Time for an Albanian Industrial Model

If there is a fundamental question about Albania’s economic future, it is this:

• How can we build a competitive, sustainable, and regionally and globally integrated productive economy?
  The answer lies not only in the desire for development but in the central strategy we follow.

One of the most powerful industrialization stories in modern times is that of China.
From an underdeveloped agricultural country, China transformed into the “factory of the world,” filling global supermarkets with every possible product—from socks to AI drones.
Is this a model that Albania should follow?
Yes—but not without reflection.
We must learn from China, not copy it.
Its success is not a mystery; it is the result of coordinated policies, stable state decision-making, and systematic investment in capacities.

China did not leave industrialization to the market.
On the contrary, it built a genuine economic ecosystem, supporting production with long-term policies, strategic interventions, and careful planning.

Active, not spontaneous Industrial Policy

China used five-year plans to guide production and technology.
Instead of a “Chinese five-year plan,” Albania needs a national pact for industrialization, tightly linked with three components:

• vocational education,
• technological investments, and
• integration into regional and European production chains.

It is a fact that Albania cannot build every type of industry.
What we need to do is choose sectors with competitive potential, link education policy with industry, and create focused “development islands.”
Since Albania lacks the advantage of a large market, it needs smart specialization in selected segments like food processing, clean energy, and digital technology.

Drafting a national industrial strategy in cooperation with government, universities, and industry is one of the first visionary approaches.
Naturally, the government has invested many of its resources and policies in infrastructure as a foundation of competitiveness.
However, roads, ports, and energy supply are not merely matters of construction—they must become determinants of economic efficiency. Investment in logistics and overall infrastructure only gains value when it reduces value chain costs.

Based on this conclusion, public investments and PPPs must now be focused on industrial infrastructure, with priority for regional production corridors.

Integrated supply chains are what make production effective.
China built regional clusters where suppliers, producers, and tech centers coexist.

The establishment of 2–3 specialized industrial zones, with logistics, low rents, and concentrated technical services, should have already been functional in Albania given the various policies announced and used.
But this policy must be intertwined with a selective approach to accepting foreign investments under conditions.
The basic conditions that should have guided economic policies include the requirement for localized investments and technology transfer in regions identified as needing development, thus strengthening local capacities.

Even though delayed, there is still the opportunity that after careful planning, agreements can be built with foreign and local investors to include requirements for training, partnerships with technical schools, and technology sharing.

No economy can produce at scale without a qualified workforce.
In this approach, it is important to note that technical education must be reoriented to meet industrial demand, not merely to grant diplomas.
A fundamental reform in the vocational education system is long overdue, with modules developed to establish cooperation with industry.

On the other hand, the chaotic and unvisionary policy of immediate and uncontrolled market liberalization must be corrected.
This has been one of the factors contributing to an economy dependent on imports.
In fact, looking at the success of the Chinese economy, the opposite happened—a gradual opening and not an immediate dismantling.

China protected its producers in the early stages, opening its market in a controlled manner.
Liberalization without built capacities is a path toward de-industrialization.

Even in this regard, in the few remaining spaces that have not been overtaken by poorly thought-out agreements, there is a need to design a selective calendar for market opening, with temporary protection for strategic sectors.

Is China a Model for Albania?

At the end of our analysis, we raise the important question:
Is China a feasible model for Albania?
We believe it cannot be in its pure form.
This is not possible due to large differences in scale, demographic structure, and political system.

Albania cannot build its industry by blindly following the models of large economies.
Our structural reality is different—smaller in market size, more sensitive in human capital, and more fragile in state capacities.
But these very limitations make it necessary to create a smart, focused, and long-term-oriented production model.

Yet the mechanisms of China’s success are valuable for adaptation in a smaller, democratic, and European context.

In this analysis, we do not propose that Albania become the “China of the Balkans,”
but that it become a “smart productive economy.”

Albania does not need to copy China,
but it must learn from it and from many developed economies in what suits today’s conditions and tomorrow’s perspectives.

Development does not happen on its own.
In this context, beyond market operators, it is the state that plays a key role in market creation.
But the productive market needs technology, logistics, and technical knowledge, and a national industrial approach, with priority to value-added production, clean technology, and integration with regional chains, should have started at least two decades ago.

Instead of a race for consumer markets, Albania must enter the race for production, because only production generates knowledge, sustainable employment, and economic autonomy.