Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilPublicationsFact Sheets2026Visions of the Brussels economy. ...

2026

Visions of the Brussels economy. An empirical analysis of consensus and disagreement

Brussels Studies fact sheet
Visions de l’économie bruxelloise. Une analyse empirique des convergences et divergences
Visies op de Brusselse economie. Empirische analyse van convergenties en divergenties
Sandrine Meyer et Marek Hudon
Traduction de Jane Corrigan
p. 214
Cet article est une traduction de :
Visions de l’économie bruxelloise. Une analyse empirique des convergences et divergences [fr]
Autre(s) traduction(s) de cet article :
Visies op de Brusselse economie. Empirische analyse van convergenties en divergenties  [nl]

Résumés

La Région de Bruxelles-Capitale fait face à une multitude de défis structurels, parmi lesquels les enjeux économiques occupent une place centrale. Dans ce contexte, la définition d’une vision cohérente du développement économique régional constitue un objet de débat important. Ce texte s’inscrit dans cette réflexion en proposant une analyse empirique des principales représentations et priorités qui structurent les discours sur l’économie bruxelloise. À l’aide d’une méthodologie bien établie, la Q methodology, nous analysons les convergences et divergences entre les différentes visions exprimées par une série d’acteurs économiques, sociaux et institutionnels de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, en mettant en lumière les principales lignes de structuration du débat autour des enjeux actuels et futurs du développement économique régional. Réalisée dans un contexte institutionnel marqué par la longue période postélectorale ouverte à la suite des élections régionales du 9 juin 2024, notre étude entend apporter une contribution analytique au débat sur l’avenir de l’économie bruxelloise, en documentant les visions qui coexistent au sein du champ régional.

Haut de page

Notes de la rédaction

In order to see the figures in higher resolution, go to the article online and click “Original” below them.

Texte intégral

1. Context

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.

2. Methodology

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]:

  1. 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.

    • 3 See annexe.

    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.

  2. Principal component analysis and identification of “ideal types” (factors)

  3. Description and interpretation of results

3. Results

3.1. Sample of respondents

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 %)

3.2. Overall and average statement scores

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.

3.3. Principal components: identifying several visions

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

Factor 1 – “Systemic economy” vision

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

Factor 2 – “Private sector and market-based economy” vision

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

Factor 3 – “Redistributive economy” vision

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

4. Consensus and disagreement between visions of the Brussels economy

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.

4.1. Key points of consensus between the three visions

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)

4.2. Main differences between the three visions

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)

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.

Conclusions

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.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

BARRY, J. and PROOPS, J., 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. In: Ecological Economics. 03/1999. Vol. 28, No 3, pp. 337-345. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00053-6

BROWN, S.R., 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

BROWN, S.R., 1996. Q methodology and qualitative research. In: Qualitative Health Research. 11/1996. Vol. 6, No 4, pp. 561-567. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600408

COOLS, M., BRIJS, K., TORMANS, H., DE LAENDER, J. and WETS, G., 2012. Optimizing the implementation of policy measures through social acceptance segmentation. In: Transport Policy. 07/2012. Vol. 22, pp. 80-87. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.05.013

DAVIES, B.B. and HODGE, I.D., 2007. Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: a Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK. In: Ecological Economics. 03/2007. Vol. 61, No 2-3, pp. 323-333. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.002

FRANSOLET, A., HUDON, M., LA GIOIA, A. and MEYER, S., 2025. Mapping visions of a just transition: A Q survey of Belgian stakeholders. In: Ecological economics. 01/2026. Vol. 239, No 108775. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108775

HUDON, M., SOLÉ, G. and DUMAS, C., 2025. Mapping sustainable finance (dis) agreements. In: Finance Research Letters. 12/2025. No 108512. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.108512

LEFIN, A.-L. and BOULANGER, P.-M., 2010. Enquête sur les systèmes alimentaires locaux. Aperçu des Résultats. Ottignies: Institut pour un Développement Durable.

NIEMEYER, S. and DRYZEK, J.S., 2007. The ends of deliberation: Meta-consensus and inter-subjective rationality as ideal outcomes. In: Swiss Political Science Review. 12/2007. Vol. 13, No 4, pp. 497-526. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2007.tb00087.x

WATTS, S. and STENNER, P., 2005. Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation. In: Qualitative Research in Psychology. Vol. 2, No 1, pp. 67-91. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp022oa

WATTS, S. and STENNER, P., 2012. Doing Q methodological research: Theory, Method and Interpretation. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

WEBLER, T., DANIELSON, S. and TULER, S., 2009. Using Q Method to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental Research. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute.

