As public frustration grows across Europe over housing, energy prices, public services such as education and healthcare, and the rising cost of living, could aspects of China’s approach to essential services, economic development and government accountability offer useful lessons?
Why Are Protests Spreading Across Europe?
From Dublin to Madrid, Paris to Rome, and Athens to Berlin, students, teachers, workers and citizens from different walks of life are taking to the streets, expressing growing frustration over the rising cost of living, unaffordable housing and pressure on essential public services.
These demonstrations raise broader questions about government priorities, public spending and political accountability: are Europe’s political leaders sufficiently responsive to the needs of the people they are supposed to serve?
In Ireland, demonstrators marched through Dublin on September 19, demanding action on housing affordability and rising living costs ahead of Budget 2027.
On October 1, more than 1,500 students took to Dublin’s streets to protest over accommodation shortages, educational costs and inadequate higher education funding.
Public dissatisfaction intensified on October 14, when more than 300,000 public sector workers, including teachers, nurses, doctors and civil servants, participated in a nationwide strike organised by trade unions following a breakdown in pay negotiations. With the dispute unresolved, trade unions announced plans for another nationwide strike on November 12.
Despite Ireland’s considerable economic prosperity, many working families and younger generations continue to struggle with housing costs and maintaining their living standards.
In Spain, housing affordability has become a major focus of public anger. A protest encampment established in Madrid’s Puerta del Sol in late September, following the eviction of an elderly woman, drew attention to rising rents, housing insecurity and demands for stronger tenant protections.
Police dismantled the remaining encampment on November 3, although the broader dispute over housing affordability remains unresolved.
In France, demonstrations have reached an even larger scale. According to the French Interior Ministry, approximately 550,000 people demonstrated on October 17, followed by 410,000 on October 24 and 320,000 on October 31.
Protesters have expressed concerns about education, living standards, rising living costs, public services and inequality, alongside dissatisfaction with President Emmanuel Macron’s leadership. Although most demonstrations have been peaceful, some have involved confrontations with police and property damage.
In Italy, tens of thousands of students, workers and trade union members participated in nationwide demonstrations on October 30. A 24-hour general strike brought protests to more than 40 cities, with demonstrators demanding higher wages, stronger public services and relief from rising living costs.
Many also questioned increased military expenditure while households face growing financial pressures.
In Greece, thousands of students and teachers demonstrated nationwide on October 21, demanding affordable student accommodation, higher wages, improved educational facilities and greater public investment.
Police estimated that approximately 10,000 demonstrators gathered in Athens, with additional rallies across the country. The protests highlighted the financial pressures facing younger generations, particularly the growing cost of obtaining an education and securing accommodation.
In Germany, tens of thousands joined youth-led demonstrations across 34 cities on October 31, calling for better education, affordable living and greater investment in public services. Opposition to the possible return of compulsory military service also featured prominently.
A common question connects these demonstrations: are governments delivering the living standards, opportunities and public services their citizens expect?
China’s approach to housing, energy, healthcare and administrative accountability offers a point of comparison.
What Can Europe Learn From China's Approach To Housing?
Housing is among the most pressing concerns across Europe, particularly for younger generations increasingly priced out of homeownership and rental markets.
China presents an interesting contrast, with historically widespread homeownership and an extensive record of residential construction.
A 2019 People’s Bank of China survey of approximately 31,000 urban households found that 96% owned at least one home.
Although this figure relates specifically to surveyed urban households rather than the entire population, it demonstrates the prevalence of homeownership among those surveyed.
China has also experienced a substantial expansion of residential construction over recent decades. While this has contributed to excess housing supply in parts of the country, it demonstrates the scale of China’s housing development capabilities. When housing supply exceeds demand, prices can fall, making homes more affordable.
The Chinese government has repeatedly emphasised a guiding housing principle:
“Houses are for living in, not for speculation.”
The principle puts people’s need for an affordable home ahead of excessive profits for landlords.
Public investment and government-supported housing programmes also play an important role. In 2025, approximately 1.21 million units of subsidised and public housing were either started or made available, according to official statistics.
Could stronger public coordination, greater construction capacity and a housing policy that serves the public good help European governments make homes more affordable?
Could Chinese Modular Construction Help Europe Build Homes Faster?
China’s advanced construction technologies offer another potential area for cooperation.
In June 2021, Chinese company Broad Group assembled a ten-storey apartment building in Changsha in just 28 hours and 45 minutes, using factory-manufactured modular components and three cranes.
Although manufacturing, foundations and other preparations took place beforehand, the project demonstrated the speed achievable through prefabricated construction.
China’s manufacturing scale, supply-chain efficiencies, modular construction expertise and cost competitiveness could help European countries accelerate housing delivery.
