China, the world's second largest economy, has become Africa's largest trading partner. But it's a reality that many are increasingly wary of Chinese investment in the continent.

Some Western media outlets have criticized China's presence as being a form of neocolonialism that is bent on extracting African resources and expanding its political influence. Such criticism stems from three concerns.

The first is the Western elite's protectionism regarding its economic interests. For centuries, the West has considered Africa as its own investment region. While China's investment in Africa is rapidly growing, it is much less than that of the West. However, it has created a sense of insecurity in the West.

The second concern rises from a contrast between Western "Afro-Pessimism" and the Chinese view of Africa as a continent of opportunities. Although the West has been present in Africa for a few hundred years, they have considered it a region with no hope. However, China has found many business opportunities in Africa, which somehow irritates Westerners.

Still another concern is that in the past few decades, the West has resorted to the Washington Consensus as an ideological principle for global governance. China did not fully abide by the Washington Consensus in its domestic economic development or in its assistance to Africa and its investment there. These pose a challenge to the West's dominant ideology for global governance.

Western analysts tend to see China as a bossy patron, while my observation is that most Africans welcome Chinese investment as long as that investment creates decent job opportunities for them.   

Take Zambia as an example. During the recent financial crisis, Switzerland-UK-based J&W/Enya withdrew their investment in the country's copper mine, which led to unemployment and poverty in Luanshya, Zambia's well-known mining town. In comparison, State-owned China Nonferrous Metal Mining (Group) Co., Ltd maintained production and investment, and did not lay off workers. This not only benefited locals, but also provided some leverage for the Zambian government.

Admittedly, there are problems with some Chinese companies. For example, labor discipline is often an issue between some Chinese companies and local workers.

There are historical backgrounds behind this. For one thing, Chinese labor discipline comes from a traditional association with intensive farm work and with what is called the "Industrious Revolution" in China's recent history.

Another important context is that China's reform has recently created a large rural-to-urban migrant labor force. Uprooted from their multi-faceted living context at home, migrant workers in cities work long hours and barely have any personal life.

Chinese management tends to compare local workers in Africa with Chinese workers. But unlike Chinese workers, who have strong obligations to their families, kin and communities and thus tend to work for extra hours, local workers have multiple commitments in their everyday life.

Chinese companies can do more in terms of localization, such as employing and training local workers, supporting local supply chains, becoming more sensitive about local development needs, and taking more initiatives in interacting with local media.

Currently, more academics are taking a nuanced view toward China's investment in Africa and see that China is neither Africa's savior nor the destroyer of its governance structure. Their research, based on empirical studies, will help provide a balanced picture of the link between China and African countries.

The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Wang Wenwen based on an interview with Yan Hairong, a professor specializing in China-Africa links at Hong Kong Polytechnic University. wangwenwen@globaltimes.com.cn

Correction as of October 31: The print version of this article stated that the mining firm in Zambia that folded during the 2008-2009 financial crisis was Anglo American. This error has been corrected here. We are sorry about any confusion caused by the error.