No longer the periphery: How Southeast Europe is moving to center

In this transforming landscape, geography is returning with force and Southeast Europe, which was long treated as Europe’s periphery, is moving toward the centre.

A decade ago, few would have predicted the scale of Turkish investment in Romania, now exceeding 14 billion euros ($16.13 billion). Today, the Turkish capital is not merely present; it is embedded. Companies are building hospitals, highways, industrial facilities and energy infrastructure. This is not opportunistic expansion, but a strategic positioning, and the reason for it is simple.

As global supply chains become more risk-sensitive, proximity started to matter once more. Regions that combine political stability, access to markets and logistical connectivity gain a premium. Southeast Europe offers all three. It sits at the crossroads of Europe, the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean, an emerging corridor for trade, energy and data. But opportunity alone does not guarantee success.

The region faces a paradox. Funding is not scarce, but execution is. Across several countries, significant European and international funds remain underutilized. Projects stall not for lack of capital, but because of bureaucratic complexity, administrative delays and fragmented governance.

Meanwhile, the needs are visible and urgent: modern transport networks, resilient health systems, upgraded ports and airports, and competitive universities. The gap between available resources and delivered outcomes is no longer a technical issue, but it is a vulnerability.

There are, however, lessons to draw.

Türkiye’s experience over the past two decades demonstrates what coordinated action can achieve. The transformation of Turkish Airlines into a global aviation leader and the development of Istanbul Airport as a major international hub were not the result of state action alone. They emerged from a deliberate alignment between government, private capital and industrial capacity. Execution, not ambition, made the difference.

Southeast Europe now needs a similar model that will be adapted to its own institutional context. Public-private partnerships must move from theory to practice. Governments, investors, universities and development finance institutions must operate within a shared strategic framework. Infrastructure is no longer just about roads and bridges. It is about positioning the region within the new geography of global production and connectivity.

European policy can reinforce this transformation. Initiatives such as the EU’s Global Gateway and the future reconstruction of Ukraine offer a historic opportunity. If managed effectively, they could transform Southeast Europe into a logistical and investment platform for the wider region.

However, Europe is no longer the only actor. Capital from the Middle East, Asia and beyond is increasingly active. This diversification is both an opportunity and a test. It requires strategic clarity: openness to investment, but within a coherent long-term vision.

At the same time, innovation remains the missing link. The region cannot rely solely on infrastructure and cost advantages. It must invest in regulatory simplification, research capacity and technological ecosystems. Without this, it risks becoming a transit zone rather than a centre of value creation.

The conclusion is clear. Southeast Europe does not lack resources, interest or relevance. It lacks speed, coordination and, above all, a shift in mindset. For too long, the region has been managed as a problem to be stabilized. It must now be treated as an opportunity to be shaped.

In a world where globalization is no longer a given, those who can connect regions, markets and systems will define the next phase of growth. Southeast Europe has the geography, the momentum and the partners to do so. What remains is the decision to act accordingly.

(Kaynak)