connecting Terminal of Phase 2A of the
to the SGR and road to seaport Tsavo National Park transit between Phase 1 and Phase 2A Kenyan SGR
transportation Mombasa and Nairobi of the railway
Economic status Second largest economy in Largest town in the Taita Small town by road and Largest economy in A small town, predominantly
Kenya, major tourist Taveta County, heavily railway, heavily Kenya, major tourist reliant on livestock selling
destination. Mombasa dependent on tourism dependent on road destination. New by the Maasais
Port used to be major transport commuter logistics and cargo
logistics and cargo traffic clearing centre since
clearing centre SGR operation
Main ethnic groups The Mijikenda, Swahili and The Taita The Kambas Very ethnically diverse The Maasai
Kenyan Arabs
Number of individuals 21 12 11 40 7
interviewed

Source: The author's own tabulation based on data from the Kenyan National Bureau of Statistics.
621
622 ZHU ET AL.

monthly household income, change in one's employment and friends' employment, new skills developed since the
introduction of the SGR and other impacts of the SGR on businesses).
In interviewing the business owners and community residents, we struck a balance in terms of gender representa-
tion and the size of businesses. In total, we interviewed 91 individuals. Community residents that we surveyed were
divided into the following business categories (sample sizes in parenthesis): individually owned and operated (N = 42),
over 10 employees (N = 23), government or transnational corporations (N = 19) and 2–10 employees (N = 5).
Alternatively, the 91 interviewees came from various sectors: retail (N = 20), transport (N = 17), hotel (N = 17),
non-business (N = 14), passengers (N = 12), tour operation (N = 7), manufacturing (N = 2) and farming (N = 2).
For quantitative results such as percentage change of revenue, we calculated the mean among all interview
respondents. For qualitative responses, we applied thematic coding in analysing their answers, calculated the
frequency of occurrence of each theme and identified notable themes. Two of the co-authors were involved in the
thematic coding process to ensure the replicability of the coding results.

4 | W H A T A R E A S OF SG R ' S I M P A C T D O D I F F E R E N T S T A K E H O L D E R S
VALUE AND PRIORITIZE?

Table 3 presents the result of the perceived importance of different impact domains and their spread, ranked by the
mean score (on a scale of 1–5).
In analysing the survey on the perceived importance of different domains of the impact of the Kenyan SGR, we
used a five-scale rating score to quantify the level of importance, with 5 indicating ‘very important’, 4 indicating
‘important’, 3 indicating ‘neutral’, 2 indicating ‘not important’ and 1 indicating ‘very not important’. All 132 stake-
holders answered these rating questions. We grouped the 14 domains into three ‘spread groups’ based on the stan-
dard deviation of the mean scores of each domain. The higher spread group (coloured in orange) indicates that the
standard deviation falls into the top 25% of the total standard deviation range; the medium spread group (coloured
yellow) indicates that the standard deviation falls into the middle 50% of the total standard deviation range; the
lower spread group (coloured green) indicates that the standard deviation falls into the bottom 25% of the total

TABLE 3 Overall perceived importance of different impact domains

Domains Mean score (N = 132) SD

Trade 4.58 0.57
Connectivity 4.57 0.66
Cross-country economic integration 4.48 0.66
Employment 4.29 0.70
Financial sustainability 4.14 0.85
Local business 4.08 0.84
Environment 4.05 0.95
Community attitudes 4.00 0.80
International relations 4.00 0.91
Technological transfer 3.90 0.97
Security 3.88 0.93
Corruption 3.67 1.04
Health 3.46 0.98
Demographics 3.45 0.96

Source: Primary data collected by the author.

ZHU ET AL. 623

standard deviation range. In the ‘Domain’ column, we highlighted impact domains that belong to socio-economic
impacts (coloured blue).
As revealed from the table above, the impact domains of the highest importance (mean rating scores larger than
4.0) include trade, connectivity, cross-country economic integration, employment, financial sustainability and local
business development, which all fall into socio-economic impacts. These domains belong to the lower and medium
spread groups, which suggests stakeholders' consensus on their importance. The only socio-economic-related
domain that has a lower mean and higher spread is technological transfer. While stakeholders view environmental
impact as important, there is a high degree of disagreement amongst respondents. In general, respondents view
security, corruption, health and demographics as less important in assessing the Kenyan SGR.
After administering the survey, we conducted follow-up interviews with 60 of the stakeholders to understand
the rationales behind their rankings of the SGR's impact domains. Most respondents grouped the 14 impact domains
into three categories—(1) domains that are ‘critical’ and ‘survival’ for project development, and ‘the key reasons that
the SGR was developed in the first place’; (2) domains that are ‘nice to have’ and ‘important to have but does not hurt
the key project objectives’ in an evaluation; and (3) those that are ‘tangentially related’ or ‘irrelevant to the SGR’. In
light of stakeholders' perceived importance of different domains, we may conclude that stakeholder groups in general
view socio-economic and environmental impact as the domains that are most critical to project development.
After breaking down the survey respondents into specific stakeholder groups, we found that certain groups
demonstrated some distinctive preference in their perceived importance of impact domains (see Table A1 for
details). For example, Chinese government officials put a higher emphasis on financial sustainability and international
relations. SGR staff in general attaches higher importance to technological transfer and employment compared with
other stakeholder groups. International organization experts put connectivity at the centre of their SGR impact
assessment. Community residents affected by the Kenyan SGR, similar to other groups, put more emphasis on trade,
connectivity and cross-country economic integration. Contrary to common beliefs, they have ratings that are lower
than ‘important’ for domains including financial sustainability, community attitudes and corruption.
In the survey, participants were asked to select the top five domains of impact that they think should be priori-
tized in evaluating the Kenyan SGR, to understand how to prioritize certain domains of impact in a resource-
constrained setting. Table 4 summarizes the frequency of occurrence of each impact domain.

