• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Matt Ferchen"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "China and the Developing World",
    "China’s Foreign Relations"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie China",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [],
  "topics": [
    "Economy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other
Carnegie China

China’s Troubled Hungary-Serbia Railway Project: A Case Study

The signature project of the 16+1 framework between China and sixteen countries in central and eastern Europe is a Chinese-financed railway between Hungary and Serbia. The project has become a symbol of not just the 16+1 framework but also of what China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) means for Europe.

Link Copied
By Matt Ferchen
Published on Dec 12, 2018

Source: Leiden Asia Centre

The signature project of the 16+1 framework between China and sixteen countries in central and eastern Europe is a Chinese-financed railway link between the capitals of Hungary and Serbia. In the years since it was first proposed in 2013, the China-backed Hungary-Serbia rail project has become a symbol, and also a much-criticized lightening rod, of not just the 16+1 framework but also of what China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) means for Europe. For China, as well as for its official Hungarian and Serbian counterparts, the rail project has been framed and promoted as the type of concrete outcome that is possible through the 16+1 diplomatic framework and as an example of actual infrastructure cooperation on offer through the BRI more broadly. Yet within the EU, no project has been more controversial in highlighting concerns about how both the 16+1 structure and the BRI might allow China to gain “divide-and-rule” political leverage within the EU and its neighborhood through commercial deal-making.

In an effort to go beyond the hype, headlines and often polarized discussions about how Chinese investment and finance is leading to greater influence in Europe, Matt Ferchen conducted an in-depth case study of the Chinese-financed railway link between Budapest and Belgrade. Among the key findings are the following:

  • Despite its importance as the centerpiece project for the 16+1 framework, the China-financed Hungary-Serbia rail line has made remarkably little progress since it was first agreed upon nearly 5 years ago.
  • Despite official Hungarian and Serbian support for the project, field interviews highlighted concerns and critical backlash in both countries and from other 16+1 members in Central and Eastern Europe. Among these concerns were that Chinese loans-for-infrastructure deals were far less desirable than foreign direct investment in infrastructure or employment-producing productive capacity.
  • EU and European media and think tank anxiety about China’s ability to “divide and rule” or about its ability to create effective “illiberal” alliances through the 16+1 framework largely overlooks the weaknesses highlighted by the problems with the Hungary-Serbia rail project.
  • China’s ability to turn investment and financing into diplomatic or geopolitical influence through the 16+1 framework is likely to have far more potential in poorer, non-EU Balkan countries such as Serbia than in EU member states such as Hungary.

Click here to read this case study in its entirey in the Leiden Asia Centre’s “Assessing China’s Influence in Europe through Investments in Technology and Infrastructure. Four Cases”

About the Author

Matt Ferchen

Former Nonresident Scholar, Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy

Ferchen specializes in China’s political-economic relations with emerging economies. At the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, he ran a program on China’s economic and political relations with the developing world, including Latin America.

    Recent Work

  • Q&A
    How China Is Reshaping International Development

      Matt Ferchen

  • Article
    Why Unsustainable Chinese Infrastructure Deals Are a Two-Way Street

      Matt Ferchen, Anarkalee Perera

Matt Ferchen
Former Nonresident Scholar, Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy
Matt Ferchen
Economy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Aerial view of shipping containers at a port
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Fallout of the U.S.–Canada Trade War Won’t Be Limited to North America

    U.S. trading partners in Asia are closely watching the dispute for signs of how it may affect their own interests.

      • Barbara Weisel

      Barbara Weisel

  • People dancing in the foreground, with a group of people in suites watching and an Air China plane in the background
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Two Key Takeaways From Xi’s Egypt Visit

    Amid celebrations of bilateral ties was a deeper focus on stability in the Middle East.

      Amr Hamzawy

  • upward-facing view of ornately tiled buildings
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Performance Art or Meaningful Collaboration?

    Xi, Putin, and other regional leaders are back-slapping in Bishkek, but the SCO has yet to answer the most serious questions about continental Asia's economic future.

      Evan A. Feigenbaum

  • People gathered in a parking lot of buses
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Iran War Has Sparked a Domestic Crisis in Kenya

    The conflict has sent economic and political shock waves through a country with no representation at the negotiating table—and Kenya is not alone.

      Georgia Schaefer-Brown, Jane Munga

  • Commentary
    China Financial Markets
    Who Paid for China’s Last Debt Cleanup, and Who Will Pay for the Next?

    China’s banking crisis in the 2000s was resolved by transferring the costs to households through financial repression—a decision that recapitalized the banks while exacerbating the structural imbalances that continue to shape the Chinese economy today.

      Michael Pettis

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.