This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: 1203 209995 219028 228295 237324 3 078 5 727 8 141 14 034 16 071 20 345 24 751 29 277 33 449 223953 228510 233484 238566 243757 249060 254477 260012 265665 228563 237187 246065 260718 269681 282641 296324 310773 326507 4 610 8 677 12 581 22 152 25 924 33581 42 846 50 761 60 841 French-speaking community
transfer Flemish community
transfer Source: Davidson (unpublished article).
Remark: The hypotheses considered to make this projection are 2.28% growth in GNI and a 2.26% inflation rate throughout the period. Current trends respecting the
communities’ share of personal income tax are prolonged throughout the period. Table 2.3. reveals that by 2010, the French-speaking community will receive up to 33.5 billion BEF in refinancing and the
Flemish community, up to 60.8 billion BEF, or 38 000 BEF and 50 000 BEF per student, respectively. The discrepancy is
attributable to the growing importance of the derivation principle of taxation in respect of criteria governing the
refinancing transfer. 2.2.3. Conclusion Over the past nine years, the financing mechanism pertaining to the communities has been amended three times: in
1993 (the Saint-Michel agreement), in 1999 (the Saint-Éloi agreement) and in 2001 (the Lambermont agreement). These
reforms, of varying scope, have been initiated in light of the same basic observation, i.e. the structural underfinancing of
the communities. Each of these agreements has increased the communities’ financial resources. Even the Saint-Éloi
agreement, whose purpose was clearly defined in 1989, i.e. to establish new criteria governing the apportionment of the
VAT transfer, ultimately contributed as well to refinancing the communities.
The French-speaking community, which has not benefited from the positive effect of the amalgamation of the community
and the region, as has been the case in Flanders, has been per force placed each time in the position of the party
claiming compensation during negotiations since it was incapable of financing education. However, the French-speaking
community, having rejected once and for all the solution of amalgamating its two main entities, has nonetheless adopted
solidarity measures pertaining to French-speakers that are contributing to financing the French-speaking community. It
should be noted that transfers between segments of the French-speaking community have always completed an
agreement reached at the national level in order to refinance the communities, i.e. in 1990, the La Hulpe agreement
following the adoption of the special financing act in 1989; in 1993, the Saint-Quentin agreements in the wake of the
Saint-Michel agreement; in 2000, the adoption of Decree II(a) amending Decree II of the French-speaking community in
the wake of the Saint-Éloi agreement; and in 2001, the Saint-Boniface agreement in the wake of the Lambermont
Note that these intra-French agreements took place after the national agreements three times out of four.
View Full Document