TABLE 4 Result of prioritized impact domains

Impact domains Frequency of occurrence (N = 132)

Trade 105 (80.3%)
Connectivity 94 (71.2%)
Cross-country economic integration 85 (64.4%)
Employment 78 (59.1%)
Financial sustainability 58 (43.9%)
Local business 55 (41.7%)
Technological transfer 53 (40.9%)
Environment 33 (25.0%)
International relations 33 (25.0%)
Community attitudes 23 (17.4%)
Corruption 14 (10.6%)
Security 8 (6.1%)
Demographics 8 (6.1%)
Health 2 (1.5%)

Source: Primary data collected by the author.

624 ZHU ET AL.

The top-ranking domains that respondents want to prioritize (selected by more than 40% of respondents)
include trade, connectivity, cross-country economic integration, employment, financial sustainability, local business
development and technological transfer (coloured blue), which all pertain to the socio-economic impact of the
Kenyan SGR. Technological transfer has a higher prioritization compared with its importance rating. Domains that
receive limited attention include environment, international relations, community attitudes and corruption. Domains
that received the least attention include security, demographics and health. Findings from the prioritization rating
are consistent with the importance rating, which highlight stakeholders' consensus on the importance of assessing
socio-economic impacts in an evaluation.

5 | W H A T A R E TH E S O C I O - E C O N O M I C I M P A C T S OF T H E K E N Y A N S GR
ON THE LOCAL COMMUNITY?

5.1 | Positive wider socio-economic impact

The Kenyan SGR connects the coastal city Mombasa and the Kenyan capital Nairobi. It has significantly enhanced
transportation accessibility by reducing passenger travel time between Nairobi and Mombasa from 10 h by road to
4.5 to 5 h by the SGR. The average passenger occupancy rate is over 90% (Hu & Ongiyo, 2020), and passengers need
to book tickets in advance to secure a seat. The Kenyan government anticipated the SGR to boost Kenya's GDP by
1.5% annually, according to a 2017 estimation (Xinhua, 2017).
SGR operation changes Kenyans' choice of transportation modal dramatically. Our interviews suggest that the
Kenyan government issued regulations that enforced firms to use the SGR to transport cargo between Mombasa
and Nairobi, guaranteeing the stability of railway cargo transport volume, which has a profound impact on the road
transportation sector, as highway transport used to be the key mode of transportation between Mombasa and
Nairobi. Change in mobility, in turn, led to broader socio-economic impacts that are deemed central in the eyes of
different stakeholder groups.
Gross domestic product (GDP) provides an economic snapshot of a country and reflects the overall economic
growth of a country. GDP data collected by both the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics and the World Bank show
a steeper upward trend in GDP since 2014, the year when the SGR construction started (see Figures B1 and B2 for
details). These trends suggest that SGR may have a positive impact on Kenya's overall economic growth. GDP data
by economic activities also show trends of higher growth starting in 2014 in sectors such as construction, mining,
quarry and manufacturing (see Figures B3 and B4 for details).
Figure 6 illustrates the associated revenues of passenger and freight trains on the SGR since its operation.
Although the operation of the SGR was interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic,2 the SGR helped to generate a
substantial amount of revenues that can be used for debt repayment to Chinese entities. These revenues would
help the Kenya government to sooner reach the goal of project break-even and self-sustained development.

5.2 | SGR development created both winners and losers

While SGR operation has created an overall positive socio-economic impact according to official statistics, we found
from interviews with 91 local residents that the SGR has also created winners and losers that may affect future
community livelihood.

2
Passengers and the associated revenues went down to 0 because the SGR stopped its passenger train operations in May and June 2020.
ZHU ET AL. 625

F I G U R E 6 Revenues from passenger and freight trains on the SGR, June 2017–September 2021.
Note: We used data from Table 19(d): Passenger and Cargo Movement on the Standard Gauge Railway of KNBS
Leadings Economic Indicators report (2018 December LEI, 2020 December LEI, 2021 September LEI). For data
discrepancies between the reports, we used data from the more recent years. Passengers and the associated
revenues went down to 0 because the SGR stopped its passenger train operations in May and June 2020. We
converted the total revenue of freight in 2018 from USD to KES using monthly currency exchange rates (https://
www.exchangerates.org.uk/USD-KES-spot-exchange-rates-history-2018.html). All revenues are in current prices;
inflation was not accounted.
Source: Leading Economic Indicators, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics

5.2.1 | Variance between the tourism and road transport sector

Since SGR operation, transit between Mombasa and Nairobi became faster and more predictable, allowing people to
better plan for travel. This has significantly increased the number of domestic tourists, which diversifies the client
base of the tourism industry. Tour operators, hotels, restaurants and individual vendors all respond to the new
changes. Some cities and towns have significantly developed and expanded thanks to SGR operation and the tourism
boom. For example, starting from 2015, the number of adult Kenyan citizens in national parks and game reserves
(Figure 7) increased by about 30% and continued to rise between 2016 and 2019, only hitting a stop in 2020 due to
the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The initial increase may be explained by increased domestic population
movement due to the start of SGR construction, while the increase since 2017 may be explained by the enhanced
efficiency and convenience that SGR offers.
The thriving of the tourism industry created new tourist destinations in addition to existing national parks and
reserves. For example, travel from Nairobi to Suswa used to take hours and was highly unpredictable depending on
traffic conditions. With the operation of Phase 2A of the SGR, travel between Nairobi and Suswa takes less than half
an hour. With enhanced travel convenience and predictable travel scheduling, Suswa has become an increasingly
popular destination as a weekend getaway. Visitors come to experience the Maasai culture and dine in local
restaurants for fresh meat products that are renowned in the region. Increased visitors led to a diversification of
tourism services. For example, with the rise of Maasai-themed tourism, one of the local vendors that we interviewed
started to pick up new skills in making beads for accessories and souvenirs.
The varied impact of the SGR on different sectors is evident from the reported change in goods and services
sold and purchased by business type (Table 5). Our interviews suggest that tour operators, hotels and restaurants are
626 ZHU ET AL.

