1The Brussels-Capital Region faces a series of structural challenges, with economic issues occupying a central position. In this context, defining a coherent vision of regional economic development constitutes a significant area of debate. This text contributes to the discussion by providing an empirical analysis of the main representations and priorities shaping discourse on the Brussels economy.
2Based on original data collected from economic, social and institutional stakeholders in the Brussels-Capital Region, the study1 which this fact sheet is based on examines how these stakeholders perceive the current and future challenges of regional economic development. Using a well-established methodology – Q methodology [Watts and Stenner, 2005; Barry and Proops, 1999] – we analyse the consensus and disagreement between the various visions expressed, highlighting the main structuring lines of the debate. The objective is to identify the rationale behind these positions and to extract elements capable of informing collective reflection on key issues.
3Conducted within an institutional context marked by the prolonged post-electoral period following the regional elections of 9 June 2024, this study aims to provide an analytical contribution to the debate on the future of the Brussels economy by documenting the visions which coexist within the regional field.
4As summarised by Fransolet et al. [2025], the Q methodology combines qualitative and quantitative approaches [Brown, 1996] and is used for a systematic mapping of the perspectives of the various stakeholders. It was designed to study subjectivity in a structured manner [Brown, 1980; Watts and Stenner, 2012], capturing not only the opinions of participants but also how they rank and relate ideas to one another [Hudon et al., 2025].
5It also enables the identification of marginal or lesser-known viewpoints while preserving the interpretative richness of qualitative research [Zabala et al., 2018]. The method reveals differing visions, clarifies tensions by identifying points of disagreement, and sheds light on unexpected consensus among stakeholders who might initially appear to be in complete opposition. It therefore represents a valuable tool for building political consensus, even in the absence of total agreement in polarised contexts [Webler et al., 2009; Niemeyer and Dryzek, 2007].
6The Q method comprises a series of successive stages [Cools et al., 2012; Lefin and Boulanger, 2010; Davies and Hodge, 2007; Barry and Proops, 1999]:
-
Construction of the survey sample (“Q sample”): the questionnaire was sent to individuals identified as stakeholders within the Brussels economy (list available in the annexe).
-
- 2 Typically, Q sets contain between 40 and 80 statements [Zabala et al., 2018; Cools et al., 2012 ; (...)
Drafting and selection of statements to be submitted to the sample (“Q set”): an initial set of statements, developed through documentary research, was discussed, amended and supplemented during exploratory interviews with experts in the field [Davies and Hodge, 2007]: Caroline Daux and Stéphanie Sauvage (Bruxelles Economie Emploi), Lisa Isnard (BECI), Magali Verdonck (ULB-DULBEA), Ariane Wautelet (Innoviris). Ultimately, 49 statements emerged from this process (see Table 10) and constituted the final Q set2.
-
Distribution of the survey and collection of rankings (“Q sorts”): in December 2025, 72 invitations to complete the online survey via Q Method Software were sent by email to the management of the identified organisations and, where relevant, to deputy or sectoral directors responsible for economic matters3. Two reminders were issued. Respondents first expressed their position regarding each of the 49 statements (“Agree”, “Neutral”, “Disagree”). Subsequently, they had to rank the 49 statements in relation to one another.
-
Principal component analysis and identification of “ideal types” (factors)
-
Description and interpretation of results
7The survey closed on 16 December 2025 at midday, with 45 complete responses recorded. Although response rates varied by type of stakeholder, the overall response rate was 62 %, which is considerable for this type of survey.
8As responses were anonymous, only the type of stakeholder is known. The sample of respondents included:
-
17 representatives of Brussels public administrations (37.8 %)
-
8 representatives of business federations or sectoral federations (17.8 %)
-
6 trade union representatives (13.3 %)
-
4 representatives from the social economy sector (8.9 %)
-
4 representatives from economic non-profit organisations (8.9 %)
-
6 classified as “other”, namely regional incubators or Knowledge Transfer Offices (KTOs) at Brussels universities (13.3 %)
9The overall score for each statement was calculated by aggregating the points associated with respondents’ positions and their relative rankings (“Q sort”)4. These overall scores are presented in column G of Table 10.
- 5 The average score corresponds to the overall score obtained by the statement (column G in Table 10) (...)
