01Deficit and debt(Chart 1 of 6)
In 2025 Belgium ran the widest deficit of the eight countries compared
Deficit and government debt: Belgium and its peers
General government, 2000–2025, % of GDP. Provisional: 2025 for all, and Belgium 2024.
Hollow points: provisional figures. Dotted lines: EU reference values (deficit of 3%, debt of 60% of GDP).
Source: Eurostat
The top panel shows the balance: what the government collects minus what it spends, as a share of GDP. Below zero is a deficit.
Belgium, in blue, has been in deficit every year since 2008. The gap peaked at 9.0% of GDP in 2020, the first year of the pandemic.
In 2025 the deficit was 5.2% of GDP, against 2.9% for the euro area. France was next at 5.1%; Denmark ran a surplus of 2.9%.
Deficits add up to debt. Belgium's debt fell from 109.7% of GDP in 2000 to 87.5% in 2007, then rose again with the financial crisis and the pandemic.
In 2025 it stood at 107.9%, 20.5 percentage points above the euro-area average. Among the peers, only France's was higher.
About this chart
Source
- Government deficit and debt (EDP notification)
Eurostat · vintage 2026-04-22Official statistics
- Main government aggregates (revenue, expenditure, balance)
Eurostat · vintage 2026-07-21Official statistics
Unit: % of GDP · Data pulled on 7 October 2026
What this does not show
This chart does not show the structural (cyclically adjusted) balance, which the current EU fiscal rules focus on, nor the split between levels of government (see the Entity I / Entity II chart), nor amounts in euro. The 3% and 60% lines are Treaty reference thresholds, not targets or judgements. The deficit also reflects the business cycle and interest charges, which are not separated here.
Caveats
- The EDP table has no provisional flags. The deficit and debt notification table carries no status flags, even for the latest year notified in April 2026. That year should be treated as provisional, as flagged in the main aggregates table, and may be revised in the October notification.
- Structural and nominal balances are different measures. The nominal balance (net lending/borrowing) is what is actually recorded. The structural balance removes the estimated effect of the business cycle and of one-off measures; it is an estimate that depends on the method and is revised often. EU fiscal rules focus on structural and net-expenditure measures.
- Latest figures are provisional. Some of the figures used are flagged as provisional by the source and may still be revised, sometimes noticeably. Comparisons use by default the latest year with data for every country; the countries whose figures are provisional in that year are named.
02Where the money comes from(Chart 2 of 6)
Government revenue equals 49.0% of Belgium's GDP
Where the money comes from: government revenue mix, 2025
General government, 2025: % of GDP (left) and % of total revenue (right).
"prov.": provisional figures. EU27 and euro area in italics (averages).
Source: Eurostat
Each bar splits government revenue into taxes on income and wealth, taxes on production and imports such as VAT, social contributions, and the rest.
Belgium's total, 49.0% of GDP, is above the EU average of 46.4%. Four peers collect more, with Finland highest at 53.9%; the Netherlands collects least, at 43.3%.
The right panel shows the mix rather than the level. In Belgium, taxes on income and wealth bring in 34% of revenue, social contributions 31% and taxes on production 24%.
Mixes differ widely. Denmark relies mostly on income taxes (60%), so social contributions are only 1% of its revenue; Germany has the highest share of contributions, 38%.
About this chart
Source
- Main government aggregates (revenue, expenditure, balance)
Eurostat · vintage 2026-07-21Official statistics
Unit: % of GDP; % of total revenue · Data pulled on 7 October 2026
What this does not show
This chart does not show who bears this revenue (households, companies, labour or capital income), nor tax rates, nor tax expenditures (tax reductions) that lower revenue. Nor does it show the split between levels of government. "Other revenue" is computed as the remainder of total revenue. Countries that fund social protection through taxes (Denmark, Sweden) have few social contributions and more income taxes.
Caveats
- Spending through the tax system is not counted as spending. Support given through tax reductions (company cars, pension savings, housing loans, etc.) lowers revenue instead of raising expenditure. Countries that rely more on such tax expenditures look like lower spenders and lower taxers than they really are.
- Benefits are taxed differently across countries. Spending figures count benefits before tax. Countries that tax benefits heavily (e.g. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands) get part of the money back, so their gross spending overstates the net effort compared with countries that pay lower, untaxed benefits.
- Latest figures are provisional. Some of the figures used are flagged as provisional by the source and may still be revised, sometimes noticeably. Comparisons use by default the latest year with data for every country; the countries whose figures are provisional in that year are named.
03Where the money goes(Chart 3 of 6)
Social protection is by far the largest item of spending
Where the money goes: government spending by function, 2024
General government, 2024: % of GDP (left) and euro per inhabitant in purchasing power standards (right).
Hollow points: provisional figures (Belgium, Germany, France).
