Europe’s Growing Discontent: What Could It Learn From China?

Housing shortages, high rents, wage stagnation, the rising cost of living and pressure on public services such as healthcare and education are fuelling frustration across Europe. As citizens take to the streets demanding action, a broader question emerges: could China’s approach offer useful lessons in meeting people’s everyday needs?

The demonstrations raise questions about how governments allocate resources, organise essential services and assess their own performance. They also provide a reason to examine approaches beyond Europe.

China’s experience in housing, construction, electricity provision, healthcare and administrative oversight offers several areas worth considering.

Protests in Italy on October 30, 2026.

What Common Concerns Are Driving Protests Across Europe?

The demonstrations spreading across Europe have much in common. Protesters are demanding affordable housing, wages that keep pace with living costs, stronger public services and governments that respond to their everyday needs. Together, these protests reflect widespread frustration over affordability, living standards and public priorities.

In Ireland, protesters marched through Dublin on September 19, seeking action on housing and living costs ahead of Budget 2027. More than 1,500 students subsequently demonstrated on October 1 over accommodation shortages, education costs and inadequate higher education funding.

On October 14, a nationwide strike involved more than 300,000 public sector workers after trade union pay negotiations broke down. Participants included teachers, nurses, doctors and civil servants. With the dispute still unresolved, unions announced a further nationwide strike for November 12.

For many Irish households, the country’s economic prosperity has not translated into affordable housing or greater financial security. Younger generations and working families continue to face considerable pressure.

Housing has also been central to demonstrations in Spain. Following the eviction of an elderly woman, protesters established an encampment in Madrid’s Puerta del Sol in late September. Their action highlighted rising rents, insecure accommodation and demands for stronger tenant protections.

Police dismantled what remained of the encampment on November 3. The wider concerns about housing affordability remained.

In France, the Interior Ministry reported approximately 550,000 demonstrators on October 17, followed by 410,000 on October 24 and 320,000 on October 31.

Protesters raised concerns about education, inequality, public services, living standards and rising costs, alongside dissatisfaction with President Emmanuel Macron’s leadership. While most demonstrations were peaceful, some included confrontations with police and damage to property.

Italy experienced nationwide demonstrations on October 30, when tens of thousands of students, workers and trade union members participated in a 24-hour general strike. Protests took place in more than 40 cities, with calls for higher wages, improved public services and relief from the cost of living.

Many participants also challenged increased military expenditure while families struggled financially.

In Greece, thousands of students and teachers demonstrated nationwide on October 21. They called for affordable student accommodation, better educational facilities, higher wages and greater public investment.

Police estimated that around 10,000 people attended the Athens demonstration, with additional rallies elsewhere. Education and housing costs were prominent concerns for younger participants.

Germany saw tens of thousands join youth-led demonstrations across 34 cities on October 31. Protesters demanded better education, more affordable living and increased investment in public services. The possible return of compulsory military service was another major source of opposition.

Across these countries, shared demands connect the demonstrations: affordable homes, adequate incomes, accessible education, reliable healthcare and greater accountability for government decisions.

What Could Europe Learn From China’s Approach to Affordable Housing?

Housing illustrates how policy priorities affect everyday life.

In much of Europe, younger people face substantial barriers to buying a home, while tenants struggle with rents that absorb an increasing share of their income.

China offers a different experience, shaped by extensive residential construction and historically widespread homeownership.

A 2019 People’s Bank of China survey covering approximately 31,000 urban households found that 96% owned at least one home. This was a finding about the urban households surveyed, not a measure covering the entire Chinese population. Nevertheless, it demonstrates the prevalence of homeownership within that sample.

China’s large-scale residential development has also greatly expanded housing supply over recent decades. In some locations, this has resulted in more homes than the market requires. Although excess supply presents challenges, it also demonstrates substantial construction capacity. Where supply outstrips demand, lower prices can improve affordability.

The Chinese government has repeatedly stated its guiding principle:

“Houses are for living in, not for speculation.”

That principle gives priority to people’s need for an affordable home over excessive profits for landlords.

Public investment and government-supported provision are also significant. Official statistics indicate that approximately 1.21 million subsidised and public housing units were either started or made available during 2025.

Europe could usefully consider whether stronger public coordination, greater building capacity and a firmer commitment to housing for the public good would help address its shortages.

Could Construction Cooperation Speed Up Housing Delivery?

Housing policy must also address the time required to build.

China’s development of modular and prefabricated construction offers potential opportunities for European countries seeking faster delivery.

In June 2021, Broad Group assembled a ten-storey apartment building in Changsha in just 28 hours and 45 minutes. The operation used three cranes and factory-manufactured components.

Manufacturing, foundation work and other preparatory tasks had already taken place, so the assembly time should not be mistaken for the complete development period. Even so, the project demonstrated the speed achievable with prefabricated construction.

China’s combination of manufacturing scale, supply-chain efficiency, modular building expertise and competitive costs could support efforts to increase housing output in Europe.