10The ten statements with the highest average scores5 (agreement with the statement) among all 45 participants are as follows:
Table 1. The 10 statements with the highest average scores among all 45 participants
|
Statement
|
Average score
|
|
s24
|
The federal government must increase its financial contribution to the costs incurred by the Region as a multi-capital city (police and security, mobility, reception of irregular migrants, etc.).
|
2.40
|
|
s14
|
The Region's priority must be to increase the employment rate of the inhabitants of Brussels.
|
1.62
|
|
s11
|
A new mechanism for the distribution of wealth generated in Brussels is essential.
|
1.58
|
|
s8
|
Public support for companies in Brussels must be conditional on their sustainability (social, environmental).
|
1.56
|
|
s36
|
The development of reuse and recycling activities (urban mining, waste and water management) must be stepped up in the Region.
|
1.42
|
|
s22
|
Municipal and regional tax systems must favour activities which create local jobs.
|
1.40
|
|
s30
|
In Brussels, public-private partnerships should have a stronger social purpose (social, environmental, innovation).
|
1.38
|
|
s37
|
The Region must support the local production and sharing of renewable electricity in its territory.
|
1.31
|
|
s10
|
Strengthening economic cooperation with other regions in terms of mobility should be a priority.
|
1.13
|
|
s4
|
Without public intervention, the Brussels economy cannot be made more resilient to multiple crises (health, energy, climate, etc.).
|
1.11
|
11Although these statements received the widest support among respondents, this does not necessarily imply consensus across the different visions; a complementary analysis is therefore presented below.
12The 10 statements with the lowest average scores (disagreement with the statement) are the following:
Table 2. The 10 statements with the lowest average scores among all 45 participants
|
Statement
|
Average score
|
|
s13
|
The Region's economic development strategy must give priority to the digital sector.
|
-0.93
|
|
s16
|
For companies in Brussels, recruitment is hampered primarily by labour costs.
|
-0.96
|
|
s19
|
Higher education should be reformed in order to better suit the needs of companies.
|
-1.11
|
|
s25
|
The Brussels Region and municipalities must lower their taxes in order to become more attractive to companies.
|
-1.36
|
|
s9
|
A company's economic viability must take precedence over its commitment to social and environmental sustainability.
|
-1.58
|
|
s3
|
The Region must be a centre for conferences.
|
-1.69
|
|
s38
|
Developing a defence industry in the Region is a priority.
|
-3.02
|
|
s46
|
Completing the extension of the Brussels metro must be a priority in the regional budget.
|
-3.07
|
|
s44
|
Mobility policy should leave more room for cars in order to facilitate economic development.
|
-3.18
|
|
s32
|
The social economy represents unfair competition for the traditional economy in Brussels.
|
-3.31
|
13The more negative the score, the stronger the opposition to the statement. Again, even a very low score does not automatically imply consensus across visions. It is this aspect which is analysed here.
14The survey results (the rankings of the 45 participants) were processed using the free software KADE v1.3.1 with principal component analysis. Four significant factors emerged and their explanation to the variance was maximised6.
15As the Factor 4 group comprised only 3 participants (one of whom is negatively correlated), interpretation focused on the first 3 factors.
Table 3. Distribution of participants by sector and predominant vision
|
Type of stakeholder
|
F1
|
F2
|
F3
|
F4
|
Total
|
|
Administration
|
7
|
4
|
5
|
1(-)
|
17
|
|
Other
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
6
|
|
Social economy
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
|
Business federation or sectoral federation
|
1(-)
|
5
|
2
|
0
|
8
|
|
Non-profit sector
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
4
|
|
Trade union
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
0
|
6
|
|
Total
|
17
|
10
|
15
|
3
|
45
|
16This vision integrates social and environmental objectives into the economy and assigns a major role to the State, whether through conditioning public support on sustainability criteria (social and environmental) or through stronger support for the social economy and reuse and recycling activities. 17 of the 45 participants were grouped under this “Systemic Economy” vision. They include 7 representatives of Brussels administrations, all 4 representatives of the social economy sector, 3 of the 4 representatives of the non-profit sector, and one representative of a business federation or a sectoral federation. Note that in the latter case, there is a significant negative correlation (i.e. in opposition to vision).
17Tables 4 and 5 show the 10 statements with the highest average scores (Z-scores) among the 17 group members, and the 10 statements with the lowest average scores.
