What policy style(s) does local government display in Belgium? This seemingly straightforward question does not have an easy answer. After all, the country is renowned for its institutional complexity and thickness [[meaning of thickness? impenetrability?]], two features that have a significant impact on local government's way of working. In the wake of state reforms, the federal government granted the three Belgian regions (Walloon, Flemish and Brussels) key competencies over the cities and municipalities standing on their territory (Deschouwer and Reuchamps, 2013). In 2001, regions were even given powers over and above those granted in the basic local government legislation, regulating to a large extent local political and administrative institutions and practices. A new and influential layer of central government has thus been created: all regions have grasped their new powers to introduce policy tools and instruments on the local level, according to their own needs and policy orientation (Wayenberg et al, 2011). This federalisation process added diversity between cities and municipalities that were already very heterogonous in size, financial status and political dynamics, to name but a few of their basic characteristics (De Rynck and Wayenberg, 2013). As a result, local government in the three Belgian regions now operates under different regulatory frames.This chapter explores whether local government in Belgium displays a specific style of policy analysis. To this end, we use a two-level comparative analysis that allows us to shed light on local policy analysis in the context of the specificity of the Belgium's regions. The first level is a comparison of the Flemish and the Walloon regions. The focus on them is not only a matter of size, as Flanders and Wallonia respectively count for 308 (52%) and 262 (45%) of the 589 Belgian municipalities, but also a matter of policy analysis. Indeed, they represent the country's two main administrative traditions, being located in the Dutchspeaking north and the French-speaking south. Both have also made use of their competency to legislate on local government political and administrative institutions and practices, and have promulgated local government legislation to this end. That is not the case with the Brussels-Capital Region, which accounts for 19 municipalities (3%) still functioning according to the Belgian legislation of 1988 (De Rynck and Wayenberg, 2013). The case of Brussels will therefore not be covered by this chapter nor will the peculiar case of the nine Germanspeaking municipalities that are attached both to the Walloon Region and the German-speaking community (Bouhon et al, 2015).

No abstract

No abstract

What policy style(s) does local government display in Belgium? This seemingly straightforward question does not have an easy answer. After all, the country is renowned for its institutional complexity and thickness [[meaning of thickness? impenetrability?]], two features that have a significant impact on local government's way of working. In the wake of state reforms, the federal government granted the three Belgian regions (Walloon, Flemish and Brussels) key competencies over the cities and municipalities standing on their territory (Deschouwer and Reuchamps, 2013). In 2001, regions were even given powers over and above those granted in the basic local government legislation, regulating to a large extent local political and administrative institutions and practices. A new and influential layer of central government has thus been created: all regions have grasped their new powers to introduce policy tools and instruments on the local level, according to their own needs and policy orientation (Wayenberg et al, 2011). This federalisation process added diversity between cities and municipalities that were already very heterogonous in size, financial status and political dynamics, to name but a few of their basic characteristics (De Rynck and Wayenberg, 2013). As a result, local government in the three Belgian regions now operates under different regulatory frames.This chapter explores whether local government in Belgium displays a specific style of policy analysis. To this end, we use a two-level comparative analysis that allows us to shed light on local policy analysis in the context of the specificity of the Belgium's regions. The first level is a comparison of the Flemish and the Walloon regions. The focus on them is not only a matter of size, as Flanders and Wallonia respectively count for 308 (52%) and 262 (45%) of the 589 Belgian municipalities, but also a matter of policy analysis. Indeed, they represent the country's two main administrative traditions, being located in the Dutchspeaking north and the French-speaking south. Both have also made use of their competency to legislate on local government political and administrative institutions and practices, and have promulgated local government legislation to this end. That is not the case with the Brussels-Capital Region, which accounts for 19 municipalities (3%) still functioning according to the Belgian legislation of 1988 (De Rynck and Wayenberg, 2013). The case of Brussels will therefore not be covered by this chapter nor will the peculiar case of the nine Germanspeaking municipalities that are attached both to the Walloon Region and the German-speaking community (Bouhon et al, 2015).

What policy style(s) does local government display in Belgium? This seemingly straightforward question does not have an easy answer. After all, the country is renowned for its institutional complexity and thickness [[meaning of thickness? impenetrability?]], two features that have a significant impact on local government's way of working. In the wake of state reforms, the federal government granted the three Belgian regions (Walloon, Flemish and Brussels) key competencies over the cities and municipalities standing on their territory (Deschouwer and Reuchamps, 2013). In 2001, regions were even given powers over and above those granted in the basic local government legislation, regulating to a large extent local political and administrative institutions and practices. A new and influential layer of central government has thus been created: all regions have grasped their new powers to introduce policy tools and instruments on the local level, according to their own needs and policy orientation (Wayenberg et al, 2011). This federalisation process added diversity between cities and municipalities that were already very heterogonous in size, financial status and political dynamics, to name but a few of their basic characteristics (De Rynck and Wayenberg, 2013). As a result, local government in the three Belgian regions now operates under different regulatory frames.This chapter explores whether local government in Belgium displays a specific style of policy analysis. To this end, we use a two-level comparative analysis that allows us to shed light on local policy analysis in the context of the specificity of the Belgium's regions. The first level is a comparison of the Flemish and the Walloon regions. The focus on them is not only a matter of size, as Flanders and Wallonia respectively count for 308 (52%) and 262 (45%) of the 589 Belgian municipalities, but also a matter of policy analysis. Indeed, they represent the country's two main administrative traditions, being located in the Dutchspeaking north and the French-speaking south. Both have also made use of their competency to legislate on local government political and administrative institutions and practices, and have promulgated local government legislation to this end. That is not the case with the Brussels-Capital Region, which accounts for 19 municipalities (3%) still functioning according to the Belgian legislation of 1988 (De Rynck and Wayenberg, 2013). The case of Brussels will therefore not be covered by this chapter nor will the peculiar case of the nine Germanspeaking municipalities that are attached both to the Walloon Region and the German-speaking community (Bouhon et al, 2015).