Belt and Road and China’s Attempt at Region Building in Central-East and Southeast Europe

Abstract

This article analyses China’s Belt and Road as a medium through which novel regional development ideas and practices are being generated, (re)articulated, and diffused, via a case study of its implementation in the broader region of Central-East and Southeast Europe (CESEE). The example of CESEE shows that via the Belt and Road, Chinese actors have advanced comprehensive region work based on social interactions, which includes regular high-level diplomatic exchange and quasi-institutionalisation as well as people-to-people relations, resting on the potent geoeconomic imaginaries of the New Silk Roads. This approach, in the case of CESEE, has allowed for regional co-operation to advance even in times of friction and uncertainties. Nevertheless, as region work is essentially a contentious endeavour, China’s attempt at regionalism in CESEE has been challenged by the European Union (EU), the United States and regional actors who feel uneasy about China’s advance.

Building Scenarios on the Regional Integration in Eurasia along the New Silk Road

“…The process of becoming a region is flexible and determined by cultural perceptions and meanings across space and time. The NSR, thus, opens comprehensive structures and processes in economics and culture within a given region (Vangeli, 2020). The reasons to step into regional integration includes protection, reduction of dependency on global markets, access to FDI, and the promotion of economic development (Börzel, 2016).…”

“…The analysis reveals that projects of the scope of the Chinese BRI should consider a 30-year time frame instead of the frequently followed short-term view. Although there is progress in region work (Vangeli, 2020), we can derive that regional integration requires linking spatial scales, ranging from the level of local infrastructure hubs and clusters to corridor development and global impetus. Proper corridor development relies on strengthening relationships with China's neighboring countries.…”

“…Countries in Eurasia, and beyond, are shaped by different cultural backgrounds, provide different stages of economic and political development, and show different conditions for economic development (e.g., availability of human capital and workforce). In this regard, the scenario analysis reveals that regional integration in East and South Asia builds on similar conditions, while Central Asia and Western Europe provide a different form of regionalism (Grimmel & Li, 2018;King & Du, 2018;Vangeli, 2020). Asian regionalism relies more on informal consensusbuilding, organizational minimalism, and thin institutionalization (Börzel, 2016).…”

“…In this regard, China follows a centrally coordinated regionalism to economic expansion while trying to allow space for interaction and feedback (Vangeli, 2020). Even if different forms of regionalism exist, the overlapping economic interest in macroregions such as the NSR is the basis for ongoing regional integration as those initiatives acknowledge the multilateral, regional order and the formation of megaregions (Voskresenski, 2019).…”

“…At a regional level, problems arise, for example, when there is organizational gap in cooperation among states in Central Asia (Dadabaev, 2019) and, thus in the development of economic corridors (Garlick, 2020b). Against this backdrop, there are research gaps in linking theoretical and empirical insights on the NSR (Gerstl & Wallenböck, 2021;Thees, 2020), the case studies (Garlick, 2020a), and widening the regional scope from China's neighboring countries and the BRI toward the entire NSR (Vangeli, 2020).…”