Table 4. Top 10 statements supported by the “Systemic Economy” vision
|
TOP 10 statements supported by the “Systemic Economy” vision (F1)
|
F1_Z-score
|
|
s8
|
Public support for companies in Brussels must be conditional on their sustainability (social, environmental).
|
1.67
|
|
s33
|
The social economy needs greater support from the Region.
|
1.65
|
|
s24
|
The federal government must increase its financial contribution to the costs incurred by the Region as a multi-capital city (police and security, mobility, reception of irregular migrants, etc.).
|
1.53
|
|
s36
|
The development of reuse and recycling activities (urban mining, waste and water management) must be stepped up in the Region.
|
1.42
|
|
s4
|
Without public intervention, the Brussels economy cannot be made more resilient to multiple crises (health, energy, climate, etc.).
|
1.33
|
|
s41
|
The dynamics and functioning of the Alliance Renolution must be maintained.
|
1.26
|
|
s30
|
In Brussels, public-private partnerships should have a stronger social purpose (social, environmental, innovation).
|
1.18
|
|
s37
|
The Region must support the local production and sharing of renewable electricity in its territory.
|
1.18
|
|
s11
|
A new mechanism for the distribution of wealth generated in Brussels is essential.
|
1.16
|
|
s29
|
Brussels public procurement contracts must include more social clauses.
|
1.07
|
Table 5. Top 10 oppositions to statements for the “Systemic Economy” vision
|
TOP 10 oppositions to statements for the “Systemic Economy” vision (F1)
|
F1_Z-score
|
|
s13
|
The Region's economic development strategy must give priority to the digital sector.
|
-0.82
|
|
s20
|
In order to guarantee the sustainability of public finances in Brussels, the Region must reduce the internal expenditure of public stakeholders.
|
-0.96
|
|
s27
|
Company subsidies should be abolished and replaced by other financial support mechanisms, such as low-interest loans, equity investments and repayable advances.
|
-0.99
|
|
s25
|
The Brussels Region and municipalities must lower their taxes in order to become more attractive to companies.
|
-1.09
|
|
s3
|
The Region must be a centre for conferences.
|
-1.21
|
|
s9
|
A company's economic viability must take precedence over its commitment to social and environmental sustainability.
|
-1.26
|
|
s46
|
Completing the extension of the Brussels metro must be a priority in the regional budget.
|
-1.29
|
|
s38
|
Developing a defence industry in the Region is a priority.
|
-1.85
|
|
s32
|
The social economy represents unfair competition for the traditional economy in Brussels.
|
-2.01
|
|
s44
|
Mobility policy should leave more room for cars in order to facilitate economic development.
|
-2.34
|
18In this vision, the sphere of State influence is more limited, and public intervention is less prominent. Reducing public expenditure – particularly within public administrations – is prioritised, and labour costs and administrative burdens are identified as key obstacles to regional economic development. This vision is shared by 10 of the 45 participants: 5 representatives of business or sectoral federations, 4 representatives of Brussels administrations, and one representative classified as “other” (incubator or KTO).
19Tables 6 and 7 present the 10 statements with the highest average scores among the 10 group members, and the 10 statements with the lowest average scores.
Table 6. Top 10 statements supported by the “Private sector/market-based economy” vision
|
TOP 10 statements supported by the “Private sector/market-based economy” vision (F2)
|
F2_Z-score
|
|
s23
|
Rapidly reducing the Region's debt is a priority.
|
2.12
|
|
s14
|
The Region's priority must be to increase the employment rate of the inhabitants of Brussels.
|
1.82
|
|
s7
|
Administrative simplification takes priority over support for companies.
|
1.76
|
|
s20
|
In order to guarantee the sustainability of public finances in Brussels, the Region must reduce the internal expenditure of public stakeholders.
|
1.53
|
|
s16
|
For companies in Brussels, recruitment is hampered primarily by labour costs.
|
1.28
|
|
s39
|
The Region must identify priority sectors for the redeployment or development of new industrial, logistics and production sites.
|
1.16
|
|
s25
|
The Brussels Region and municipalities must lower their taxes in order to become more attractive to companies.
|
0.86
|
|
s48
|
The Region needs to pay more attention to average housing in order to avoid the urban exodus of the middle class.
|
0.84
|
|
s10
|
Strengthening economic cooperation with other regions in terms of mobility should be a priority.
|
0.8
|
|
s31
|
Productive activities (vs. service/tertiary sectors) must be given priority in the Region's economic development strategy.