F I G U R E 7 Number of Kenyan citizens to national parks and game reserves, 2006–2020.

Note: The accurate data on Number of Visitors to National Parks and Game Reserves are not available in the
Economic Surveys. We have thus grouped the bar charts from different years together by aligning the data levels to
make the chart. To ensure the maximum level of consistency, we used only four Economic Surveys of year 2008,
2009, 2012, 2015, 2018 and 2021.
Source: Economic Surveys, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics

designing new options to cater to the growing and diversifying visitors brought by the SGR. For example, all tour
operators interviewed (N = 6) report a positive change in goods and services sold and purchased (Table 5). Hotel
owners and passengers also report significantly more positive changes compared with the average. In addition,
efforts were made on providing more tour options and developing new tourist destinations in response to the
increased number of visitors. Some mentioned the active partnership between tour operators and Afristar, the SGR
operating company, in promoting tourism on social media, which in turn contributes to an increase in SGR passenger
train occupancy rate.
In contrast, while road and storage transportation, in general, saw growth since SGR development, the road
transportation sector is hit hard by SGR operation. To guarantee steady revenue from the SGR freight services, the
government issued Gazette that forces business entities to ship their cargos using the SGR. As a result, the logistics
companies and road transport sector are negatively impacted. During qualitative interviews with local residents who
were employed by the road transportation sector (N = 19), 58% (N = 11) reported reduced customers. Reported
negative changes in goods and services sold and purchased account for 68% and 63% of these respondents in the
road transport sector (Table 5).
The sectoral difference is also evident from reported changes in monthly revenue and household income since
SGR operation (Table 5). On average, passengers (N = 8) and tour operators (N = 6) reported an increase in monthly
revenue by 17.1% and 15.0% and an increase in household income by 15.9% and 14.2%, respectively. In contrast,
hotel owners, retail managers and transport operators reported a decrease in monthly revenue and household
income. Transport operators that we interviewed (N = 19) reported a 16.3% decrease in their monthly revenue since
SGR operation, which is the largest loss of monthly revenue among all the business types.
SGR operation affects businesses of varied sizes differently and impact smaller businesses and individuals
disproportionally (see Table A2 for details). For example, while large, high-end hotels interviewed actively upgrade
ZHU ET AL. 627

T A B L E 5 Summary of reported changes in goods and services sold and purchased since Kenyan SGR operation,
by business type

All business Tour

Direction types Hotel Passenger Retail operator Transport
of change (N = 88) (N = 17) (N = 8) (N = 21) (N = 6) (N = 19)

Change in goods Increase 40 (45%) 11 (65%) 6 (75%) 9 (43%) 6 (100%) 5 (26%)

and services sold No 22 (25%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 6 (29%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%)
change
Decrease 26 (30%) 6 (35%) 0 (0%) 6 (29%) 0 (0%) 13 (68%)
Change in goods Increase 37 (42%) 10 (59%) 6 (75%) 7 (33%) 6 (100%) 5 (26%)
and services No 25 (28%) 1 (6%) 2 (25%) 6 (29%) 0 (0%) 2 (11%)
purchased change
Decrease 26 (30%) 6 (35%) 0 (0%) 8 (38%) 0 (0%) 12 (63%)
Changes in 3.3% 3.2% 17.1% 11.7% 15.0% 16.3%
monthly
Revenue
Changes in 3.7% 8.2% 15.9% 13.1% 14.2% 8.4%
household
Income

Source: Primary data collected by the author.

their services faced with greater competition, smaller accommodation and food providers that cater to truck and
motorcycle drivers report a decline or shutdown of the business. Our interviews reveal a larger cut in monthly
revenue and household income (by 10.0% and 17.5%) for budget hotel owners (N = 4), compared with higher end
hotel owners (by 1.2% and 5.4%, N = 13). Similarly, while the road transportation sector in general was hit hard by
SGR operation, larger companies were able to quickly adjust and identify new modes of operation to recuperate lost
revenue. In the retail sector, interviews with street vendors and bus operators suggest that SGR operations
disproportionally ‘squeeze out individual vendors’, leaving larger businesses that are ‘more resilient to shocks’ as
survivors.
Some scholars expressed concerns over the economic rationale of establishing subsidized railway transport as a
public monopoly to replace a competitive road transportation industry (Ndii, 2018). Our interviews suggest a
‘winner-takes-all’ tendency that may transfer resources from the hands of individuals in the informal economy to
bigger, more established businesses.

5.2.2 | Comparison of SGR impact across five cities and towns

Depending on which sector dominates a particular city or town, the SGR has also contributed to the boom and bust
of cities and towns along the railway route. We summarized the reported changes in goods and services sold and
purchased across the five cities and towns along the SGR and calculated the reported changes in monthly revenue
and household income since SGR operation for each location (Table 6).
One pair of contrast is between Nairobi and Mombasa, as the Kenyan government transfers cargo clearing
services from Mombasa to Nairobi, which led to a decline in revenue for Mombasa and job loss hired at the
Mombasa Port. The effect is less evident from reported changes in goods and services sold and purchased, monthly
revenue and household income partly due to the boom of tourism in Mombasa that offsets the business decline in
cargo clearance.
628 ZHU ET AL.

