Europe has such strong institutions that, with a few exceptions (Poland, Hungary), the continent has endured a decade of sluggish growth and economic stagnation without major crises or disintegration (you can worry about the disintegration of the eurozone, but not so much the EU or individual countries).
In Hungary, the openly anti-Semitic Jobbik gained 19 percent support in the last elections.
The support for the Sweden Democrats is also over 20 percent, although my understanding is that they are considerably more moderate than their Eastern European counterparts, for example.
In Germany, perhaps the most liberal country in Europe, the populist AfD also gained 20 percent support in several federal states.
You are absolutely right that, especially in Western Europe, democracy is deeply rooted, and I don’t believe in any radical change of direction. The problematic thing is that these Eastern European countries are shaking the EU at its seams. Is it enough to cut off Hungary’s funding? What if the EU disintegrates?
I don’t want to be overly pessimistic, but I believe that the international system is undergoing the biggest upheaval since the Second World War.
But how productive are those investments? China’s productivity growth has significantly weakened in recent years. China’s economic growth model is investment-driven, and a legitimate concern arises about whether the country is pouring money into poorly productive projects both domestically and increasingly abroad.
Would you like to elaborate on what you cover in your master’s thesis about China?
There’s certainly enough material about China for any topic.
So, I’m researching China’s investments in the European Union from a strategic perspective, meaning power, not ROI, comes first. However, according to COSCO, container traffic in the Port of Piraeus, which I mentioned earlier, would have quadrupled after the change of ownership in the aftermath of the financial crisis. I don’t know how accurate that is.
The other extreme is these projects planned for Finland. According to an official assessment, the Arctic Railway or the Tallinn tunnel are not commercially viable. However, funding for these has been found from financial institutions linked to the Chinese state. So what was the motive then?
Of course, I can’t say how long such projects can be financed without major problems.
A couple of researchers have also investigated Huawei’s ownership structures and stated that Ren Zhengfei, who has been featured in the media, owns about one percent of the company. The remaining 99 percent is owned by a trade union committee, about which practically nothing is known. Traditionally, such institutions have been under the control of the Communist Party.