E-book 9 Comment Vandebroucke

Two dilemmas in institutional reform: the Pieters dilemma and the Cantillon dilemma Frank Vandenbroucke (University of Antwerp, KULeuven & Belgian Senate) It is a pity our friend Danny Pieters cannot attend the debate today. I know his view on social federalism, and I disagree; that would have made for a nice discussion, but there may be other occasions to come. I must say I also disagree with Popelier, Cantillon and Mussche (PCM). Yet, if Danny were here, I would disagree starkly with him, whilst with Bea and her co-authors I disagree gently. Since a long time, I believe the Flemish movement is running up against a dilemma when it comes to de-federalizing social security. Let me call it the “Pieters dilemma”, because Danny is a staunch defender of the idea that you can split our federal social security system in two parts, a “Dutch Community Social Security” and a “French Community Social Security”. I believe that that perspective contradicts fundamental features of what constitutes social insurance, which you will find well explained in Danny’s general writing on the subject, notably the fact that social security must be based on general, compulsory insurance. Admittedly, in intra-Flemish political discussions the idea that social security would be de-federalized, has been defended most of all with regard to health care insurance and child benefits. The argument, often repeated in Flemish circles, was that health care insurance and child ...