T A B L E 6 Summary of reported changes in goods and services sold and purchased since Kenyan SGR operation,
by location

Mtito
Direction All regions Mombasa Voi Andei Nairobi Suswa
of change (N = 91) (N = 21) (N = 12) (N = 7) (N = 40) (N = 7)

Change in goods and Increase 40 (44%) 10 (48%) 8 (67%) 2 (18%) 14 (35%) 6 (86%)
services sold No change 22 (24%) 3 (14%) 0% 1 (9%) 18 (45%) 0%
Decrease 26 (29%) 7 (33%) 4 (33%) 8 (73%) 7 (18%) 0%
Change in goods and Increase 38 (42%) 10 (48%) 7 (58%) 2 (18%) 13 (33%) 6 (86%)
services purchased No change 25 (27%) 5 (24%) 1 (8%) 1 (9%) 18 (45%) 0%
Decrease 27 (30%) 6 (29%) 4 (33%) 8 (73%) 9 (22.5%) 0%
Changes in monthly 3.3% 1.4% 7.9% 24.8% 2.0% 25.7%
Revenue
Changes in household 3.7% 2.4% 12.1% 16.6% 2.8% 21.4%
Income

Source: Primary data collected by the author.

In the five cities and towns we covered, the most prominent contrast lies in the rise and fall of Mtito Andei
(coloured in red in Table 6) and Voi (coloured in green in Table 6), two adjacent stops in the middle of the SGR. Mtito
Andei is located in the middle of the Mombasa–Nairobi Highway. Before SGR operation, travellers between the two
cities would overnight in Mtito Andei for accommodation, or stop over for meals and refreshments, which led to the
thriving of the transport, catering and retail sector. Since the SGR operation, Mtito Andei faced a major decline in
customers from road transportation transit. Despite the presence of an SGR station in town, since there are few
activities to do in town, visitors rarely stop at the train station, leading to a decline in business in town. In contrast,
Voi, the entrance to the Tsavo National Park, benefited from the vicinity to the SGR with an increased and diversi-
fied visitor base. Four years into SGR operation, the town has visibly grown in size and businesses have benefited
significantly. The decline of Mtito Andei and the rise of Voi since the SGR operation are evident from the reported
change in goods and services and purchased across five cities and towns.
One town that significantly benefited from SGR operation is Suswa, the final destination of Phase 2A of the
Kenyan SGR. Initially, a laidback town in interior Kenya resided by Maasai that traditionally lives on livestock farming,
Suswa did not see many commercial activities before the SGR operation. Local residents received compensation from
SGR construction, which increased local livelihood, making Suswa the only city/town we surveyed that saw an
increase in monthly revenue and household income after SGR operation, despite the negative impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic. To connect the SGR to renovated metre-gauge railway system that extends to the Kenyan
border, major construction is going on in and near the town. SGR also opened up travel opportunities, which all
contribute to a significant increase in goods and services sold and purchased, as well as monthly revenue and house-
hold income. Local people that have more disposable income now have more money to buy modern clothes, and
many are choosing modern apparel over Maasai shukas, based on our fieldwork observation. The Kenyan SGR seems
to have brought modern lifestyles to a traditional town, the long-term socio-economic impact of which remains to
be seen.

5.2.3 | Varied labour market impact

Labour market outcomes including employment promotion and technological transfer are critical to SGR develop-
ment in the original design of the project (China Road and Bridge Corporation [CRBC], 2021). While the SGR has
ZHU ET AL. 629

F I G U R E 8 Total recorded employment, 2001–2020, in thousands.

Note: The employment data are slightly different in different years of Economic Surveys. To ensure the maximum
level of consistency, we used only four Economic Surveys of year 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2021. Total recorded
employment includes the Modern Establishments Sector (wage employees and self-employed and unpaid family
workers) and the Informal Sector (estimated).
Source: Economic Surveys, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics

significantly contributed to local employment and technological transfer in the construction and operational phases
of the project, technological transfer's importance has yet to be established among stakeholders and to reach beyond
SGR staff to benefit the broader Kenyan community.
In terms of employment, KNBS data (cited in Figure 8) suggest a steady increase in employment before the
COVID-19 pandemic hit. According to data issued by the CRBC, the SGR created 72,000 jobs for Kenya, including
39,000 managing and technical positions. The local employment rate has reached 94.73%. In its operation phase,
Afristar accumulatively hired over 3000 local staff, covering five categories and 123 specific functions, with over
290 local staff serving in managing positions and a local staff rate of over 80% (CRBC, 2021).
Technological transfer and skills development lie at the heart of the project objective from the Chinese side.
Kenyan SGR as a flagship BRI project is distinctive in its adoption of Chinese standards and technologies and
highlights a new direction in China's infrastructure-led development overseas. Of the 52 roles of SGR operation,
including train conductor, are all independently operated by Kenyan staff. In addition, CRBC also provided
occupational training for local workers and sent local staff to China to learn to complete a bachelor's degree in
railway technology (CRBC, 2021).
In our assessment, we are interested in the spillover effect of the SGR on labour market outcomes. When
looking at positive and negative employment impacts on oneself, relatives and friends, 37% (N = 34) respondents
reported experiencing positive employment change: 47% (N = 16) of those were employed during SGR construction;
32% (N = 11) were employed at the SGR stations; and 26% (N = 9) gained new business opportunities due to
business growth near SGR. However, 33% (N = 30) of respondents reported different kinds of negative employment
impact: 47% (N = 14) of those respondents talked about the SGR squeezing out employment in the road transport
sector; 20% (N = 6) of the respondents mentioned the effect of the SGR leading to business decline or shutdown;
and 6% (N = 2) talked about other types of job loss, including job loss due to cargo clearing location transfer and
hotel cutting down employees. The rest of the 30% respondents (N = 27) reported a neutral effect or no evident
changes.
630 ZHU ET AL.

