Behind the policy ‘trilemma’ hindering Africa’s growth

Science offers an unusual but apt metaphor to frame the policy “trilemma” crippling Africa’s long-term development. In physics, the three-body problem describes a system where three gravitational forces interact in ways no equation can reliably predict. There is no simple equation to predict what will happen in such a system; it is chaotic, sensitive to initial conditions, and prone to unpredictable collapses.

Put simply, any small shift will produce cascading consequences, which means achieving stability will never be permanent. This is playing out across Africa, as countries attempt to juggle climate adaptation, industrialization, and infrastructure development demands, with infrastructure constraints alone estimated to reduce the continent’s per‑capita economic growth by over 2 percent annually.

For decades, however, African policymakers have been handed a spreadsheet and asked to solve a quadratic equation, when the continent’s development trajectory is akin to being trapped in a three-body universe. Growth projections assume orderly sequencing. Investment frameworks assume predictable trade-offs.

But reality behaves differently.

Climate adaptation, industrialization, and infrastructure do not move in isolation. Each exerts its own pull, distorting the others. Any meaningful strategy, therefore, resembles navigating turbulence rather than the precise, technocratic execution of a plan.

Climate adaptation, the first body, is an anchor tied to survival. Across the continent, rising temperatures, erratic rainfall, and extreme weather events are not future risks but present disruptions. Extreme weather events now rank as the top long‑term global risk, with floods in southern Africa. Agricultural systems strain under worsening drought cycles. Coastal infrastructure faces repeated damage from worsening floods. And public budgets are continuously diverted toward resilience rather than expansion. 

The risk of systemic collapse remains real.

Hafed Al-Ghwell

What is more, adaptation will not deliver immediate financial returns, even if it determines whether any long-term investment will endure. Despite that urgency, global finance continues to prioritize mitigation, with only a small share directed toward adaptation, often through debt instruments that deepen fiscal pressure.

In turn, resource allocation becomes defensive, not developmental, even as the continent’s low-income countries face annual adaptation funding gaps of more than $300 billion. Meanwhile, international public adaptation finance continues to decline, falling to roughly $26 billion. Africa cannot build factories if its cities are underwater or starving.

Industrialization, the second body, is driven by the need for economic sovereignty. Exporting raw materials without value addition limits fiscal capacity and job creation. Manufacturing offers scale, productivity gains, and revenue stability. Curiously, manufacturing employment in sub‑Saharan Africa has tripled since 2000, yet the sector’s contribution to gross domestic product has stagnated, revealing a pattern of false starts rather than sustained maturation.

After all, industrialization demands cheap energy, logistical efficiency, and policy certainty. Each requirement introduces tension. Fossil-based energy lowers costs, but increases climate exposure. Protective policies nurture domestic industry, but risk isolating economies from global markets. External pressures further complicate matters. Decarbonization narratives risk restricting the very pathways historically used by developed economies, raising questions of fairness and feasibility.

Infrastructure, the third body, is an enabler with its own gravitational force. Roads, ports, energy grids, and digital networks underpin both adaptation and industrialization. Yet the scale of need remains vast. The annual infrastructure financing gap for the continent is now estimated between $68–108 billion — holding back growth and job creation for millions.

Besides, investment requirements reaching well beyond current spending levels, costs of capital remain among the highest globally. As a result, public budgets face constraints from rising debt service, often far exceeding infrastructure spending itself. Private capital shows interest, but hesitates in sectors with long payback periods, particularly climate-resilient projects. Infrastructure promises connectivity and growth, yet its financing structure pulls economies toward debt exposure and fiscal vulnerability. 

Equilibrium should not be the objective.

Hafed Al-Ghwell

Interaction among these three bodies produces outcomes that resist simple explanation. Debt-financed infrastructure perfectly captures this dilemma. Governments borrow to build transport corridors or energy systems. Repayment requires accelerated industrial output. Competitive industry, in turn, demands low-cost energy, often sourced from carbon-intensive fuels. Climate shocks then damage the very infrastructure built through borrowing, restarting the cycle under worse conditions. No single policy error drives the outcome. Interdependence itself generates instability.

Green conditionality adds another layer of complexity. Climate-focused financing raises standards for infrastructure projects, often increasing upfront costs. Cleaner systems reduce long-term risk, but can price African exports out of global markets in the short term. Industrialization slows, fiscal revenues shrink, and adaptation capacity weakens. Each gain along one axis introduces pressure along another. Policy coherence becomes difficult when incentives point in opposing directions.

Furthermore, external actors also exercise undue influence on this system. Carbon border measures alter trade competitiveness just as African economies attempt to scale manufacturing. Global interest rate shifts tighten liquidity, absorbing fiscal space that might otherwise support development spending. Debt servicing consumes large shares of government revenue in several countries, limiting investment across all three domains. Financial architecture acts less as a stabilizer and more as an additional gravitational force, often amplifying volatility.

The risk of systemic collapse remains real. Excessive focus on adaptation could lock economies into low-productivity equilibrium, where resilience improves but prosperity stagnates. Overcommitment to heavy industry without climate safeguards could produce stranded assets, repeatedly damaged by environmental shocks. Infrastructure pursued without fiscal discipline risks debt distress that halts progress altogether. Each path contains internal logic, yet none guarantees durable outcomes.

A different framing becomes necessary. Equilibrium should not be the objective. Stability in a three-body system rarely lasts. Effective strategy lies in managing motion, not eliminating it. Sequencing matters more than balance. Periods of infrastructure expansion may need to precede industrial scaling in some regions, while others may prioritize climate-resilient agriculture before building export capacity. Regional differentiation offers flexibility that national models often overlook.

Momentum, rather than symmetry, defines success. Coordinated investment that aligns adaptation with infrastructure can reduce long-term costs. Climate finance directed toward resilient energy systems, for example, can support both industrial activity and environmental stability. Evidence suggests that when climate finance flows effectively, infrastructure outcomes improve, particularly when supported by human capital and technological capacity. Integration, however, requires ownership. Heavy reliance on external funding, especially debt-based flows, limits policy autonomy and reinforces misalignment.

Global financial reform remains central, but uncertain. More concessional finance, greater emphasis on adaptation, and fairer trade rules would ease systemic pressure. Progress on these fronts has been uneven. African strategies, therefore, cannot depend solely on external correction. Internal coordination, regional value chains, and pragmatic sequencing offer more immediate pathways.

Africa’s development will not follow a straight line. It will curve, accelerate, and occasionally reverse. Success will depend on reading those movements early and responding with precision rather than waiting for a balance that never arrives.

• Hafed Al-Ghwell is senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center in Washington and senior fellow at the Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies.

X: @HafedAlGhwell