Q&A
Matt Ferchen
{
"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
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.
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.
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.
- How China Is Reshaping International Development
- Why Unsustainable Chinese Infrastructure Deals Are a Two-Way StreetArticle
Matt Ferchen, Anarkalee Perera
Recent Work
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 Russia Eurasia Center
- Russia’s Coal Industry Is Running on Borrowed TimeCommentary
Powerful lobbyists and inertia led to Russia’s coal-mining sector missing an excellent opportunity to solve its structural problems.
Alexey Gusev
- Does Russia Have Enough Soldiers to Keep Waging War Against Ukraine?Commentary
The Russian army is not currently struggling to recruit new contract soldiers, though the number of people willing to go to war for money is dwindling.
Dmitry Kuznets
- Including Russia on the EU Financial Blacklist Will Hurt Ordinary People, Not the KremlinCommentary
The paradox of the European Commission’s decision is that the main victims will not be those it formally targets. Major Russian businesses associated with the Putin regime have long adapted to sanctions with the help of complex schemes involving third countries, offshore companies, and nonpublic entities.
Alexandra Prokopenko
- Why Didn’t the Ukraine War Turn Russia’s Ruling Class Against Putin?Commentary
A new book by Alexandra Prokopenko looks at why the Russian ruling class became the regime’s willing servants—and how they might fare in a post-Putin world.
Vladislav Gorin
- Collateral Damage: The Frozen Foreign Assets of Middle-Class RussiansCommentary
The volume of frozen private assets might seem insignificant compared with Russia’s sovereign reserves, but these are the savings of millions of people who believed that foreign securities were a safe investment and in the institution of private property.
Yulia Starostina