Source: Eurostat
Each row is one function of government, from general public services to social protection. Belgium is the blue dot; the peers are in grey.
Social protection, which includes pensions, unemployment, family and sickness benefits, costs 20.4% of GDP in Belgium. That is more than twice health care, the next item, at 8.0%.
General public services cost 7.1% of GDP, against 6.1% in the EU. This function includes interest paid on the public debt.
Per inhabitant, in purchasing power, social protection comes to 9,537 PPS in Belgium against 7,882 in the EU. Austria spends the most, at 10,844.
Neither framing says whether the money is well spent, or what it buys. Private schemes, such as Dutch health insurance, make some countries look cheaper.
About this chart
Source
- General government expenditure by function (COFOG)
Eurostat · vintage 2026-09-16Official statistics
- Purchasing power parities and price levels
Eurostat · vintage 2026-07-09Official statistics
- Population on 1 January
Eurostat · vintage 2026-09-25Official statistics
Unit: % of GDP; PPS per inhabitant · Data pulled on 7 October 2026
What this does not show
This chart does not say whether spending is efficient or what it achieves (see the outcome indicators). It counts only government spending: where a service runs through private schemes (Dutch health insurance, occupational pensions) it looks cheaper. Benefits are counted before tax and tax expenditures are not included. The detailed level (COFOG 2) and the split between levels of government are not shown.
Caveats
- Public or private provision differs across countries. Some countries provide through private schemes what others provide through government. Dutch basic health insurance and occupational pensions, for instance, largely sit outside general government, so lower public spending does not necessarily mean less spending overall.
- Benefits are taxed differently across countries. Spending figures count benefits before tax. Countries that tax benefits heavily (e.g. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands) get part of the money back, so their gross spending overstates the net effort compared with countries that pay lower, untaxed benefits.
- Spending through the tax system is not counted as spending. Support given through tax reductions (company cars, pension savings, housing loans, etc.) lowers revenue instead of raising expenditure. Countries that rely more on such tax expenditures look like lower spenders and lower taxers than they really are.
- % of GDP and per capita tell different stories. A ratio to GDP measures effort relative to the size of the economy; an amount per inhabitant in purchasing power standards measures resources per person. A rich country can spend less in % of GDP but more per person, so comparisons show both framings.
- Latest figures are provisional. Some of the figures used are flagged as provisional by the source and may still be revised, sometimes noticeably. Comparisons use by default the latest year with data for every country; the countries whose figures are provisional in that year are named.
04Which level of government(Chart 4 of 6)
Most of the deficit sits with the federal level and social security
Which level of government: balance of Entity I and Entity II
Net lending/borrowing in % of GDP, 1995–2025.
Entity I = federal government + social security; Entity II = Communities and Regions + local government.
Hollow points: provisional figures (2025). A negative value is a deficit.
Source: NBB
For budget purposes, Belgian government is split in two. Entity I is the federal government plus social security; Entity II is the Communities, the Regions and local government.
The two balances add up to the general government balance in the first chart. In 2025 Entity I ran a deficit of 3.7% of GDP and Entity II 1.5%, out of 5.2% in total.
Entity II has been in deficit every year since 2018. Entity I took most of the 2020 shock: a deficit of 6.9%, against 2.1% for Entity II.
Only shares of GDP are published for this split: no amounts in euro, and no revenue or spending per entity, since transfers between levels would be counted twice.
About this chart
Source
- Belgian government accounts by subsector and entity (NBB)
NBB · vintage NBB retrieved 2026-10-03; no source update date publishedOfficial statistics
Unit: % of GDP · Data pulled on 7 October 2026
What this does not show
The NBB publishes these balances only in % of GDP: no amounts in euro, and no revenue or spending per entity (that would count transfers between levels twice). The chart does not show the individual Communities and Regions, the transfers that fund Entity II, or an international comparison (only Germany and Austria have comparable levels). Values rounded to 0.1 point may not add up exactly to the total.
Caveats
- Entity I/II balances are published only in % of GDP. The NBB items for Entity I and Entity II exist only as a percentage of GDP. Amounts in euro must be computed as the sum of the federal and social-security balances (Entity I) and of the Communities and Regions and local balances (Entity II).
- "The government" can mean several things. In Belgium "the government" may mean the federal government, Entity I (federal plus social security) or all levels of government together (general government). Figures differ a lot depending on the level, so the answer states which one it uses.
- Compare government levels only with other federal countries. How tasks are split between central, regional and local government depends on each country's constitution. Only Germany and Austria have a federated (state) level comparable to Belgium's Communities and Regions, so subsector comparisons with other countries say little.
- Latest figures are provisional. Some of the figures used are flagged as provisional by the source and may still be revised, sometimes noticeably. Comparisons use by default the latest year with data for every country; the countries whose figures are provisional in that year are named.
