The European Commission’s proposal for the 2028–34 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) comes with an eye-catching headline number and the right rhetoric. At €1,816 trillion, the proposed budget indicates a new drive for investing in people, health and social infrastructure, including a 14% “social target” for spending under new National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs). At a recent forum in Barcelona with national and third sector representatives, where the EU budget for social programmes was discussed, I underlined that the proposal appears to be progress on paper. However, in practice, what the structure indicates is a recentring of powers that might be to the detriment of people who use social services, who are also the very same people these proposals claims to protect.
The Commission’s design choice is explicit: to pool EU funds under one strategy through the NRPPs. These plans will sit above programmes, providing a unified top-level framework around cohesion and social tools. This kind of consolidation can make programme reporting easier, but it also centralises power at higher levels, drawing it away from the front lines of municipal and regional social services where needs are gauged, care is coordinated and innovations are tested with people themselves. The danger is that decisions about funding become more a matter of aligning with the plan rather than those granular realities on the ground in a neighbourhood, in a care home, or front line teams’ caseloads.
Social need is contextual, and context lives locally
This push for centralisation is reinforced by the Commission’s own description of the next MFF, which implies EU funding should be “steered by EU’s political priorities,” creating outcomes “that national budgets cannot achieve alone.” The ambition is understandable: Europe requires shared objectives. But “steering” from Brussels can easily become top-down conditionality that limits the voice of local practitioners who know where gaps are, which partnerships work, and how to reach groups missed routinely by high level plans. Social need is contextual, and context lives locally.
I ask you to consider the mechanical social aspect of such a proposal. The 14% benchmark of NRPPs for social related matters feels reassuring, yet targets are a blunt tool. When the percentage becomes the metric that counts, programming risks following compliance rather than fit-for-purpose services. A city fighting homelessness will require different levers than those of a rural county confronting workforce shortage in long-term care. Combining both under one strategy against a fixed target creates a risk of one-size-fits-none. Our previous analysis of the Commission’s proposal - otherwise positive for the sector – implicitly cautions that “these plans are welcome as long as allocation and programming facilitate joint decision-making with social services at national, regional and local level.” Therefore, without a local chair at the table, the governance of the NRRPs will favour those closest to the strategy and not (necessarily) those closest to the problem.
Yes, there are positives. The Commission maintains ESF+ as a standalone fund, hopefully paving the way for continued investment in modernising social services and models of person-centred care. It earmarks rises for Erasmus+ (50%) and a doubling of Horizon Europe under the competitiveness heading, funds which could feed skills training and care innovation, which are very much needed in the sector. But as welcome as these signs are, they once again reflect the logic of the NRPP, that without a clear requirement for co-development with local social services — and without clear safeguards on data sharing, targeting and evaluation — money can flow in while ownership shrinks.
A different approach?
The process will now move onto the negotiation phase with the European Parliament and the Council. What may be a better way forward?
First, subsidiarity through design: ring-fenced local envelopes in NRPPs which cannot be reallocated without local consent and simplify processes for small-scale community programmes. Second, co-decision as a rule rather than a courtesy. Local social services departments must be formal signatories to NRPP governance and be able to oppose measures that misunderstand local needs. Third, outcomes over outlays: instead of just a box-ticking exercise of 14% spend, the Commission should ask for evidence on service access improvement, waiting time reduction, care continuity, and people-reported outcomes, with sub-regional disaggregated indicators. Finally, iterative learning: set aside a portion of ESF+ for quick, locally led pilots and feed the results back into the plan on an annual basis.
Europe does require strategic direction, and a stronger, more resilient social fabric. But strategy without proximity is fragile. Should the next MFF recentralise choices, social services will be implementing someone else’s priorities with little room to transform. The Commission has set the stage; now the Parliament and Council can adapt the script so that Europe’s budget responds to the story on the ground, that the needs of social services are best known closest to where people live.