ZABALA, A., SANDBROOK, C. and MUKHERJEE, N., 2018. When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. In: Conservation Biology. 04/2018. Vol. 32, No 5, pp. 1185-1194. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13123

Haut de page

Annexe

Annexe. The 72 survey recipients

Below is the full list of organisations to which the survey and reminders were sent in early December 2025.

Employer federations

BECI

UNIZO

VOKA Brussel

BRUXEO

UCM

Embuild Brussels

AGORIA Brussels

COMEOS Brussels

FEBELFIN

ASSURALIA

UGBN

FEDERGON

Trade unions

FGTB

CSC

CGSLB

CSC/CNE

CSC/Bâtiment Industrie Energie

CSC / Alimentation et Services

CSC / TransCom

FGTB/CGSP (services publics)

FGTB / Horval (Alimentation-Horeca-Services)

FGTB / UBT (Transport et logistique)

FGTB / Métal

CGSLB

Administration

Actiris

Bruxelles Economie Emploi

Hub Brussels

Innoviris

Finance&Invest.Brussels

Bruxelles Fiscalité

Talent.Brussels

Perspective

Bruxelles Environnement (Coord Shifting Eco)

Incubators

ICAB

BLSI

Greenbizz

CoopCity

BoostLab (GroupOne)

StartLab ULB

StartLab ICHEC

Economic stakeholders in the social economy

Credal

Microstart

ConcertES

FEBECOOP

RESSOURCES

Financité

Knowledge Transfer Offices (KTO)

ULB

KULeuven

UCLouvain Saint Louis

UCLouvain

Other stakeholders

ARAU

GroupeOne (incubator)

FEBISP

Fabrique à Initiative

FdSS

IEB

Haut de page

Notes

1 https://difusion.ulb.ac.be/vufind/Record/ULB-DIPOT:oai:dipot.ulb.ac.be:2013/401091/Holdings

2 Typically, Q sets contain between 40 and 80 statements [Zabala et al., 2018;  Cools et al., 2012 ; Watts and Stenner, 2005].

3 See annexe.

4 See https://difusion.ulb.ac.be/vufind/Record/ULB-DIPOT:oai:dipot.ulb.ac.be:2013/401091/Holdings for more details on the ranking methodology.

5 The average score corresponds to the overall score obtained by the statement (column G in Table 10), divided by 45 (the total number of participants).

6 See https://difusion.ulb.ac.be/vufind/Record/ULB-DIPOT:oai:dipot.ulb.ac.be:2013/401091/Holdings for further details regarding the principal component analysis methodology.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre 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)
Légende F1 – “Systemic economy” vision; F2 – “Private and market-based economy” vision; F3 – “Redistributive economy” vision
URL http://journals.openedition.org/brussels/docannexe/image/9049/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,1M
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Sandrine Meyer et Marek Hudon, « Visions of the Brussels economy. An empirical analysis of consensus and disagreement »Brussels Studies [En ligne], Fact Sheets, mis en ligne le 11 mars 2026, consulté le 12 avril 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/brussels/9049 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/15uvh

Haut de page

Auteurs

Sandrine Meyer

Sandrine Meyer is a contract researcher at CEESE. She and Marek Hudon co-authored the CEBrig Working Paper Visions et priorités de l’économie bruxelloise: Une analyse empirique des convergences et divergences which this Fact Sheet is based on, and collaborated on the article recently published in Ecological Economics, Mapping visions of a just transition: A Q survey of Belgian stakeholders.

sandrine.meyer[at]

ulb.be

Marek Hudon

Marek Hudon is a professor at SBS-EM and director of the CERMi (sustainable financing) and CEESE (environmental economic and social studies) research units, which are part of CEBRIG. He and Sandrine Meyer co-authored the article Visions et priorités de l'économie bruxelloise: Une analyse empirique des convergences et divergences which this Fact Sheet is based on, as well as the recent article Mapping visions of a just transition: A Q survey of Belgian stakeholders (Ecological Economics).
marek.hudon[at]ulb.be

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search