Combining interview responses with our fieldwork observation, we found that jobs created seem to be mostly
from direct employment in SGR construction and operation, whereas the jobs lost since SGR operation are mostly in
the informal sector. As state-owned and larger players absorb a larger proportion of employment, the long-term
labour market impact must be closely monitored.
As to skills development, 11 out of 91 (12%) reported having gained new skills since the SGR operation. New
skills learned can be mainly divided into three categories: (1) Seven respondents developed new skills responding to
new changes in the business environment, including skills to diversify client base and to develop new programmes,
enhancing security measures facing increased inflow of customers, introducing new lines of products, learning
Chinese language and culture and coping with evolving customer relationship. (2) Four respondents developed spe-
cific skill sets such as bead making for souvenir making, marketing skills and construction skills. (3) Three respondents
reported enhanced data literacy, gaining skills including online ticket booking and better data tracking of hotel occu-
pancy rate for business management.
Given the centrality of technological transfer in the original project design, it seems to be a domain that needs
to be further enhanced and continuously monitored for new development.

5.2.4 | Concerns for soft infrastructure provision and supporting services for physical
infrastructure development

While the enhanced mobility and connectivity offered by the SGR have brought significant benefits, community resi-
dents have also expressed some improvements needed for the SGR. We coded the interview responses and catego-
rized them into needs related to physical or hard infrastructure development and needs for soft infrastructure
enhancement (enhancement of rules, regulations and service provision accompanying physical to facilitate physical
infrastructure development and maintenance).
Among all respondents (N = 91), only 11% (N = 10) reported the need for hard infrastructure, including line
extension, capacity increase and railway technology advancement. On the contrary, 63% (N = 57) of the respon-
dents expressed the need for SGR services provision and soft infrastructure. Specifically, 34% of the respondents
(N = 31) mentioned the need for additional freight and passenger trains services, including better balance in the allo-
cation of traffic load between rail and road transport (N = 18); enhanced operation routes, capacity, schedule and
frequency (N = 8); and solutions to the last mile access (N = 5). Twelve per cent of the respondents (N = 11) men-
tioned the need for passenger train services, including the provision of peak-hour services, stoppage time, seating
arrangement, first-class utilities and services and disability and elderly services. Another 12% of respondents
(N = 11) brought up the changes needed for areas adjacent to the SGR railway stations, including fewer restrictions
for business access and compensation for affected businesses (N = 8), promotion of local livelihood and employment
and corporate social responsibility (N = 3). These interviews suggest that to further promote growth in the tourism
industry and more equitable and sustained growth, there is a need for enhancing soft infrastructure provision and
balancing soft-hard infrastructure development.

6 | DISCUSSION

In this preliminary assessment, we found that despite the politicized debate surrounding the Kenyan SGR, local and
international stakeholders prioritize socio-economic impacts, including trade, connectivity, cross-country economic
integration, employment, local business development and financial sustainability over other impact domains, while
the local tension between economic growth and environmental conservation remains a key tension defining the
possible future socio-economic impact of the SGR. SGR had a significant positive influence on tourism and a
ZHU ET AL. 631

moderate positive influence on employment, with winners and losers divided by business sizes, sectors and locations.
We also identified risks of diverting resources from the informal economy to larger businesses and from the informal
economy to the state-owned economy.
One additional finding we extracted from the stakeholder surveys and community resident interviews highlights
the tension between economic growth and environmental conservation. Stakeholder survey and interview results
suggest a difficult balance between socio-economic and environmental impact and tension between the two factors
shaping the wider socio-economic impact of the SGR in the long run. The tension echoes with the ‘growth versus
ecology’ contradiction in the ideology of sustainable development, which has generated many discussions in the past
three decades (Guo & Ma, 2008; Gupta & Vegelin, 2016; Hajer et al., 2015; Hickel, 2019; Pongiglione, 2015; Van
Ewijk & Van Wijnbergen, 1995). The two contradictory sides to the sustainable development goals, with one calling
for protecting the planet from degradation and the other calling for continued global economic growth, created the
tension in many development projects, especially for megaprojects such as the Kenyan SGR. For countries like
Kenya, which heavily relies on wildlife and natural landscape as the foundation of the tourism industry, the wider
socio-economic impact of better connectivity through SGR development seems to be a two-edged sword: While
boosting the number of tourists and increasing revenue, the increased economic activities may jeopardize environ-
mental conservation and endanger sustainable growth. In addition, the Chinese infrastructure-led approach, which
assumes connectivity and mobility as a prerequisite to economic development and prosperity, may clash with
Kenyan local perceptions that prioritize environmental conservation and local livelihoods.
What do the dilemmas explained above suggest about the internationalization of China's infrastructure-led
development model? On the one hand, this model, which bears great potential in reducing connectivity inequality,
spurring economic growth and promoting social benefits, aligns well with the objectives outlined in United Nations'
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. By providing development finance and infrastructure support, these
infrastructure-led development programmes can help countries with limited domestic resources to achieve develop-
ment objectives. On the other hand, some contradictions may exist between China's infrastructure-led development
model and the inclusive development goals outlined in Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the short run. In
Kenya, there are currently debates focusing on the infrastructure's role in promoting economic development, as well
as approaches and priorities of development programmes. It is particularly difficult to implement development
programmes that are economic-centred, environment-oriented and social-inclusive at the same time.
In addition to the ‘growth versus ecology’ dilemma, the SGR seems to have also created benefits and negative
outcomes simultaneously in various aspects, further illustrating the two-sided nature of SGR's socio-economic
impact and varied effects on different individuals and groups. Key contradictory outcomes since SGR operation
reported by local residents include efficiency versus inconvenience, decreased versus increased costs of doing
business, employment versus job loss, increased versus reduced customers and business growth versus decline
(see Table A3 for details). Additionally, as rural, traditional communities further become part of the global economy
and its modes of living with enhanced connectivity introduced by the SGR, the disenfranchisement of the informal
economy may give rise to other unintended consequences and equity concerns. The presence of these negative
impacts highlights the importance of attending to vulnerable and disadvantaged populations brought by the Kenyan
SGR and balancing the needs and interests of different stakeholders and interest groups in promoting inclusive
development.
How should such contradictions be addressed? It is critical for policymakers to be aware of the complexity and
challenges involved in the implementation of such infrastructure-led development programmes. Applying
infrastructure-led development to local contexts may require accepting trade-offs in the short run and achieving
sustainable and inclusive development in the long run. Policymakers should go beyond only prioritizing economic
development through an infrastructure-led approach in their future involvement in BRI and South–South Coopera-
tion at large. Instead, they should also take measures to minimize the impact on the environment and to enhance
infrastructure's inclusive benefits throughout the entire planning and implementation process. Policymakers should
also take different stakeholders' needs into consideration and utilize monitoring and evaluation tools to elicit
632 ZHU ET AL.