|
0.76
|
Table 7. Top 10 oppositions to statements for the “Private sector/market-based economy” vision
|
TOP 10 oppositions to statements for the “Private and market-based economy” vision (F2)
|
F2_Z-score
|
|
s27
|
Company subsidies should be abolished and replaced by other financial support mechanisms, such as low-interest loans, equity investments and repayable advances.
|
-1.14
|
|
s28
|
Brussels public procurement contracts must include more environmental clauses.
|
-1.15
|
|
s29
|
Brussels public procurement contracts must include more social clauses.
|
-1.21
|
|
s33
|
The social economy needs greater support from the Region.
|
-1.37
|
|
s3
|
The Region must be a centre for conferences.
|
-1.45
|
|
s46
|
Completing the extension of the Brussels metro must be a priority in the regional budget.
|
-1.50
|
|
s44
|
Mobility policy should leave more room for cars in order to facilitate economic development.
|
-1.56
|
|
s38
|
Developing a defence industry in the Region is a priority.
|
-1.85
|
|
s32
|
The social economy represents unfair competition for the traditional economy in Brussels.
|
-1.87
|
|
s12
|
Citizens must be involved in defining regional economic priorities.
|
-2.13
|
20This vision assigns a stronger role to public authorities, particularly through enhanced regulation of markets. It calls for new institutional balances between the federal level and the regions, and for new funding sources through additional taxation or contributions from prosperous firms which have previously benefited from public support.
2115 of the 45 participants fall within the “Redistributive economy” vision. This includes all 6 trade union representatives, 5 representatives of Brussels administrations, 2 representatives of business or sectoral federations, and 2 representatives classified as “other” (incubator or KTO).
22Tables 8 and 9 present the 10 statements with the highest average scores among the 15 group members, and the 10 statements with the lowest average scores.
Table 8. Top 10 statements supported by the “Redistributive economy” vision
|
TOP 10 statements supported by the “Redistributive economy” vision (F3)
|
F3_Z-score
|
|
s11
|
A new mechanism for the distribution of wealth generated in Brussels is essential.
|
2.14
|
|
s24
|
The federal government must increase its financial contribution to the costs incurred by the Region as a multi-capital city (police and security, mobility, reception of irregular migrants, etc.).
|
1.83
|
|
s35
|
The development of digital platforms such as AirBnB, Uber, etc. is threatening the economic fabric of Brussels. It needs to be better regulated by the Region.
|
1.29
|
|
s26
|
Funding sources for the Region must be expected from prosperous firms which have benefited from public support.
|
1.24
|
|
s21
|
The budgetary situation in Brussels requires new taxes to be levied on non-resident users of the Region.
|
1.23
|
|
s14
|
The Region's priority must be to increase the employment rate of the inhabitants of Brussels.
|
1.19
|
|
s28
|
Brussels public procurement contracts must include more environmental clauses.
|
1.01
|
|
s8
|
Public support for companies in Brussels must be conditional on their sustainability (social, environmental).
|
1
|
|
s22
|
Municipal and regional tax systems must favour activities which create local jobs.
|
0.95
|
|
s34
|
The hotel, restaurant and café sector and the Region's attractiveness as a tourist destination are vital to the Brussels economy and employment.
|
0.86
|
Table 9. Top 10 oppositions to statements for the “Redistributive Economy” vision
|
TOP 10 oppositions to statements for the “Redistributive economy” vision (F3)
|
F3_Z-score
|
|
s13
|
The Region's economic development strategy must give priority to the digital sector.
|
-0.78
|
|
s20
|
In order to guarantee the sustainability of public finances in Brussels, the Region must reduce the internal expenditure of public stakeholders.
|
-1.21
|
|
s19
|
Higher education should be reformed in order to better suit the needs of companies.
|
-1.31
|
|
s38
|
Developing a defence industry in the Region is a priority.
|
-1.38
|
|
s25
|
The Brussels Region and municipalities must lower their taxes in order to become more attractive to companies.
|
-1.53
|
|
s9
|
A company's economic viability must take precedence over its commitment to social and environmental sustainability.
|
-1.54
|
|
s44
|
Mobility policy should leave more room for cars in order to facilitate economic development.
|
-1.6
|
|
s32
|
The social economy represents unfair competition for the traditional economy in Brussels.
|
-1.66
|
|
s16
|
For companies in Brussels, recruitment is hampered primarily by labour costs.
|
-1.81
|
|
s46
|
Completing the extension of the Brussels metro must be a priority in the regional budget.
|
-2.27
|
23An additional analysis identified statements which were approved or rejected across all three visions, as well as those which differ between the three groups.
