Brussels and Beyond: What Complex Governance Teaches Us About Cultural Policy
Policy Analysis | January 2026
Key Insights
Governance fragmentation can produce culturally responsive policy if accompanied by robust coordination mechanisms
Serving diverse populations may require parallel infrastructure that appears inefficient but enables authentic cultural expression for different communities
Participation frameworks must address not just physical access but linguistic and cultural barriers to inclusion
Devolution creates opportunities for place-based cultural policy but risks exacerbating inequalities between jurisdictions
Complexity isn’t inherently problematic and attempts to simplify governance may erase diversity that fragmentation protects
Brussels operates under one of Europe’s most fragmented cultural governance systems, with policy responsibilities distributed across regional, linguistic and municipal authorities whose jurisdictions overlap in ways that confound straightforward decision-making. For many observers, this complexity appears as dysfunction – nothing more than a cautionary tale of what happens when governance structures multiply without coordination.
Yet Brussels’ approach to cultural policy amid institutional fragmentation offers instructive lessons for contexts worldwide grappling with devolution, decentralisation, and the challenge of serving culturally diverse populations. As Cultural Futures Lab examines how cultural innovation and equitable policy function across different governance models, Brussels provides a valuable case study in navigating complexity rather than eliminating it.
The Brussels Governance Landscape
Belgium’s Brussels-Capital Region hosts approximately 1.2 million residents, 62% of whom are foreign-born, making it one of Europe’s most internationally diverse cities. This population is served by overlapping governance structures: the Brussels-Capital Region, three separate community commissions (French, Flemish and Joint) and 19 municipalities, each with varying degrees of cultural policy authority.
This complexity in structure emerged from Belgium’s elaborate linguistic politics and federal arrangements, designed to ensure both Dutch and French-speaking communities maintain cultural autonomy. The result is a governance landscape where a single cultural event might involve coordination among multiple authorities, each with distinct priorities, budgets and constituencies.
Balancing Multiple Communities
Brussels’ governance structure reflects recognition that no single cultural policy can adequately serve the city’s linguistic, national and socioeconomic diversity. Rather than attempting one-size-fits-all frameworks, the system enables different communities to pursue distinct cultural priorities whilst sharing infrastructure and coordinating on cross-community initiatives.
French and Flemish community commissions maintain separate networks of cultural centres, libraries and arts programming reflecting different linguistic and aesthetic traditions. This parallel infrastructure might appear inefficient, but it allows each community to support cultural expression in ways that feel authentic to them.
At the same time, Brussels has invested significantly in bilingual and multilingual cultural programming that bridges community divides. The BOZAR Centre for Fine Arts, the Brussels Philharmonic and numerous festivals receive support from multiple authorities specifically because they serve diverse audiences.
This dual approach – supporting community-specific cultural expression while also investing in cross-community spaces – offers lessons for other contexts managing diversity. Rather than forcing assimilation into dominant cultural norms or allowing communities to remain entirely separate, Brussels attempts both and reaps unique benefits as a result.
Participation and Accessibility
Brussels’ fragmentation has prompted substantial investment in cultural participation frameworks designed to reach populations often excluded from cultural policy benefits. With around a third of Brussels residents living below the EU poverty line, accessibility is a practical necessity that must be addressed.
Multiple authorities have implemented reduced-price cultural passes, free admission days and targeted programming in neighbourhoods with limited cultural infrastructure. The challenge lies in the coordination of solutions, as holistic approaches ensure residents can access these benefits regardless of which authority administers them and which municipality they inhabit.
Brussels’ culture card (Brussels Card) provides discounted or free access to museums, concerts and cultural events across the city, supported by contributions from regional, community and municipal budgets. This collaborative funding model demonstrates how fragmented governance can still produce unified tools serving residents city-wide.
Participation frameworks also address linguistic accessibility – acknowledging that physical access is not the end of the conversation – with cultural institutions receiving incentives to offer programming in multiple languages.
Tensions and Trade-Offs
Brussels’ approach involves real trade-offs. Cultural organisations are slow to make decisions as they must navigate labyrinthine funding landscapes where different authorities use incompatible application systems and evaluation criteria. Whilst smaller organisations that lack the dedicated administrative staff to respond to queries and struggle disproportionately.
Fragmentation can also reinforce divisions rather than bridge them. When French and Flemish communities maintain parallel cultural infrastructures, opportunities for cross-linguistic exchange tend to diminish. Children educated in French-language schools might never visit Flemish cultural centres and vice versa, even within the same city.
Budget pressures exacerbate these challenges. When authorities face austerity, coordination mechanisms are often the first to lose funding as they’re shared responsibilities that no single entity prioritises. This dynamic threatens the collaborative frameworks that make Brussels’ fragmented system functional.
Yet participants in Brussels cultural sectors generally defend the system’s complexity as a necessary cost of serving genuinely diverse populations. The consensus is that it’s complicated, but the alternative is cultural policy that serves one community and marginalises others.
Implications for Devolved Contexts
As governance worldwide becomes increasingly devolved with powers shifting from national to regional and local levels, Brussels’ experience offers relevant insights. Devolution creates opportunities for culturally responsive policy but also risks fragmenting support and the creation of inequalities between well-resourced and under-resourced jurisdictions.
Brussels demonstrates that fragmentation doesn’t inevitably produce dysfunction if accompanied by:
Robust coordination mechanisms that create space for negotiation among authorities with different priorities
Shared infrastructure and tools (like culture cards) that enable residents to access benefits regardless of jurisdictional complexity
Intentional investment in cross-community initiatives that build bridges whilst respecting community-specific needs
Participation frameworks explicitly designed to reach populations most excluded from cultural policy benefits
Recognition that complexity isn’t inherently negative – it can reflect genuine diversity that simplified governance structures would erase
Questions for Further Investigation
How do participation rates differ between centralised and fragmented governance models when controlling for investment levels?
What administrative tools could reduce burden on organisations navigating multiple funding authorities without eliminating jurisdictional distinctions?
How do artists and cultural practitioners experience fragmented governance compared to administrators and policymakers?
What evaluation frameworks can capture governance complexity’s benefits (responsiveness, community specificity) alongside its costs (coordination burden)?
How does Brussels’ approach compare to other cities managing cultural diversity through different governance structures?