feedback from the stakeholders. Doing so will inform adaptive project management that maximizes consensus and
minimizes unintended consequences.
Our study has several limitations. In terms of interview data, we are wary of the potential bias in the interview
responses due to the pandemic, particularly community residents' reported percentage change in monthly revenue
and household income. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit Kenya, most of the economies were negatively impacted.
Respondents' estimate of their income tends to be shaped by their recent experience with the economic shock
brought by the pandemic, which may have resulted than a lower-than-reality estimate of monthly revenue and
household income. In addition, in the informal sector, as people's income fluctuates between months, it is hard to
gain an accurate estimate of their average income change since the SGR operation.
As to the survey responses, we observed that in follow-up interviews, different respondents have drastically dif-
ferent considerations and criteria in rating the importance and priority of different domains of impact. In some cases,
political concerns over certain impact domains affect stakeholders' ratings. To accurately interpret the survey results,
we need to integrate a quantitative assessment with a qualitative assessment of follow-up interviews to provide a
more nuanced analysis of stakeholders' responses.
As to secondary data, we have identified some inconsistencies in the data issued by the Kenya National Bureau
of Statistics, which limited the available dataset that we could use to present macro-level socio-economic trends. To
present a full image of the wider socio-economic impact, more consultations with knowledge management officials
and researchers are required for data validation. The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic may also impact many
socio-economic indicators from secondary data. Longitudinal tracking is required to fully understand the SGR's long-
term socio-economic impact.
Additional examination of the socio-economic impact of the Kenyan SGR suggests that China's infrastructure-
led approach may be strengthening larger, state-owned sectors and risks squeezing out the informal economy.
Research has provided evidence of the rise of intra-income income inequality since the introduction of the high-
speed railway (Yu & Yao, 2019). The effect of the Kenyan SGR on equality is something that needs to be assessed
longitudinally. Similarly, the effect of China's infrastructure-led development and its effect on countries in the Global
South requires in-depth case studies and transnational and cross-sectional empirical research for better
generalization.

7 | C O N CL U S I O N

Our study adds to the existing literature on infrastructure project impact assessment by providing empirical evidence
on the socio-economic impact of the Kenyan SGR through an innovative combination of primary and secondary data.
In integrating multiple stakeholder groups' perspectives in the socio-economic impact assessment, our study iden-
tifies the convergence and divergence of needs in infrastructure development and provides methodological and
empirical learnings on stakeholder goal alignment in international development settings. By studying stakeholders'
perceived project impact and the actual influence of SGR on local community residents, we illustrate some local
impacts of China-funded infrastructure projects in Africa. Using the case study of the Kenyan SGR, we were able to
exemplify the status quo, some emerging trends and key tensions in China's infrastructure-led development in
China–Africa relations and South–South Cooperation at large.
Our study reveals stakeholders' emphasis on economic values of China-funded infrastructure projects as repre-
sented by the Kenyan SGR while grappling with the tensions between economic growth and environmental conser-
vation and between winners and losers in the infrastructure-led development process. Given the dilemmas explained
above, it is critical to promote sustainable and equitable growth to minimize the negative influences created by the
SGR. China's infrastructure-led model should pay more attention to winners and losers resulting from project devel-
opment, be more attentive to enhancing socio-economic equity of project outcomes and strengthen supporting ser-
vices and soft infrastructure in support of physical infrastructure development.
ZHU ET AL. 633

DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT

The survey data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author,
Keren Zhu. The data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy
of research participants.
The secondary data that support the findings of this study are available in Kenya National Bureau of Statistics
(KNBS) at https://www.knbs.or.ke/. These data were derived from the following resources available in the public
domain: Kenyan Leading Economic Indicators and Kenyan Economic Survey, both available at the KNBS website.

