Flemish Towns with Ministers Get 25% More Subsidies, Study

Municipalities in Flanders where Flemish ministers or members of parliament (MPs) reside receive significantly more project and investment subsidies from the regional government, according to new doctoral research from Ghent University published on Wednesday. The findings, reported by VRT NWS, raise questions about the equitable distribution of public funds in Belgium’s wealthiest region.

The Disparity in Numbers

Benjamin Descamps, a doctoral researcher at Ghent University’s Department of Public Administration and Public Management, analyzed two decades of subsidy flows across all 293 Flemish municipalities from 2004 to 2023. His research reveals a clear pattern: municipalities where a Flemish minister lives receive on average €33.71 more per inhabitant in project and investment subsidies than the baseline of €139.28 per inhabitant — a roughly 25% increase.

The effect extends to MPs as well, though it is less pronounced. Municipalities where a Flemish MP resides receive on average 8.5% more in subsidies. Descamps defended his PhD dissertation, titled “Intergovernmental Grants in Flanders: Essays on the Political Distribution of Subsidies to Local Governments,” on July 1 at Ghent University, as confirmed by the university’s agenda.

Information Asymmetry and Electoral Logic

Descamps identifies two primary mechanisms driving the disparity. The first is what he calls “information asymmetry.” Ministers and MPs with local political backgrounds — former mayors and aldermen — possess superior knowledge of the complex subsidy landscape, including when calls for proposals are announced and how to craft successful applications.

“Some ministers and MPs know the way to Brussels better, allowing them to offer their municipality a competitive advantage in subsidy applications,” Descamps told VRT NWS.

The second mechanism is electoral logic. Politicians see it as their duty to bring resources to their home region, as voters expect their representatives to deliver tangible benefits. An earlier paper by Descamps and Prof. Carine Smolders, published in Regional and Federal Studies in 2025, had already documented this “hometown bias” phenomenon in Flanders for the period 2004–2017, as recorded in the UGent Academic Bibliography.

Nuances in the Findings

The effect is not uniform across all politicians. Descamps noted on Radio 1’s ‘De Ochtend’ that the hometown bias is strongest among ministers who built a local political career before ascending to regional office. “The effect is greatest among ministers who have built a strong local political career, for example as mayor or alderman,” he said. “For ministers recruited from outside politics, such as from the business sector, we do not see that effect.”

Similarly, for MPs, the subsidy advantage is primarily observed among those belonging to the governing majority coalition and those who simultaneously hold local mandates such as council member, alderman, or mayor.

The Scale of Flemish Subsidies

Flanders operates approximately 120 distinct subsidy programs distributing €1.7 billion annually across domains including mobility, public works, sports infrastructure, welfare, environment, culture, and youth. In 2025, total Flemish government expenditures reached €65.4 billion, of which €18.5 billion was spent on subsidies.

Unlike the Municipal Fund (Gemeentefonds), which distributes funds based on legally codified formulas such as population and surface area, project-based subsidies involve a competitive application process where ministers have discretionary authority to award funds. This discretionary power creates the conditions for hometown bias, Descamps argues.

Political Reactions

Flemish Budget Minister Ben Weyts (N-VA) dismissed the finding as unsurprising. “That politicians advocate for investments in their own region — who is surprised by that?” Weyts said in an interview with De Tijd, as reported by Business AM. “Many voters will actually demand that from their local representative and consider it inherent to the job. Imagine the opposite: an MP who means nothing for their own region.”

Descamps, however, cautioned that the perception of unfairness is a legitimate concern. “Many politicians find this normal, but it is up to the citizen to pass judgment on it,” he said.

International Context and Reform Prospects

The phenomenon of political steering in subsidy distribution — known internationally as “pork-barrel politics” or “hometown bias” — has been documented in the United States, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece. This study provides the first empirical confirmation of the pattern in Flanders.

The findings come at a critical moment. The Flemish Government is currently reviewing its subsidy system for local governments, and the OECD has recommended consolidating funding streams and using fixed distribution keys rather than fragmented project calls. Descamps noted that with approximately 120 subsidy programs generating a new call roughly every three days, “that can perhaps be organized more simply.”

What to Watch For

As the Flemish Government proceeds with its subsidy review, Descamps’ research provides empirical evidence supporting calls for reform. The study raises broader questions about whether similar patterns exist in Belgium’s other regions, Wallonia and Brussels-Capital, and whether the public perception of unfairness will translate into political pressure for change. For residents of municipalities without political representation in Brussels, the question of whether their tax euros are being distributed equitably is now backed by two decades of data.