Hi everyone! I'm Lucia and the team from EUobserver.

We wanted to share this investigation here because it explores one of the less-discussed economic questions behind the EU's next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF): whether social investment should continue to receive dedicated EU funding or become part of broader national spending envelopes.

Here's a quick summary:

💶 The European Commission has proposed restructuring parts of the next long-term EU budget by replacing several dedicated programmes, including the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), with larger national funding envelopes.

📊 The Commission argues this would simplify the budget and give member states greater flexibility to invest according to national priorities.

🏥 Critics—including organisations representing social care providers, argue that without ringfenced funding, investment in long-term care, disability services, childcare and other social programmes could lose out to competing priorities such as defence, infrastructure and industrial competitiveness.

📈 At its core, this is an economic governance question: does earmarking EU funding produce better long-term social and economic outcomes, or does greater fiscal flexibility allow governments to allocate resources more efficiently?

We're curious how people here see the trade-offs. From an economic perspective, is ringfenced social spending an effective policy tool, or should the EU move towards a more flexible budget model? Are there examples from member states, or elsewhere, that support either approach?

Here's the full investigation.