Countries can insist that foreign companies build local factories as part of the agreement. They may require these companies to share technology and form a local workforce. 16 In Swaziland, textile and clothing factories are exclusively owned by Chinese investors. At the time of data collection, the number of facilities in operation was 30, all located in the Matsapha Industrial Processing Zone. In Lesotho, there were 38 of them, 25 of which were subsidiaries of Taiwanese companies. However, the investigation showed that four factories, headquartered in Hong Kong and two companies, were subsidiaries of South African companies. Unlike Swaziland, there were four companies established in Lesotho, but only one belonged to a Basotho (a citizen of that country). Singapore and Israel each had a subsidiary in Lesotho. No joint ventures have been registered in the two countries with the participation of the United States. For both countries, the markets for which these companies produced were dominated by the United States. In Lesotho, for example, there were 27 out of 38 factories that produced for the U.S. and Canadian markets, and only 6 for South Africa.
Three companies produced together for these three countries. Service enterprises were represented in a number of two. These patterns show that the apparel and textile industry has seen considerable investment by Chinese and Taiwanese entrepreneurs. Such investments are spread throughout the country in places such as Nhlangano, Mankayane, Ntfongeni and Siteki, among others. Perhaps for this reason, Taiwanese representatives in Swaziland have often claimed that Taiwan`s mission in Swaziland has strengthened many Swazis in terms of capabilities and encouraged bilateral exchanges between the two countries. The weight of this industry in Swaziland and Lesotho shows the frightening future that countries will face when AGOA ends in 2015. U.S. law has led to a very fragile textile industry at this point and the expiration of AGOA would be disastrous in many ways. Long before agoa was launched, between 1986 and 1991, Lesotho`s textile industry developed relatively well due to investor incentives.
Manoeli  estimates that a year before the passage of the AGOA law, nearly 10,000 workers were working in the textile industry. Although exact figures are often difficult to obtain, it is estimated that in 2001, AGOA-related industrial investment in Lesotho`s garment industry generated between 32,000 and 50,000 in 2005 [Gibbs, 2005]. These are considerable figures, given the weakness of the country`s economy. The disadvantage of agoa`s strategy was the heavy reliance on foreign investors, omitting local investors. The sustainability of the sector will depend on the natives if foreigners ever move elsewhere, when the law expires. In the context of globalization, investors are highly mobile as they seek new opportunities at the global level. Beyond the benefits that the country derives in terms of wage distribution and payment for the use of public institutions, Lesotho has not really reaped the benefits in terms of social investment. Links between textile enterprises of Asian enterprises and local micro-enterprises are non-existent. In Swaziland, there is an industrial zone founded by SEDCO.
Microentrepreneurs indicated that such links were not established under AGOA. These local entrepreneurs are excluded from the demand of the global value chain because they do not have the technological capacity to produce to the standards imposed by global retailers. Ironically, in both countries, AGOA is called the Asian Growth and Opportunity Act. In this way, local entrepreneurs express their dissatisfaction with the path of politics in the local context, with only Asian producers reaping the benefits of this policy. . . .