RE FE R ENC E S
Angrist, N., Goldberg, P. K., & Jolliffe, D. (2021). Why is growth in developing countries so hard to measure? Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 35(3), 215–242. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.35.3.215
Chege, S. M., Wang, D., Suntu, S. L., & Bishoge, O. K. (2019). Influence of technology transfer on performance and sustain-
ability of standard gauge railway in developing countries. Technology in Society, 56, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techsoc.2018.09.007
Cheng, J., & Chen, Z. (2022). Socioeconomic impact assessments of high-Speed rail: A meta-Analysis. Transport Reviews, 42,
467–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1979689
China Africa Research Initiative and Boston University Global Development Policy Center. (2021). Annual Chinese Loans to
Africa, by Sector. April 2021. Chinese Loans to Africa Database, Version 2.0. Retrieved from chinaafricaloandata.
bu.edu/.
China Global Investment Tracker. (2021) American Enterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation. https://www.aei.org/
china-global-investment-tracker/
China Road and Bridge Corporation. (2021). Materials on Kenyan SGR. CRBC. Internal communication document
Flyvbjerg, B. (2017). The Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Oxford University Press.
Forkenbrock, D. J., & Weisbrod, G. E. (2001). Guidebook for assessing the social and economic effects of transportation
projects.
Githaiga, N. M., & Bing, W. (2019). Belt and Road Initiative in Africa: The impact of Standard Gauge Railway in Kenya. China
Report, 55(3), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009445519853697
Guo, L., & Ma, H. (2008). Conflict between developing economic and protecting environment. Journal of Sustainable Develop-
ment, 1(3), 91–97.
Gupta, J., & Vegelin, C. (2016). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agree-
ments: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(3), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9323-z
Hajer, M., Nilsson, M., Raworth, K., Bakker, P., Berkhout, F., De Boer, Y., Rockström, J., Ludwig, K., & Kok, M. (2015). Beyond
cockpit-ism: Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of the sustainable development goals. Sustainability,
7(2), 1651–1660. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7021651
Hickel, J. (2019). The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: Growth versus ecology on a finite planet. Sustain-
able Development, 27(5), 873–884. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1947
Hu, Y., & Ongiyo, J. A. (2020) The Mombasa-Nairobi Railway and the future of Kenya. Retrieved from http://www.mofcom.
gov.cn/article/beltandroad/ke/enindex.shtml
Irandu, E. M., & Owilla, H. H. (2020). The economic implications of Belt and Road Initiative in the development of railway
transport infrastructure in Africa: The case of the Standard Gauge Railway in Kenya. The African Review, 47(2), 457–480.
https://doi.org/10.1163/1821889X-12340027
Kenyan National Bureau of Statistics. (n.d.). Quarterly GDP Reports 2007-2020, Leading Economic Indicator Reports,
2018-2020, Economic Survey 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018, 2021.
Kustra, W., Jamroz, K., & Budzynski, M. (2016). Safety PL—A support tool for road safety impact assessment. Transportation
Research Procedia, 14, 3456–3465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.308
Lesutis, G. (2021). Infrastructural territorialisations: Mega-infrastructures and the (re)making of Kenya. Political Geography,
90, 102459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102459
Li, H., Deng, Q., Zhang, J., Olubunmi Olanipekun, A., & Lyu, S. (2019). Environmental impact assessment of transportation
infrastructure in the life cycle: Case study of a fast track transportation project in China. Energies, 12(6), 1015.
Lonergan, S., Difrancesco, R., & Woo, M.-K. (1993). Climate change and transportation in Northern Canada: An integrated
impact assessment. Climatic Change, 24(4), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01091854
Lynch, T. (2000). Analyzing the economic impact of transportation projects using RIMS II. IMPLAN and REMI.
Marson, M., Maggi, E., & Scacchi, M. (2021). Financing African infrastructure: The role of China in African railways. Research
in Transportation Economics, 88, 101111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101111
634 ZHU ET AL.

Mueller, N., Rojas-Rueda, D., Cole-Hunter, T., de Nazelle, A., Dons, E., Gerike, R., … Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2015). Health
impact assessment of active transportation: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine, 76, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ypmed.2015.04.010
Ndii, D. (2018). SGR by the numbers: Some unpleasant arithmetic. The Elephant. Retrieved from https://www.theelephant.
info/op-eds/2018/07/21/sgr-by-the-numbers-some-unpleasant-arithmetic/
Nyumba, T. O., Sang, C. C., Olago, D. O., Marchant, R., Waruingi, L., Githiora, Y., … Omangi, S. (2021). Assessing the
ecological impacts of transportation infrastructure development: A reconnaissance study of the Standard Gauge Railway
in Kenya. PLoS ONE, 16(1), e0246248. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246248
Pongiglione, F. (2015). The need for a priority structure for the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Global Ethics,
11(1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2014.1001912
Schindler, S., & Kanai, J. M. (2021). Getting the territory right: infrastructure-led development and the re-emergence of
spatial planning strategies. Regional Studies, 55(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1661984
Taylor, I. (2020). Kenya's New Lunatic Express: The Standard Gauge Railway. African Studies Quarterly, 19(3/4), 29–52.
Van Ewijk, C., & Van Wijnbergen, S. (1995). Can abatement overcome the conflict between environment and economic
growth? De Economist, 143(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384535
Verma, A., Rahul, T. M., & Dixit, M. (2015). Sustainability impact assessment of transportation policies—A case study for
Bangalore city. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 3(3), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2014.06.001
Waheed, F., Ferguson, G. M., Ollson, C. A., MacLellan, J. I., McCallum, L. C., & Cole, D. C. (2018). Health Impact Assessment
of transportation projects, plans and policies: A scoping review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 71, 17–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.12.002
Wang, Y. (2022). Executive agency and state capacity in development: Comparing Sino-African railways in Kenya and
Ethiopia. Journal of Comparative Politics, 54, 349–373. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041522X16225661565091
Wang, Y., & Wissenbach, U. (2019a). Clientelism at work? A case study of Kenyan Standard Gauge Railway project. Journal
of Economic History of Developing Regions, 34(3), 280–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/20780389.2019.1678026
Wang, Y., & Wissenbach, U. (2019b). Clientelism at work? A case study of Kenyan Standard Gauge Railway project.
Economic History of Developing Regions, 34(3), 280–299.
Xinhua. (2017). 8 quick facts about Kenya's Standard Gauge Railway. News China. Retrieved from http://www.xinhuanet.
com/english/2017-05/31/c_136328584.htm
Xu, S., Lifeng, H., Jizhe, N., Xiaotao, W., Jianmin, G., Qi, Z., Shen, L., & Chao, C. (2020). BRI and international cooperation in
industrial capacity: Industrial layout study. Routledge.
Yu, W., & Yao, Y. (2019). The route of development in intra-regional income equality via high-speed rail: Evidence from
China.
Zhu, K., Dossani, R., & Bouey, J. (2020). Addressing impact evaluation gaps in Belt and Road Initiative projects in Africa: The
Standard Gauge Railway project in Kenya as a proof of concept. The African Review, 47(2), 419–456. https://doi.org/10.
1163/1821889X-12340026
Zhu, K., Shi, R., & Lempert, R. (2021). Recalibrating the Belt and Road Initiative amidst deep uncertainties. Journal of Mega
Infrastructure & Sustainable Development, 2, 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/24724718.2021.1983281

