Thoughts on China, Incremental Infrastructure, etc.

First of all, big thanks to Meir for sending around the New York Times article on China and Africa. This is a topic that has received a lot of play in the international media recently - with some commentators going as far as lumping Chinese assistance together with those from Venezuela and Iran as "Rogue Aid." (I believe it was the Foreign Policy Magazine.)

What I'm interested in is: what do you all actually think about the way China is putting its resources into developing countries? On the one hand, those who object to it say that Chinese aid is based purely on cold, hard strategic interests, and hardly has the welfare of recipient populations in mind. It employs imported Chinese labor, and pays no attention to the ethical status of regimes. On the other hand, it's not like the more invasive style of traditional development institutions like the World Bank has had a glowing record. 

So what do people think? Is the growing weight of Chinese aid a good thing for developing countries? Also, even if Chinese aid itself is not very beneficial, could the fact that Someone with Clout is challenging the traditional aid actors be a good thing?

At the opposite end of the scale spectrum, I came across this interesting article by blogger Ethan Zuckerman on “incremental infrastructure.” He infers from the success of cell phone networks in Africa that, perhaps, infrastructure can be better built from bottom-up, individual efforts aimed at satisfying smaller, private interests. A large number of these more local endeavors pooled together could prove to be more effective than trying to concoct behemoth national infrastructures from repeated 5 year plans, which have failed in more instances than anyone can remember. He develops his ideas further here.

What do these two stories have in common? They both tap into prevalent disillusionment with development as handled by the mainstream actors - the UN, the World Bank, IMF, western donors, etc. But do these actually hold promise as alternatives?