Budget, spending cuts, the state apparatus and subsidies: Flanders must now dare to press ahead

The Flemish government has reached an agreement on the budget. That is good news in itself, because governing begins with counting. But anyone who counts honestly also knows that one round of spending cuts will not be enough. Flanders cannot continue pretending that the state apparatus will slim down by itself, or that subsidies are sacred cows that must never be led to the slaughterhouse. A sound budget agreement is not the end point. At most, it is the beginning of a mature conversation about what government should still do, what it can do better and, above all, what it should no longer do.

For too long, Flanders has grown used to a comfortable habit. Every social problem was given a counter, every counter was given an administration, every administration was given a budget line and every budget line acquired its defenders. That is not how policy is created. It is how an ecosystem is built. Those living inside it consider it logical. Those paying for it mostly see the bill rising.

Flanders government budget is not in balance

That is why this budget must be more than an accounting exercise. It must become a political choice. Not merely the choice to seek new revenue or subtly shift burdens, but the choice finally to tackle expenditure structurally. Those who only make minor adjustments today will have to intervene more harshly tomorrow. And those who must intervene more harshly tomorrow will end up hurting precisely the people they claim to want to protect today.

The state apparatus is not the enemy. Civil servants are not caricatures. Flanders has capable public officials, loyal services and people who try every day to move files forward. But a good and efficient government is not the same as a large government. On the contrary: the larger the apparatus, the greater the risk that efficiency and money disappear into coordination, consultation, reporting and endless procedures. Policy then becomes a factory of policy papers rather than results.

A genuine spending cut in the state apparatus therefore requires more than simply leaving a few vacancies unfilled. It asks the question that politics poses far too rarely: would we invent this service, this scheme, this obligation today if it did not already exist? If the answer is no, then politicians must dare to scrap it. Not rename it. Not move it elsewhere. Not “optimise” it with a new logo. Scrap it.

In Argentina, under President Milei, we can see how government has given the economy and society more breathing space by cutting spending and rules, and by lowering the cost of government for society.

The same applies to subsidies. Flanders is a champion at subsidising good intentions. But good intentions are not proof of good policy. A subsidy should not be a reward for whoever fills in the form best. It must serve a demonstrable public purpose. If that purpose is unclear, if the outcome cannot be measured, or if the support mainly keeps alive a sector that would not be viable without public money, then politics must be honest: in that case, we are buying dependency with taxpayers’ money, and that ultimately costs society a great deal of prosperity.

Subsidies also have a creeping effect. They make organisations cautious. Those who live on public money are reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. This creates a civil society that is officially independent, but financially kept on a drip. That is unhealthy for the budget and unhealthy for public debate. A free society needs strong citizens, associations and businesses, not only subsidised structures that resist every change.

The Flemish government deserves credit when it recognises that the budget will not become healthy by itself. But credit is not a blank cheque. Taxpayers are entitled to expect that spending cuts will not fall only on visible measures that citizens immediately feel, while the internal machine largely keeps running. Anyone who raises the care premium, winds down allowances or cancels projects must at the same time show that government has first looked at itself.

That is a matter of legitimacy. Spending cuts become acceptable only when they appear fair. And fairness starts at the top. Fewer ministerial offices, fewer consultants, fewer fragmented agencies, fewer temporary project funds that become permanent: these are not symbolic files. They are signals that politics understands that public money does not belong to the government. It is the money of people who work, build businesses, consume, save and pay tax. A small and efficient state is certainly possible. Look at Switzerland: a country comparable to Belgium, but one which, as a confederation with direct democracy, has a system in which public authorities must compete with one another and remain permanently accountable to the citizen, the taxpayer.

Of course, every saving will provoke protest from the groups affected. For every subsidy, there is a press release. For every scheme, there is an interest group. For every abolished department or service, there is someone claiming that society will collapse. But political leadership means distinguishing between noise and necessity. Not everything that is loudly defended is essential. And it should not be taken for granted that every tax euro must be spent without asking whether it is truly necessary.

The Flemish, and federal budget must therefore be balanced not only on paper, but also morally. A government that asks citizens to pay more or receive less support must prove that it is taking up fewer resources itself. That means less administrative bustle, fewer overlapping powers, fewer subsidies without rigorous evaluation, and less policy that mainly exists to compensate for other policy.

Flanders does not need an annual budget show in which, after night-time negotiations, politicians announce that it was “difficult but responsible”. Flanders needs a multi-year clean-up of habits. The real question is not whether €1.5 billion has been found. The real question is whether politicians will finally break the reflex by which every item of expenditure automatically becomes an acquired right.

A slimmer state apparatus need not mean a colder society. On the contrary. A government that does less can do better what is truly necessary: education, infrastructure, security and care.

Education that works. Infrastructure that moves forward. Care that reaches those who need it. Security and legal certainty. But for that to happen, government must stop trying to be present everywhere at once and constantly expanding until society itself is suffocated.

With the budget agreement, the Flemish government has taken a small first step. But the next steps matter more. The budget must not become an exercise in just enough spending cuts to hit the number. It must not become a cheese-slicer approach of cutting a little everywhere and raising burdens a little everywhere. It must be the beginning of a cultural shift: less state apparatus where possible, fewer subsidies where necessary, and more discipline in every euro spent.

Because ultimately, budgeting means choosing. And those who do not choose allow the bill to choose for them. That bill always ends up with the same people: working Flemings, young families, entrepreneurs and future generations. They deserve more than an agreement. They deserve a government that finally dares to say: not every item of expenditure is policy, and not every subsidy is solidarity. There cannot be a counter for every form of pointless public service.

The budget is settled. Now for the policy.

Image credits: Towfiqu Barbhuiya via Unsplash