The European Commission’s proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028–2034 risks weakening one of the European Union’s most tangible achievements: its investment in social services that has protected its most vulnerable for decades. Behind the technical language of budget reform lies a fundamental political choice: whether social investment remains a visible and protected priority or becomes diluted within broader national spending plans.
For decades, the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) has served as the EU’s flagship instrument for investing in people. It has financed employment support, child and family support, alternative care reforms, disability inclusion, long-term care programmes, and community-based services across Europe. Most importantly, it has provided something social services depend on, which is predictability. As a dedicated fund with a clear legal basis, earmarked resources, and explicit social objectives, the ESF+ has ensured that funding for inclusion cannot easily be redirected elsewhere.
The Commission’s proposal changes this fundamentally.
Under the proposed MFF, ESF+ would disappear as a standalone instrument and be replaced by a horizontal social spending target within National Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs). Instead of guaranteed allocations, EU Member States would merely be required to dedicate at least 14% of eligible spending to social objectives. On paper, this may sound like social priorities are being mainstreamed. In reality, it creates uncertainty and weakens accountability.
As the European Social Network (ESN) has warned, social services need more than broad political commitments. At our recent event at the European Parliament, it became clear from numerous interventions from colleagues that that social services need earmarked, accessible, and predictable investment. Without a dedicated fund, social spending becomes vulnerable to competing priorities such as defence, industrial competitiveness, or agriculture.
The numbers reveal the scale of the risk.
Under the current MFF, EU social spending through ESF+ amounts to nearly €96 billion. According to internal calculations made by European Parliament services, total social spending could fall to between €63 billion and €87 billion under the proposed framework, depending on Member States’ choices and the uptake of other types of financial tools such as demand-driven loans. Even in optimistic scenarios, Europe could still lose billions in dedicated social investment.
But the most alarming picture emerges at national level.
Some countries stand to lose extraordinary amounts of guaranteed social funding. Italy could see its allocation fall from €14.98 billion under the current ESF+ to as little as €3.22 billion, a reduction of almost 80%. Spain could drop from €11.43 billion to €2.94 billion, losing nearly three quarters of current funding. Portugal faces a potential reduction from €7.87 billion to €1.58 billion, while Romania could lose up to two thirds of its social funding. Even large economies such as Germany may see cuts of up to 68%, while Poland could lose over €7 billion in the worst-case scenario.
These are not abstract numbers. They represent billions that currently support desperately needed disability services, child and family support, social inclusion programmes, long-term care, and workforce development in social services.
The Commission argues that the 14% social spending target ensures continued commitment to social investment. But targets without earmarked resources are not guarantees. A spending target can be diluted, reinterpreted, or deprioritised when political pressures shift and budget sheets come under scrutiny. A dedicated fund cannot be displaced so easily.
History already offers a warning.
Northern Ireland provides a stark example of what happens when structural funding disappears. Ten years on from Brexit, many equality and social inclusion organisations have lost access to EU funding that previously sustained their long-term programmes, driven by a comparative shortfall of 33% in funding when the UK Shared Prosperity Fund was setup to replace EU Structural funds such as ESF+ and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) following Brexit. Projects supporting disabled people, women, ethnic minorities, and other marginalised groups have faced severe financial instability or closure. This is something I warned about back in 2017 as the UK started its process of exiting the EU.
This is the real danger of the Commission’s proposal. Social services weaken when funding becomes fragmented, short-term, and administratively inaccessible.
Flexibility in budgeting matters, especially in an era of geopolitical instability. However, flexibility without safeguards tends to favour the loudest or most politically urgent sectors, not necessarily those delivering the highest long-term social return.
Social services are particularly vulnerable because their impact is long-term and often invisible in political cycles. Investing in early intervention for children, independent living for persons with disabilities, mental health support, or preventive care for older people generates significant economic and social returns. But those returns emerge over years, not according to increasingly shorter election cycles.
A competitive Europe cannot be built on fragile social foundations. Economic resilience and social resilience are inseparable. Europe is simultaneously facing demographic ageing, care workforce shortages, rising mental health needs, and persistent inequality. Meeting these challenges requires sustained investment, not weaker guarantees. Therefore, the next EU budget must preserve a dedicated, protected instrument for social services investment for a fair, productive, and resilient Europe.
Any other alternative risks gambling on the future of social services across Europe for many years to come.
