Why the calculation of the programs leads to nervousness among the political parties

‘A missed opportunity’. ‘Too limited’. ‘The most feasible in the current circumstances’. No, no party is entirely enthusiastic about the calculation of the party programs that the Planning Bureau will present on Tuesday.

It is the second time that the Planning Bureau has carried out this exercise. In 2019, the institution calculated various party programs for the first time, although the method immediately encountered criticism. For example, the parties were allowed to choose which measures they wanted to be examined and which results were actually included in the final report. Vooruit then submitted about fifty measures, and PVDA only three. A comparison between the parties was therefore impossible.

The Planning Bureau also realized this. With the help of the OECD, which previously also conducted reviews of similar initiatives in the Netherlands and Canada, it corrected the shortcomings. New rules will therefore apply in the second edition, in consultation with the parties. This time they were allowed to submit a maximum of thirty measures, spread across the themes of taxation, labor market, social protection, economic policy, healthcare, the functioning of the government, government investments and also energy, mobility, climate and the environment.

Yet there is – again – criticism, even before the results have been published. Vlaams Belang speaks of a missed opportunity, because the Planning Bureau refused to calculate a number of measures that form the core of their program, such as a split of social security and taxation, a migration stop or transfers to Wallonia.

“In recent weeks, the question has been repeatedly raised whether our program is affordable,” says Tom Vandendriessche, Member of the European Parliament and head of the research department of Vlaams Belang. “Unfortunately, you cannot get that from this calculation.”

He criticizes that the Planning Bureau is not able to calculate measures that conflict with the current constitution or existing international treaties. “The Planning Board should calculate proposals, and not act as a judge or evaluator of laws.”

PVDA also regrets that various measures submitted by the party could not be calculated. Such as the refederalization of powers such as health and climate, a freeze on the electricity price, and the breaking of the wage standard law of 1996. The party is annoyed by the “neoliberal logic” of the Planning Bureau. “Parties that want to break the status quo and come up with new initiatives are disadvantaged. If this becomes the alpha and omega of the budgets, we absolutely do not agree,” says David Pestieau, political director of the PVDA.

It is not only the extreme parties that are unhappy with the way of working. When presenting its budget plans last Thursday, N-VA also criticized the fact that the Planning Bureau did not calculate proposals that require a constitutional amendment. N-VA’s confederal plans therefore fall by the wayside.

Groen asked the Planning Bureau to count a series of measures against tax fraud, but a calculation of the possible yield was not possible. “Many important climate measures also do not fit into these models,” says Louise Hoon, head of Groen’s research department. “As a result, the positive effect of climate measures is barely calculated. And parties can submit measures that appear economically beneficial, without taking into account the consequences of climate damage.”

Cd&v wanted to have the tax reform of Minister of Finance Vincent Van Peteghem calculated. But it contained more than the permitted maximum of 30 measures. “The exercise remains too limited,” says spokesperson Dries Derudder. “For example, if you propose investments in Defense, that cost is mainly taken into account. But the beneficial effects on the industry are not taken into account.”

At Vooruit they judge mildly. The Planning Bureau’s exercise is far from perfect, but is running much better than five years ago, it says. “Although the economic models are too limited to calculate major reforms.”

Does that make the whole exercise useless? Certainly not. The calculation still shows what priorities the parties have and what their impact is. “We get a better idea of ​​the proposals and how strongly substantiated they are,” says political science professor Dave Sinardet (VUB). “Otherwise we can only rely on the study services of the parties themselves.”

The models may have their limitations, but all parties admit that the calculation provides new insights. For example, because the Planning Bureau has databases and statistics that the parties themselves do not always have access to. Sometimes this even leads to pleasant surprises, if the Planning Bureau estimates the expected return from a measure to be higher than the parties themselves.

The calculations may also prove useful in future government negotiations. “It is quite a task to calculate proposals from other parties yourself during negotiations,” says Hoon. “The advantage is that you can compare these with the Planning Bureau’s calculations. This way you can have substantive discussions faster.”