How to cite this article: Zhu, K., Mwangi, B., & Hu, L. (2023). Socio-economic impact of China's
infrastructure-led growth model in Africa: A case study of the Kenyan Standard Gauge Railway. Journal of
International Development, 35(4), 614–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3684
AP PE NDIX A: ADDITIONAL SURVEY RESULTS
ZHU ET AL.

TABLE A1 Overall perceived importance of different impact domains, by different stakeholder groups

Overall mean Kenyan Chinese SGR managers Researchers from International SGR community
score government government and staff universities and think tanks organization expert residents
Domains (N = 132) officials (N = 14) officials (N = 14) (N = 18) (N = 40) (N = 14) (N = 32)
Trade 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.8 4.6
Connectivity 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.9 4.6
Cross-country 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.6
economic
integration
Employment 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.7 4.1 4.5 4.3
Financial 4.1 3.8 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.9
sustainability
Local business 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.3 4.0 4.2 4.2
Environment 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.9 4.4 3.9
Community 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.1 3.9
attitudes
International 4.0 4.0 4.6 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.0
relations
Technological 3.9 4.1 3.6 4.7 3.5 4.1 4.0
transfer
Security 3.9 3.9 4.3 4.2 3.5 3.7 4.1
Corruption 3.7 4.1 3.9 3.3 3.6 3.9 3.6
Health 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.3 3.6 3.5
Demographics 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.8
635
636 ZHU ET AL.

T A B L E A 2 Summary of reported changes in goods and services sold and purchased and changes in revenue and
income of hotels

Direction of All hotels Higher end hotels Budget hotels

change (N = 17) (N = 13) (N = 4)

Change in goods and services Increase 11 (65%) 8 (62%) 3 (62%)

sold No change 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Decrease 6 (35%) 5 (38%) 1 (31%)
Change in goods and services Increase 10 (59%) 8 (62%) 2 (50%)
purchased No change 1 (6%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%)
Decrease 6 (35%) 4 (31%) 2 (50%)
Changes in monthly revenue 3.2% 1.2% 10.0%
Changes in household income 8.2% 5.4% 17.5%

TABLE A3 A contrast between of reported benefits and negative outcomes since Kenyan SGR operation

Number Number
(percentage) of (percentage) of
respondents SGR negative respondents
Theme SGR benefits (N = 91) Impacts (N = 91)
Efficiency and Enhanced efficiency, 27 (29.7%) Inconvenience 5 (5.5%)
convenience schedule predictability and
ease of transportation
Cost of doing Cost effective 4 (4.4%) Increased cost of 6 (6.6%)
business goods and doing
business
Employment Job opportunities 10 (11.0%) Job loss 5 (5.5%)
Customers Increased customers 17 (18.7%) Reduced customers 20 (22%)
Business Business growth 3 (3.3%) Business and town 13 (14.3%)
growth decline
Safety Enhanced safety 4 (4.4%) N/A
Built-in Enhanced aesthetics 2 (2.2%) Environmental 4 (4.4%)
environment consequences
ZHU ET AL. 637

APP E NDIX B : ADDITIONAL FIGURES AND GRAPHS

F I G U R E B 1 Kenya's GDP at Market Prices, 2000–2020.

Notes: For GDP data of year 2007–2020, we used the first quarter GDP report in every year for the annual GDP
value of the previous year, except for year 2020 and 2007 (used the second quarter GDP report of 2021 and 2008).
The reason for this decision is due to limited data availability: (1) The quarterly GDP reports of every year only
include three quarters of data and do not report the overall annual GDP, and (2) there is no first quarter GDP report
of year 2021 or year 2008. For GDP data of year 2000–2006, we used the first quarter GDP report of 2007 since
there is no quarterly GDP report available in year 2000–2006. Data can be accessed from https://www.knbs.or.ke/
data-releases/. To identify the trend of economic growth, we used the GDP deflator data from the World Bank to
convert the real 2001 GDP data (year 2000–2013) and the nominal GDP data (year 2014–2020) provided by KNBS
to the constant 2009 prices. GDP deflator data can be accessed from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.
DEFL.ZS?end=2020&locations=KE&start=2000.
Source: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, World Bank

F I G U R E B 2 Kenya's GDP at Market Prices, 2000–2020.

Note: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD?locations=KE.
Source: World Bank national accounts data
638 ZHU ET AL.

FIGURE B3 Construction GDP, 2000–2020

F I G U R E B 4 Mining and quarrying GDP, 2000–2020.

Source: Quarterly GDP Report, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics
Copyright of Journal of International Development is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.