Countries facing persistent shortages, including Ireland, Spain and Germany, could benefit from examining these methods.

Cooperation would require compliance with European planning, safety and construction standards, but potentially beneficial technologies deserve consideration on their technical and economic merits.

For governments under pressure to build more homes, practical solutions deserve serious consideration.

Who Should Determine the Price of Essential Electricity?

Electricity prices influence household finances, business competitiveness and the wider cost of living. Decisions about how electricity is supplied and priced therefore have consequences throughout society.

China’s electricity system is state-led. Major networks are state-owned, and residential tariffs are regulated by government.

Its tiered pricing arrangements provide lower rates for basic household consumption and charge more for additional usage. This places affordable access to essential electricity within the government’s public policy responsibilities.

European countries take different approaches.

Ireland, Germany and Belgium operate largely market-led electricity systems, although government intervention and regulation still shape network charges and consumer protections.

According to Eurostat figures published in October 2026, these countries recorded the highest household electricity prices in the EU: €0.39 per kWh in Ireland and €0.36 in both Germany and Belgium.

The corresponding prices were €0.11 in Hungary, €0.13 in Bulgaria and €0.18 in Croatia. These countries retain stronger intervention in household electricity pricing through regulated tariffs, price caps and consumer protection measures.

Such differences invite examination of whether governments should exercise greater control over the cost of essential services.

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 helps preserve spending power while supporting businesses and the wider economy.

How Long Do Patients Wait for Treatment in Europe and China?

A healthcare service must be available within a reasonable time if it is to meet patients’ needs effectively.

Across Europe, shortages of medical staff, growing demand and limits on capacity contribute to delays in primary care, specialist appointments, diagnostic procedures and surgery.

The OECD and European Commission’s Health at a Glance: Europe 2024 report stated that 20 EU countries reported shortages of doctors in 2022–2023, while 15 reported shortages of nurses.

The report estimated a combined EU shortfall of approximately 1.2 million doctors, nurses and midwives in 2022.

Further comparisons appear in the OECD’s Health at a Glance 2025 publication. 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.

In France, 45% reported waiting at least two months to see a specialist.

Surgical waiting lists reveal additional pressures. OECD figures for 2024 showed that patients awaiting cataract surgery in Ireland had already spent a median of 106 days on the waiting list. 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.

Diagnostic services can involve considerable delays too. Patients in Ireland’s public system may wait weeks or months for scans and procedures such as endoscopies, colonoscopies and bronchoscopies. Receiving results and arranging follow-up consultations can add further waiting time.

China provides examples of faster access to certain forms of treatment.

A May 2024 investigation by China Economic Weekly contacted several hospitals across mainland China and found that routine cataract surgery waits generally did not exceed one week.

The report also described a patient’s experience in Shenzhen, where gastrointestinal examinations, including gastroscopy and colonoscopy, could generally be obtained within two weeks.

These examples demonstrate quicker access in the hospitals examined. They do not constitute nationally representative Chinese waiting-time statistics, and that limitation must remain clear when drawing comparisons.

They nevertheless suggest that the organisation and availability of outpatient care and procedures deserve attention.

How Easily Can Patients See a Doctor or Specialist?

The steps required to obtain a consultation also affect how easily patients can access healthcare.

Across much of Europe, seeing a GP generally involves booking an appointment in advance. Several European healthcare systems also require patients to obtain a GP referral before consulting a specialist, creating an additional stage in the process.

In China, many hospitals and community clinics allow patients to arrive without an advance appointment, register through a process known as 挂号 (guàhào), and see a doctor that day, subject to availability.

Patients can also generally approach specialists directly without first obtaining a GP referral. This removes an administrative step required in several European systems.

Advance booking is increasingly available at major Chinese hospitals, but many facilities continue to offer walk-in consultations.

According to China’s National Health Commission, scheduled outpatients at tertiary public hospitals in 2023 waited an average of less than 20 minutes to see a doctor after arriving and checking in.

That figure refers to the interval between checking in for a scheduled appointment and entering the consultation room.

Walk-in consultations and direct access to specialists can make the process of obtaining medical care simpler and potentially reduce delays.

How Affordable Are Medical and Dental Care in Europe and China?

Waiting times are only one part of healthcare accessibility. Patients must also be able to meet the cost of treatment.

In China’s public hospitals, government-regulated pricing applies to many medical services. Basic medical insurance contributes towards eligible care, and routine consultations and procedures can be relatively inexpensive.

Actual expenses vary with the treatment required and the patient’s insurance arrangements.

Dental care presents particular difficulties in Europe, where public funding for adult treatment is often limited.

Eurostat reported that 6.3% of EU residents aged 16 and over were unable to obtain needed dental care in 2024 because of cost, waiting times or distance.

Among those at risk of poverty, the proportion was 13.7%, compared with 5.1% among those not at risk. People facing poverty were therefore nearly three times more likely to report unmet dental needs.