These advantages could be particularly valuable for countries experiencing prolonged housing shortages, including Ireland, Spain and Germany.
Cooperation would require compliance with European planning, safety and construction standards, but potentially beneficial technologies deserve consideration on their technical and economic merits.
For European governments struggling with housing shortages, the question should be how to deliver safe, affordable homes more quickly and efficiently.
How Much Control Should Governments Have Over Household Electricity Prices?
Electricity is an essential service that directly affects household expenditure, business competitiveness and the wider cost of living. Whether its supply and pricing should be driven primarily by market forces or subject to greater government control therefore deserves closer examination.
China’s state-led electricity system provides an important example. Major electricity networks are state-owned, while residential tariffs remain government-regulated. Its tiered pricing system charges lower rates for basic household consumption and higher rates for additional usage.
This reflects an approach that treats affordable household electricity as a public policy priority.
The contrast within Europe is striking.
Ireland, Germany and Belgium operate largely market-led electricity systems, although network charges, consumer protections and aspects of household pricing remain subject to regulation and government intervention.
According to Eurostat figures published in October 2026, these three countries recorded the EU’s highest household electricity prices: Ireland (€0.39 per kWh), Germany (€0.36) and Belgium (€0.36).
By comparison, prices were considerably lower in Hungary (€0.11), Bulgaria (€0.13) and Croatia (€0.18), where governments maintain stronger intervention in household electricity pricing through regulated tariffs, price caps and consumer protection measures.
The contrast raises an important question: should governments exercise greater control over the price of essential services to ensure affordability?
Generation costs, energy imports, taxes and subsidies also influence electricity prices, so differences cannot be attributed to government intervention alone. Nevertheless, regulated tariffs and other interventions can protect households from some of the effects of higher market prices.
Affordable electricity is fundamental to household purchasing power, economic competitiveness and the overall cost of living.
How Long Do Patients Wait for Healthcare in Europe and China?
Access to timely and affordable healthcare remains a significant concern across Europe, where shortages of doctors and nurses, lengthy waiting lists and pressure on essential medical services continue to affect patients.
According to the OECD and European Commission’s Health at a Glance: Europe 2024 report, 20 EU countries reported shortages of doctors in 2022–2023, while 15 reported shortages of nurses. The report estimated a combined shortage of approximately 1.2 million doctors, nurses and midwives across the EU in 2022.
These shortages, alongside rising demand and limitations in medical capacity, can contribute to delays in accessing GPs, specialists, diagnostic procedures and surgery.
The OECD’s Health at a Glance 2025 publication provides some revealing comparisons.
In 2023, 26% of respondents in Germany, 28% in France and 30% in Sweden reported waiting six days or longer for an appointment with a GP or nurse.
Specialist access presented further difficulties. In France, 45% reported waiting at least two months for a specialist appointment.
Waiting times for surgery can be similarly substantial.
OECD figures for 2024 showed that patients on cataract surgery waiting lists in Ireland had already waited a median of 106 days, while those awaiting hip replacement surgery had waited a median of 102 days.
In Italy, 30% of patients undergoing hip replacement surgery waited more than three months between specialist assessment and treatment.
Delays also affect diagnostic services. Patients in Ireland’s public healthcare system can face weeks or months waiting for scans and procedures such as endoscopies, colonoscopies and bronchoscopies, sometimes followed by further delays in receiving results and follow-up consultations.
China offers a comparison, particularly in the accessibility and organisation of outpatient consultations and medical treatment.
According to a May 2024 investigation by China Economic Weekly, journalists contacted several hospitals across mainland China and found that waiting times for routine cataract surgery generally did not exceed one week.
The same report described a patient’s experience in Shenzhen, where appointments for gastrointestinal examinations, including gastroscopy and colonoscopy, could generally be obtained within two weeks.
These examples suggest that patients can access certain procedures considerably more quickly in the hospitals examined. They are hospital examples rather than nationally representative waiting-time statistics, however, and should be understood in that context.
How Affordable Are Medical and Dental Care in Europe and China?
China’s public hospitals operate under government-regulated pricing arrangements for many medical services, while basic medical insurance helps cover eligible treatment costs. Routine consultations and procedures can be relatively inexpensive, although patients’ expenses vary according to treatment and insurance coverage.
Dental care remains a particular concern across Europe, where adult treatment often receives limited public funding.
According to Eurostat, 6.3% of EU residents aged 16 and over reported being unable to obtain needed dental care in 2024 because of cost, waiting times or distance. Among those at risk of poverty, the figure rose to 13.7%, compared with 5.1% among those not at risk.
People at risk of poverty were therefore nearly three times more likely to be unable to obtain needed dental treatment.
