In short

• AfCFTA’s progress is slowed by governments prioritising national sovereignty, domestic interests and protectionism over regional commitments.
• Political power dynamics and public sentiment create “integration fatigue”, undermining trust and momentum.
• Airbus shows how pooling sovereignty in specific sectors can build shared capacity without eroding national identity.
• Strategic, sector-focused integration with enforceable institutions could unlock genuine regional industrial development.

Free trade agreements around the world show gains in trade, efficiency and consumer choice. Yet, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), an agreement that African Union member countries signed in 2018 to create a single market, still struggles to move from promise to practice as national interests clash with the goal of regional integration. Using Europe’s Airbus project as an example, this article demonstrates how integrating specific sectors could build trust and cooperation for African nations to reap the benefits of regional integration.

South Africa’s first trade shipment under AfCFTA leaves the harbour in Durban, South Africa, 2024. Photo: GovernmentZA, Flickr

The European Union (EU) has stated that its Single Market, a free trade area spanning numerous European countries, is at the core of its competitiveness and economic success. Similarly, studies from 2014 on the North American Free Trade Agreement (a free trade area that includes the United States of America, Mexico and Canada) showed trade increases and positive though modest welfare gains, demonstrating how tariff removal can raise efficiency and consumer purchasing power.

Despite such promising results found in these and other free trade areas, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA)—an agreement signed in 2018 by African Union member states—continues to face obstacles. Many African countries still pursue defensive economic policies, inward-looking industrial policies and fragmented development approaches that undermine regional integration.

Dr Vuyo Mjimba, a chief research specialist at the HSRC, explored this paradox in a paper presented at the 2025 Trade & Industrial Policy Strategies Forum in July. The paradox lies in the tension between countries’ fears of losing control over key economic policies, known as the national sovereignty lure, and the potential economic gains that could be realised if they were to concede this control to an efficient and productive regional body (supranational orders) to unlock economies of scale.

Sovereignty vs integration

Sovereignty is the authority of a state to make and enforce its own policies without outside interference. Some consider it to mean absolute control within national borders. However, in today’s globalised world, sovereignty also involves balancing national autonomy with the obligations a country voluntarily accepts through regional or international agreements.

These obligations often mean integration. Integration between nations can mean that independent states voluntarily coordinate, align or unify policies in areas such as trade, industry or politics to achieve greater, and shared, benefits that would be difficult to reach alone.

Why resistance persists

Many African governments struggle to balance sovereignty with their regional obligations under AfCFTA. Although most states have signed and ratified the agreement, implementation has been slow. Many countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) continue to follow restrictive trade and industrial policies. For example, Zambia imposes restrictions on dairy imports from its neighbours.

Political power

Political settlement theory argues that the way political power and influence are distributed within a country affects policy design. This may explain why sub-optimal policy choices persist. For example, leaders often prioritise maintaining support from powerful domestic groups, since those groups help them stay in power.

Public sentiment can also influence the government’s willingness to integrate trade regionally, as the government answers to national voters, not regional blocs. If domestic voters resist integration, leaders can hesitate to surrender control over trade and industry, leading to “integration fatigue”, which is a gradual loss of momentum and trust among regional partners.

Additionally, Africa’s history of colonialism and external exploitation has left governments deeply protective of sovereignty, making them wary of ceding control to supranational bodies.

Economic fears

Reluctance to integrate also stems from the perceived risks of ceding authority over tariffs, trade rules and industrial policy—areas that directly affect domestic industries, jobs, revenues and political interests..

Industrialised economies such as South Africa are positioned to benefit more, at least initially, from greater regional economic integration. This makes less industrialised nations wary of unequal gains and potential economic domination. As a result, countries often revert to protectionist policies, even while expressing support for regional integration and shared gains. They prioritise national sovereignty despite evidence that doing so limits regional progress and leads to worse outcomes.

What Airbus shows us

In 1970, France, Germany, Spain, and later the United Kingdom, partnered to form Airbus, an aerospace company designed to compete with US aircraft manufacturers. This enterprise has been highly successful and is currently one of the world’s two dominant aircraft manufacturers, alongside Boeing.

The Airbus project is a classic example of functional integration, where a specific sector (aerospace manufacturing) has enabled European countries to selectively share authority and build a globally competitive industry. Using the Airbus partnership as a comparative case study, Mjimba’s paper showed how SADC countries could use a similar approach to overcome sovereignty concerns while advancing economic integration.

Pooling sovereignty

In the Airbus partnership, each country took responsibility for a different part of aircraft production. Germany made the fuselage, France built the cockpit and controls, the UK produced the wings, and Spain built the tail. This division of responsibilities allowed countries to share control over industrial policy while keeping their own industries and national identity intact.

Airbus showed that sovereignty doesn’t need to be fully surrendered; it could be pooled to reach goals no single state could achieve alone. This is the essence of strategic sovereignty, which SADC and other regional economic communities in Africa should consider adopting.

Fostering genuine cooperation

Airbus also demonstrated that progress required more than promises or signed agreements. It depended on established, enforceable rules and institutions that ensured accountability. In this case, shared dependency among partners reduced rivalry and created strong incentives for cooperation rather than competition.

Functional integration in the AfCFTA

Southern Africa could benefit greatly from regional cooperation. However, leaders would need to make strategic compromises. These compromises could be achieved by adopting strategic sovereignty, an approach where sovereignty is pooled selectively in areas that promise the highest mutual gain, and sectoral integration.

Governments could establish regional bodies to coordinate key industries, create shared funds to support joint projects, and allow countries to integrate at their own pace. Promising industries include agro-processing, pharmaceuticals, mining, automotive components and green technologies. These sectors are suited to regional value chains and shared industrial hubs. By pooling sovereignty in targeted areas, Africa could replicate the Airbus logic to build regional industrial champions.

Impact

Mjimba argues that given today’s push for African regional integration, sovereignty is understood and used in an outdated way. He calls for sovereignty to be re-imagined, not as a rigid shield against cooperation, but as a strategic instrument of development.

This matters because the old way of thinking and acting on sovereignty keeps producing weak economic and social results. New approaches should aim for stronger economic and political outcomes by utilising domestic and regional resources more effectively. They should actively seek a balanced model of  selectively pooled sovereignty, targeting specific sectors and embedded in accountable regional institutions.

The Airbus story demonstrates the power of sectoral co-investment frameworks, harmonising policies and selectively pooling industrial governance as a pragmatic and results-oriented pathway towards the desired success. This approach requires sustained political will and enforceable institutions to overcome even the most entrenched sovereignty concerns to turn “strange bedfellows” into strategic partners.

Research contacts and acknowledgements

This Review article is based on the paper Regional Integration and Industrial Development: Strange Bedfellows for the African Continental Free Trade Area Programme in Southern Africa by Dr Vuyo Mjimba, a chief research specialist in the HSRC’s Africa Institute of South Africa, BRICS and Global South Division. The article was written by Mjimba and HSRC science writer Jessie-Lee Smith. For more information, contact Mjimba at vmjimba@hsrc.ac.za.

If you enjoyed reading this article, please click here to subscribe to the HSRC Review quarterly magazine.