Dental treatment in mainland China can be considerably cheaper than private care in some European countries.

Routine consultations can also be easier to obtain. Patients can often walk into a dental clinic, register and be seen that day without arranging an appointment in advance.

This availability varies, and specialised treatment may still require booking. However, the combination of lower costs and accessible consultations provides another practical comparison.

How Can Public Officials Be Held Accountable Throughout Their Service?

Delivering affordable services requires competent administration, responsible spending and effective accountability.

Political leaders and civil servants should face regular scrutiny of their performance, together with meaningful consequences for misconduct, neglect of duty and failures of responsibility.

This is particularly relevant to civil servants who may remain in their posts through several governments without fixed terms. Their continuing influence makes continuing oversight important.

EU countries hold political leaders accountable through elections and parliamentary scrutiny. Independent courts review unlawful government actions and determine criminal liability. Depending on national law, legal proceedings can also result in disqualification from public office.

Disciplinary bodies and investigative journalism provide additional means of examining officials’ conduct.

China follows a Party-led model that combines central political direction with a nationwide discipline-inspection and supervisory network.

Its supervisory arrangements cover ongoing oversight, responsibility for leadership failures and checks on whether major Party and state policies are being implemented.

The broader issue is how to ensure that officials remain answerable for their decisions and performance throughout their time in public service.

How Do the EU and China Investigate Official Misconduct and Corruption?

At EU level, the European Anti-Fraud Office, known as OLAF, conducts administrative investigations into suspected fraud involving EU funds and serious misconduct within EU institutions.

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office, or EPPO, investigates and prosecutes crimes affecting the EU’s financial interests.

National officials can fall within these responsibilities. For example, an official suspected of accepting a bribe connected with an EU-funded construction contract may be investigated.

General oversight of national administrations remains a matter for national authorities. European countries have their own national and regional institutions responsible for investigating official misconduct.

China’s disciplinary and anti-corruption bodies operate at national, provincial, prefecture-level city, county and district levels. Oversight also extends to townships and subdistricts.

Directly administered municipalities such as Beijing and Shanghai have provincial-level bodies.

The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and local Party discipline commissions enforce rules governing Communist Party of China members.

The National Supervisory Commission and local state supervisory commissions oversee government officials and others exercising public power, regardless of Party membership. They investigate misconduct and suspected crimes related to public duties.

The Party and state bodies share offices and staff while retaining distinct powers. Officials who are also Party members can consequently 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

Local relationships can create conflicts of interest or opportunities to interfere with an investigation.

China’s supervisory hierarchy includes mechanisms for moving cases beyond those networks.

Article 51 of the supervisory implementation regulations allows a higher authority to reassign a case to another lower authority where appropriate, including to support fair handling.

Article 11 permits the deployment of investigators from subordinate bodies, while Article 50 allows significant or complex cases to be handled at a higher level.

These provisions can help reduce local interference and conflicts of interest.

2. Anti-Corruption Enforcement From the National Level to Villages

Under Xi Jinping, action against 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 anti-corruption work.

The campaign extends through national, provincial, city and county administrations to townships and villages.

China’s 2026 disciplinary agenda specifically prioritised misconduct and corruption affecting everyday life, together with stronger supervision at grassroots level. Village Party secretaries and village committee heads are also subject to investigation.

Publicity forms part of this approach. Investigations, disciplinary education and national television programmes make enforcement visible to officials and the public.

The CCDI and China Media Group’s Anti-Corruption for the People illustrates how individual cases are communicated to a nationwide audience.

Central direction, local enforcement and sustained public attention are intended to reinforce awareness that accountability applies throughout the system.

3. Continuity in Planning and Implementation with Long-Term Oversight

China’s Five-Year Plans establish objectives for each five-year period. Continued Communist Party leadership helps maintain direction between plans, supporting work towards goals that require many years to achieve.

Oversight mechanisms reinforce that continuity by extending responsibility for implementation from the national level to villages.

Officials may face consequences for neglect of duty or other misconduct, making delivery an ongoing obligation.

European countries also maintain long-term plans. However, changes of government, disagreements within coalitions and shifting electoral priorities can disrupt continuity.

The European Commission has itself identified the need to accelerate decision-making and overcome fragmentation at EU level. These problems can slow implementation even where the need for action is recognised.

China’s approach suggests the value of sustained political commitment combined with regular scrutiny of implementation.

For Europe, a practical priority is to ensure that missed targets and persistent failures prompt examination and corrective action throughout political terms.

How Can Governments Deliver What People Need?

The protests across Europe express shared concerns about affordable housing, adequate wages, manageable living costs and dependable public services.

China’s experience offers useful lessons in continuity, affordability, accessibility and accountability: carry plans through, increase housing delivery, provide timely and quality healthcare, and keep essential bills manageable.

Public confidence ultimately depends on whether governments deliver those outcomes—and whether leaders take responsibility when they fall short.

Stay Informed: The Latest Europe–China News and Analysis