BELGIUM

Belgium’s status performance remains steadfastly average (no change relative to SGI 2009).

The country’s small and open economy suffered immediate consequences of the global crisis. The main bank, Fortis, was among the first victims of the global liquidity dry-up in 2009. A major political crisis followed, and forced the prime minister to step down.

Belgium maintains middling performance in all policy categories. Social policies are generous, but the quality of democracy in the country is slipping as political tensions between the Flemish and Francophone populations flare.

The quality of Belgium’s democracy fell 3 positions relative to SGI 2009.

Electoral processes are largely fair. The large democratic parties have broadly equal access to the media, whereas minor and non-democratic parties face restrictions. Voting is compulsory.

Judiciary indepence is steadfastly maintained and the judiciary regularly challenges executive decisions. Civil and political rights are well protected, though political tensions between the Flemish (Dutch-speaking) and Walloon (French-speaking) populations sometimes strain the system.

Legal certainty is generally provided for throughout the country. But conflicts between different levels of government and varied interpretations of some laws and regulations can translate into spotty implementation.

Economic policy performance in Belgium is mediocre (rank 18).

A maze of bureacracy hampers entrepreneurial activity in Belgium. Nonetheless, low tax rates on corporate profits and non-labor income make the domestic market attractive. Individual taxes, while progressive are skewed toward labor income.

Unemployment rates are very high in some cities and regions, in particular the south. Labor market participation is compromised by excessive early retirement.

Budgetary policy is not efficient. With a public deficit of 6% in 2009, the debt-to-GDP ratio hit the 100% threshold and is rising.

Belgium performs reasonably well in terms of social policy (rank 13), despite a slight decline relative to the SGI 2009.

The health care system covers a very wide share of the population, offering inexpensive access to services. Though overall health care costs have been relatively well contained to date, population aging will put growing stress on quality and costs, increasing the need for reform.

Generous employment protections, unemployment benefits and social safety nets keep outright poverty to a minimum. The employment rate for women has been improving in recent years, in parallel with extensively subsidized childcare. However, upward social mobility, particularly for immigrants, remains comparatively low.

Belgium is the host country for NATO headquarters, SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Powers in Europe) and several EU institutions. The large number of international organizations and larger-than-average diplomatic posts in Belgium account for the high degree of security protection provided in the country. Nonetheless, several cases of terrorism and a growing number of Jihad cells have been reported.

Belgium is largely seen as a hub for synthetic drugs. Relative social stability has generally protected the country against public violence like that witnessed in France. However, there have been reports of ethnic riots in Anderlecht, a poor neighborhood in western Brussels.

Belgium ranks 15th in the SGI’s resources category.

Car traffic and pollution remains a major problem due to poor management of public transportation and the country’s role as a European transit hub. Electricity production largely hinges on nuclear energy.

Financial support for universities is insufficient. Government budget appropriations for R&D have remained essentially stagnant since the beginning of the 2000s.

Primary and secondary schools are compulsory and free (or cheap) to all. However, Belgium is the second most segregated European country in terms of schooling. This may be explained in part by students’ early separation into different education tracks.

Either stagnating or faltering on all measures, Belgium’s management performance fell 4 positions to rank 21 (relative to SGI 2009).

The central government has severe difficulty in steering the course of policy-making. Impact assessments are not formally regulated, and policies are often poorly communicated. The ongoing domestic political crisis has all but halted policy implementation.

Even though Belgium, as a founding member of the EU, is actively involved in European and international governance activities, the country shows little in the way of institutional learning. This is largely due to its rigid federal structure which frustrates the implementation of international agreements.

It is noteworthy that recent governments have for the most part demonstrated considerable accountability toward citizens, the legislature and intermediary organizations.

At rank 29, the Belgium government’s previously poor steering capability has fallen (-3 ranks relative to SGI 2009) further toward the OECD’s bottom.

Strategic planning is performed by individual ministers working closely with personal teams of collaborators. Non-governmental academic experts have limited influence on government decisions. The Prime Minister’s Office contains a “strategic cell” which helps evaluate and steer policy.

There is no formal process for conducting regulatory impact assessments, and unexpected policy outcomes are not uncommon.

Policy coordination is not always well coordinated. Individual ministers may develop their own communication strategies on issues relating to their area of responsibility, leading to open disagreement among coalition partners.

At rank 30, Belgium’s rating on policy implementation capacity has tumbled dramatically (-16 ranks) relative to 2009.

The country has suffered through a serious political crisis exacerbated by linguistic tensions, simultaneously facing the paralyzing effects of worldwide economic crisis. This clearly prevented the government from pursuing ambitious goals.

The prime minister’s ability to keep ministers in check has been poor, with some exceptions. However, this situation is a product of exceptional circumstances.

Many central government responsibilities have been delegated to the regions or sub-regions in recent decades. In general, the underfunding of delegated tasks remains a concern.

At rank 27, Belgium is ranked near the OECD’s bottom in terms of institutional learning.

On the one hand, Belgium plays a proactive role in the EU, and is an active member of many international agreements, spearheading agreement on a land-mine production ban, for example. The country displays support for joint EU reform initiatives in most policy fields.

On the other hand, federal structure prevents the formal monitoring of institutional arrangements, and in particular prevents the head of government from imposing reforms necessary to meet Belgium’s international commitments. The prime minister has no authority over subnational federal entities. Many reforms result from bargaining between various levels of government.

At rank 9, the level of accountability of Belgium’s executive is a relative bright spot for the country in the SGI 2011.

Voter turnout is very high; however, political alienation is widespread, which is at least partly due to the powerful party organizations and the consociational and neocorporatist logic of the broader political system.

Parliamentary committees have strong oversight powers. They can access virtually all documents in possession of the government.

While the print media is of relatively low quality, TV news programs are reasonably informative. Party proposals are plausible, coherent and often consensual. A large fraction of interest associations receive at least some public financial support.