Dental treatment in mainland China can be considerably less expensive than private care in some European countries. Patients can also often walk into dental clinics, register on arrival and receive a same-day consultation without needing to telephone or book an appointment in advance. Availability varies, and specialised treatments may still require advance booking.
Who Holds Public Officials Accountable in the EU and China?
Effective government requires competent administration, responsible public spending and consequences for wrongdoing.
All public officials, including political leaders and civil servants, must be held accountable throughout their service, with regular evaluation of their performance and meaningful consequences for misconduct, neglect of duty or failures of responsibility. Civil servants may serve without fixed terms and remain in their positions through successive governments, making sustained scrutiny of their decisions and performance particularly important.
EU countries use elections and parliamentary scrutiny to hold political leaders accountable, while independent courts review unlawful government actions and determine criminal liability. Depending on national law, legal proceedings can also lead to disqualification from public office. Disciplinary bodies and investigative journalism provide additional scrutiny of public officials.
China operates a Party-led system combining central political direction with a nationwide discipline-inspection and supervisory network. Its supervisory rules provide for ongoing oversight of officials, accountability for leadership failures, and checks on whether major Party and state policies are being implemented.
How Do the EU and China Investigate Corruption?
At EU level, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) conducts administrative investigations into suspected fraud involving EU funds and serious misconduct within EU institutions. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) investigates and prosecutes crimes that harm the EU’s financial interests.
They can investigate national officials—for example, an official accepting a bribe to award an EU-funded construction contract. General supervision of national administrations remains the responsibility of national authorities. European countries have national and regional institutions that investigate official misconduct.
China’s anti-corruption and disciplinary bodies operate at national, provincial, prefecture-level city, county and district levels, with oversight extending to townships and subdistricts. Directly administered municipalities such as Beijing and Shanghai have provincial-level bodies.
The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) and local Party discipline commissions enforce Party rules for members of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The National Supervisory Commission (NSC) and local state supervisory commissions oversee government officials and others who exercise public power, regardless of Party membership. State supervisory commissions investigate misconduct and suspected crimes related to public duties.
Party discipline commissions and their state counterparts share offices and staff while exercising distinct powers. A government official who is also a Party member can face both a Party disciplinary investigation and a state investigation into misconduct in public office.
What Are Three Potential Strengths of China’s Approach to Accountability?
1. Using Outside Investigators to Reduce Local Interference
A national supervisory hierarchy provides mechanisms for moving investigations beyond local networks. Article 51 of China’s supervisory implementation regulations allows a higher authority to reassign a case to another lower authority when appropriate, including to support fair handling. Article 11 permits deployment of investigators from subordinate bodies, while Article 50 provides for higher-level handling of significant or complex cases.
These arrangements can help address local interference and conflicts of interest.
2. Anti-Corruption Enforcement From the National Level to Villages
Under Xi Jinping, anti-corruption has remained a prominent political priority. The October 2026 Fifth Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee focused on strengthening Party self-governance, including tighter discipline, stronger oversight and sustained action against corruption.
The campaign extends from senior national officials through provincial, city and county administrations to townships and villages. China’s 2026 disciplinary agenda explicitly prioritised tackling misconduct and corruption affecting people in their daily lives and strengthening grassroots supervision. Village Party secretaries and village committee heads are also subject to investigation, demonstrating that enforcement reaches beyond senior government offices.
Publicised investigations, disciplinary education and national television programmes make anti-corruption a highly visible part of China’s political life. The CCDI and China Media Group’s Anti-Corruption for the People illustrates how enforcement cases are communicated to audiences nationwide. This combination of central direction, local enforcement and sustained publicity is designed to build awareness among officials and the public that accountability reaches every level.
3. Continuity in Planning and Implementation
China’s Five-Year Plans set development goals for each five-year period. Continued Communist Party leadership helps maintain a consistent direction from one plan to the next, allowing work towards long-term goals to continue over many years.
This continuity is reinforced by strict oversight and accountability mechanisms extending from the national level down to villages. Officials can face consequences for neglect of duty or other misconduct, making responsibility for delivery an ongoing obligation.
European countries also have long-term plans, but changes of government, coalition disagreements and shifting electoral priorities can interrupt continuity. At EU level, the European Commission has itself identified the need to accelerate decision-making and overcome fragmentation. These obstacles can delay decisions and implementation even where the need for action is recognised.
China’s approach offers a lesson in combining long-term political commitment with continuing scrutiny of implementation. For Europe, the challenge is to strengthen accountability for delivery throughout political terms, ensuring that missed targets and persistent failures trigger timely scrutiny and corrective action.
China’s approach offers Europe a lesson in continuity, affordability, accessibility and accountability. Carry plans through, build homes faster, deliver timely, quality healthcare and keep household bills manageable. Public trust depends on whether leaders deliver these results and answer for failures.