24Table 10 lists the average scores obtained by each statement in each of the three visions (Z-score: columns A, C, E), ranking (Rank: columns B, D, F) in each of the three visions, as well as the overall score which each of the 49 statements obtained from the 45 survey participants (column G).
25Below we highlight the main points of consensus and disagreement between the 3 visions of the Brussels economy.
26In addition to the statements supported or contested by all stakeholders (overall scores, point 3.2), further areas of consensus emerge, bringing together positive, negative and neutral positions across visions. These consensuses were identified by KADE software, taking into account scores and variances:
-
Renovation professionals must be certified to guarantee quality standards (s42)
-
Support for SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises) must take precedence over support for large firms (s5)
-
The simplification of work permits for foreign workers is necessary to support the Brussels economy (s18)
-
The Region must take greater account of VSBs (Very Small Businesses) and the self-employed in its territory (s6)
-
Attracting international companies is vital to the Brussels economy (s1)
-
Municipal and regional taxation must favour activities creating local employment (s22)
-
The Region needs to pay more attention to average housing in order to avoid the urban exodus of the middle class
-
Opposition to “The Region must be a centre for conferences” (s3)
27The “Private sector/market-based economy” vision diverges from the “Systemic economy” and “Redistributive economy” visions in several respects.
28It favours reducing public expenditure and lowering taxation to attract companies. It also prioritises the economic viability of companies over their commitment to sustainability (social, environmental), while the other two visions disagree with these statements (see columns C, E and G in Table 10).
29Moreover, the “private sector and market-based economy” vision is not in favour of introducing environmental or social clauses in public procurement contracts, nor does it consider it essential to introduce a new mechanism for the distribution of wealth generated in Brussels, whereas these assertions are supported more or less strongly by the “systemic economy” and “redistributive economy” visions.
Table 10. Average score (columns A, C and E) and ranking (columns B, D and F) of each statement by vision, and overall statement score for the 45 participants (column G)
F1 – “Systemic economy” vision; F2 – “Private and market-based economy” vision; F3 – “Redistributive economy” vision
The Z-score - the average score for a vision (columns A, C and E) - corresponds to the points obtained by the statement among the members of the vision concerned, divided by the number of members included in this vision. The ranking number of the statement for each vision (columns B, D and F) can be understood as follows: “1” corresponds to the statement which the vision agrees with most, while “49” corresponds to the statement which the vision disagrees with most. The overall score (column G) sums up the statement scores among the 45 survey participants.
30The three identified visions strongly converge in their opposition to four statements. None consider the completion of the Brussels metro a budgetary priority. Nor do they support granting more space to private cars to facilitate economic development, prioritising the development of a defence industry in the Region, or viewing the social economy as unfair competition for the traditional economy in Brussels. They also agree (albeit less strongly) that the Region must increase the employment rate among Brussels residents, and that public transport with the hinterland must be strengthened.
31An analysis of the results also reveals the reasons for marked disagreement on several key aspects of economic policy in Brussels. These include budgetary and fiscal orientations, the balance between the economic viability of companies and social and environmental requirements, and the mechanisms for redistributing wealth generated in Brussels. There are also differences of opinion on the role of public procurement as a lever for social and environmental sustainability, on increasing support for the social economy, and on the importance of greater citizen participation in defining regional economic priorities.
32This analysis of the respective positions adopted by the three visions in relation to the themes addressed in the 49 submitted statements makes it possible to identify those areas in which a shared economic framework could most readily emerge – either because opinions converge, or because a theme supported by one vision does not encounter deep opposition from the others (consensuses identified in point 4.1).
33Despite several marked differences, the study nevertheless highlights that the visions converge on a number of crucial points and that substantial scope for compromise remains among stakeholders shaping the Brussels economy.
We would like to thank Caroline Daux (Bruxelles Économie Emploi), Lisa Isnard (BECI), Stéphanie Sauvage (Bruxelles Économie Emploi), Magali Verdonck (ULB - DULBEA) and Ariane Wautelet (Innoviris) for their constructive feedback on the first version of the questionnaire. We would also like to thank CEBRIG and the Fondation Bernheim for their financial support for this research, as well as the entire CEESE and CERMi (ULB) teams for their assistance and support throughout the project.