Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Energy poverty, frequently defined as a lack of access to energy sources for essential services, is considered a major global challenge for sustainable economic growth and human well-being. Within the CES utility function and the Melitz heterogeneous-firm theory, this study estimates how China’s OFDI activities affect and alleviate energy poverty in African countries. With the help of the 1282,684 enterprise-country-year and 98,566 city-country-year pair observations from 2009 to 2021, this study reveals the following conclusions: (1) China’s OFDI can alleviate the energy poverty situation, with city-level OFDI aggregation generating a more stable effect than individual enterprise investments. (2) Regarding energy poverty dimensions, energy production has a more positive effect than energy accessibility and energy consumption. As for investment types, market-seeking OFDI shows a stronger improvement effect than resource- and asset-seeking investments. (3) Infrastructure construction has a better mechanism effect than technological upgrading. (4) In the institutional fabric, government efficiency and investor protection have a single threshold positive influence on the energy poverty reduction. This study adds to the expanding research on the real effects of cross-border investment by developing a normative theoretical link between OFDI and energy poverty. At the crossroads of sustainable development, bridging the energy poverty gap through international investments will be incredibly beneficial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: