China’s New Silk Roads. Categorising and Grouping the World: Beijing’s 16+1+X European Formula

Abstract

In autumn 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping presented his Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe play an important role in this ambitious infrastructure and connectivity project. The analysis of the 16+1 cooperation format, established by Beijing in 2012, shows that Beijing is able to establish new regional groupings that have the potential to undermine the unity of a larger regional bloc. Yet, it also demonstrates that China lacks a coherent BRI master plan. Rather, it pragmatically adapts its strategies to challenges and external criticism. The European Union (EU), notably the European Parliament (EP), became since 2015 more critical of the strategic impacts of BRI on Europe. Austria, which recognised the economic opportunities offered by BRI only recently, supports a common EU position. While Austria plays a strong-if not a leading-role in two Central and Eastern European cooperation mechanisms that may in the future also address BRI, that is, the Salzburg Forum and the Central European Defense Cooperation (CEDC), 16+1 remains the key institution for multi- and bilateral agreements on the New Silk Roads in this region. Austria, however, will remain only an observer and thus an ‘X’ in the 16+1+X format, reducing Vienna’s influence.

A study on the impact of EU membership on Sino-CEEC trade in the context of the 17+1 cooperation mechanism

“…We also use the PPML estimator developed by Santos Silva and Tenreyro (2006) [15] and highly praised by many authors for its practicality [16][17] [18]. Hence, our baseline model can be presented in the following way: 𝑋 𝑖𝐶ℎ𝑛𝑡 = exp[𝛽 0 + 𝛽 1 𝑌 𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽 2 𝑌 𝐶ℎ𝑛𝑡 + 𝛽 3 𝐷𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝐶ℎ𝑛 + 𝛽 4 𝐸𝑈 𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽 5 𝑊𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽 6 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑖𝑡 ] + 𝑒 𝑖𝐶ℎ𝑛𝑡 (1) where: 𝑋 𝑖𝐶ℎ𝑛𝑡 represents exports/imports (variety of exports or imports) from country 𝑖 (CEEC) with China in year 𝑡; 𝑌 𝑖𝑡 denotes GDP of country 𝑖 in year 𝑡; 𝑌 𝐶ℎ𝑛𝑡 stands for China's GDP in year 𝑡; 𝐷𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝐶ℎ𝑛 refers distance from 𝑖 CEEC to China; 𝐸𝑈 𝑖𝑡 , the variable of interest is a binary dummy which is unity if 𝑖 CEEC is a member of the EU in year 𝑡, otherwise zero; 𝑊𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑡 is a dummy variable that takes value 1 if 𝑖 CEEC is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in year 𝑡, otherwise 0; 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑖𝑡 is also a dummy variable and it takes value 1 if 𝑖 CEEC has access to the sea, otherwise zero; finally, 𝑒 𝑖𝐶ℎ𝑛𝑡 is the error term.…”

“…A number of studies have analyzed various aspects of the 17+1 Cooperation. Given that CEEC countries are relatively small compared to China, it was pointed out that a regional approach involving China on the one hand and the 17 CEEC on the other is the right way to institutionalize cooperation [1][2][3]. A series of studies highlighted the need for the 17 CEEC to diversify in terms of foreign trade and investment, which encouraged them to strive for closer economic relations with China [4][5][6].…”

China, Geopolitics and Geoeconomics. How Not to Fall into the Trap of Narration?

“…This new platform consisted of 16 post-communist countries, including 11 EU members. All the countries were supposed to become the addressees of an attractive developmental offer, providing for the implementation of relatively inexpensive infrastructural projects (Gerstl 2018).…”