China has emerged as an important partner for Africa. Not surprisingly, Chinese business and investment relations with Africa have been growing. This paper contends that Africa offers a different proposition to Chinese business interests in non-African developing economies. In this optic, it takes a "comparative" institution-based view treating factors that determine Chinese multinationals' cross-border merger and acquisition (CBMA) decisions as comparatively different for Africa to the rest of the developing world. From a panel data estimation of the number of Chinese cross-border mergers & acquisitions (CBMAs) from 2007 to 2016, we find of market size, natural resources, strategic assets, labor productivity and institutional governance, only natural resources and market size have a distinctive effect, with Chinese investors being more attracted to African natural resources than the African market. The drive for natural resources provides impetus for Chinese MNEs to choose CBMAs over greenfield investment, and through majority ownership to exercise control. Our inference is that Africa is 'significantly' different from other developing regions, in terms of CBMAs, as Chinese multinationals have a strong motive to control access to natural resources.

PurposeChinese multinational enterprises’ (MNEs) unprecedented, aggressive cross-border mergers and acquisitions (CBMAs) have led to several studies examining Chinese CBMAs, which importantly has also led to some degree of “theorising”. This study aims to undertake a “non-theoretical” fact-finding exercise before any theorising and empirical “causal” examination for a better understanding of the phenomenon (the rise of Chinese CBMAs).Design/methodology/approachThis study uses a “stylised facts” approach which documents “empirical regularities” concerning Chinese CBMAs and thus guides new research questions.FindingsSeveral facts are documented. Firstly, both the value and frequency of Chinese CBMAs are catching up to greenfield investments, with CBMA deals being larger in scale but lower in frequency. Secondly, Chinese CBMAs show a global reach away from the regional orientation of their early years. Thirdly, Chinese MNEs are possibly transforming their value chain with industrial upgrading as an aim. Fourthly, Chinese “full” acquisitions of targets have surged, especially in OECD countries, suggestive of Chinese MNEs’ “radical” acquisition approaches.Originality/valueThe gathered facts lend support to the view of the need for such fact-finding exercises to explicate and shed “new” light on the phenomenon (beyond our “current” views/beliefs). An understanding of the underlying trends beyond bare facts can also identify new knowledge, which can in turn provide new directions for research.