policy-making in Belgium

basic characteristics

federal

• Blegian federation:

  • fragmentation of policy competences

  • cooperation necessary

• self-rule

  • regions: far-reaching autonomy on territorial matters

  • communities: far-reaching autonomy on personal matters

• shared-rule

  • federal: social security (unemployment, pension, health care…), wage policies, foreign affairs, justice

  • but diverging (socio-economic) interests

partitocratic

• parties dominate policy-making

  • in regions, communities and federal level

  • strong impact on parliament and government

• party leaders negotiate during coalition formation process

  • coalition agreements fix policies for next term

  • MPs + ministerds expected to execute policies

• party influence also goes beyond parliamentary/governmental policy-making

politicization of the public administration

• until 1990s: extreme politicization of the public administration

• traditional view (Max Weber)

  • civil servant is neutral

  • merit-based appointment

  • permanent contracts → independence

  • help elected politicians with preparation and implementation of policies

• practice: political appointments

  • governing parties control appointment and promotion of civil servants

  • vacancy → select candidate from their own ranks (party members)

• consequence of political appointments

  • civil servants openly express support to a party (higher chances for promotion)

  • public administration is not neutral anymore (party loyalists with perament contracts)

  • distrust by ministers → burdens policy-making

• solution: extensive cabinets

  • loyal collaborators personally selected by minister

  • take over tasks of administration (preparation and implementation)

  • very powerful

consociational

1. power-sharing:

   • reconcile competing interests

   • delicate compromises and pacts, broad coalitions, mutual veto

2. segmental autonomy

   • autonomy for segments/pillars: on policies and services

   • no need for one-size-fits-all policies: separate fighting dogs

   • pillarization

neo-corporatist

• segmental autonomy increased pillarization

  • catholic, socialist (liberal) pillar

  • multitude of organizations with overlapping memberships

• de-pillarization of the minds but still relevant

  • traditional pillar organizations still powerful

    • despite electoral decline of traditional pillar parties

  • particularly in social security/economic policies

  • neo-corporatism: cooperation and joint policy-making between government and civil society

neo-corporatism

• limited number of in,terest groups (historical pillar organizations)

  • have privileged position and influence on policy-making

• important impact socio-economic policies

  • social partnership: trade unions and employers organizations

  • far-reaching policy decisions on wages, social security…

  • often without intervention of government

• but also on other domains

illustration: group of 10

• meeting amongst most important social partners (employers and trade unions, informal but very powerful)

• every 2 years: inter-professional agreement (IPA)

  • far-reaching decisions ofr entire labor market

  • how much can salaries rise, early retirement policies, overtime hours…

• governemnt not there but will execute IPA (broad consensus)

• but: wage margin

conclusion

policy-making in Belgium

• = federalized, partitocratic, consociational, neo-corporatist

• party-dominated governments take the lead

  • detailed coalition agreemants

  • limited influence of parliament

• power-sharing and consensus-seeking: compromises

• segmental autonomy

• neo-corporatist: historical pillar organizations can have strong impact on social and economic policy

economic interests and policies

Belgium

• small but prosperous

• limited natural resources

• very ‘open’ economy → international trade

• consequence: government has limited impact on Belgian economy, dependence from financial markets and multinational enterprises

some challenges

• cost of labor is high in Belgium (fuels unemployment)

• part: complete and generous social security

• reduce (historical) public debt

the regions

clear differences

Brussels Capital Region

• high GDP per inhabitant, but also high unemployment and low average incomes

• middle class tends to move out of Brussels towards greeer periphery (open environment but also lower housing prices)

Flanders

• wealthiest region

• strong economy

• but very dependent on foreign investments

Wallonia

• poorest region (based on GDP)

• unemployment (higher than in Flanders) is structural

  • investments in (declining) old industries (coal and steel)

• Walloon economic policy = more interventionist

conclusions

• regions have different economic needs

• require different policies

  • Flanders wishes more fiscal/economic autonomy

    • stimulate private investments, responsibilization

  • Wallonia: reluctant

    • fear fiscal competition, lack of financial means to spend on competences, solidarity

→ makes discussions on state reforms complex