05Where it is heading(Chart 5 of 6)
At unchanged policy, debt would keep rising
Where it is heading: projections at unchanged policy
General government, % of GDP. Shaded area: projection at unchanged policy (from 2026), not a forecast.
These are projections, not forecasts. They show what would happen if no new measures were taken. The shaded area marks the projected years.
The Federal Planning Bureau projects the deficit widening from 5.1% of GDP in 2025 to 6.4% in 2031.
Debt would then climb from 107.9% to 122.3% of GDP over the same period.
Part of the pressure is demographic. The Study Committee on Ageing projects social spending rising from 25.5% of GDP in 2024 to 27.2% in 2070, driven by pensions (11.2% to 12.0%) and health care (7.9% to 10.2%).
About this chart
Source
- Medium-term outlook 2026-2031 (Federal Planning Bureau)
FPB · vintage Economic outlook 2026-2031, June 2026Independent Belgian institution
- Budgetary cost of ageing to 2070 (Study Committee on Ageing)
CEV · vintage Annual report July 2026 (reference scenario)Independent Belgian institution
Unit: % of GDP · Data pulled on 7 October 2026
What this does not show
These are not forecasts: the projections assume no new measures are taken and do not include decisions announced after their publication. The chart does not show the European Commission forecast, the structural balance, the split between Entity I and Entity II, or the underlying demographic and economic assumptions. The two sources have different dates and assumptions; their figures do not add up.
Caveats
- A projection at unchanged policy is not a forecast. The Federal Planning Bureau and the Study Committee on Ageing project what would happen if current policy stayed as it is. They do not predict what governments will decide, so the projected deficits show the size of the challenge rather than the most likely outcome.
- Projected years are inferred from the publication title. The FPB and ageing-committee workbooks do not mark which years are projected. The catalog flags years from 2026 as projections because the publications cover 2026 onwards; the latest observed years (2025) may themselves be partly estimates.
- Structural and nominal balances are different measures. The nominal balance (net lending/borrowing) is what is actually recorded. The structural balance removes the estimated effect of the business cycle and of one-off measures; it is an estimate that depends on the method and is revised often. EU fiscal rules focus on structural and net-expenditure measures.
06Who lives here(Chart 6 of 6)
By 2070, more than one Belgian resident in four would be 65 or over
Belgium's population by age, 2025 and 2070 projection
Population on 1 January 2025 (Statbel, National Register); outline: Federal Planning Bureau projection for 2070, not a forecast.
Men on the left, women on the right, 5-year age bands.
The bars show Belgium's population at the start of 2025, 11,825,551 people in the National Register, men on the left and women on the right. The dashed outline is the Federal Planning Bureau's projection for 2070, not a forecast.
The share of people aged 65 and over would go from 20.3% to 26.9%, while the share aged 20 to 64 would fall from 57.7% to 53.8%.
The number of people aged 80 and over would rise from 663,379 to 1,427,620. This shift in the age structure is the demographic side of the cost of ageing in the previous chart.
About this chart
Source
- Population of Belgium by single year of age, sex, nationality group, region and province (Statbel)
Statbel · vintage 2017-11-20 to 2026-06-10Official statistics
- Projected population of the Belgian regions by single year of age and sex, 2026-2081 (Federal Planning Bureau)
FPB · vintage Demographic outlook (FPB and Statbel): projections 2026-2081Independent Belgian institution
Unit: Persons · Data pulled on 7 October 2026
What this does not show
This is not a forecast: the projection assumes that its assumptions on fertility, life expectancy and migration hold. The chart does not show regions, nationality, the years in between or the cost of ageing (see the previous chart). The figures are National Register counts (without the waiting register) and are slightly below the population published by Eurostat.
Caveats
- A projection at unchanged policy is not a forecast. The Federal Planning Bureau and the Study Committee on Ageing project what would happen if current policy stayed as it is. They do not predict what governments will decide, so the projected deficits show the size of the challenge rather than the most likely outcome.
- Projected years do not simply continue the observed ones. Observed and projected population figures come from different tables. A projection starts from its own base population and assumptions (fertility, life expectancy, migration), so its first years need not match the latest observations, and the Eurostat (EUROPOP) and Federal Planning Bureau projections differ from each other. Label the projected years, keep each projection with its own observed series (Eurostat with Eurostat, FPB with Statbel), and do not read a jump at the junction as a real change.
- Statbel and Eurostat count the Belgian population differently. Statbel and the Federal Planning Bureau use the legal (register) population, which leaves out asylum seekers in the waiting register. Eurostat's population for Belgium includes them from 2011, so it is 0.2-0.5% higher (about 58,000 people on 1 January 2025). Do not mix the two in one ratio or growth rate; use Eurostat for per-capita figures and international comparisons, and Statbel/FPB for age or regional detail.