How Does Europe’s Young Generation See Its Future?

Brussels Crow - Kenan ERER / 7.10.2026

What does Europe look like through the eyes of a generation that will inherit its institutions, debts, inequalities and political choices? Brussels Crow speaks with Gilles Struyven Strubbe, a young liberal working as a budget and finance adviser inside Brussels politics, about the questions shaping Europe’s next chapter: the role of the state, public debt, inequality, artificial intelligence, economic competitiveness and the future of liberalism.

From Daron Acemoglu’s ideas on institutions to the growing frustration of young Europeans struggling with housing and economic uncertainty, the conversation asks a broader question: what kind of Europe does the generation preparing to shape it actually want?

1. Daron Acemoglu: what happened to the liberal hero?

Background: In 2024, Daron Acemoglu received the Nobel Prize in Economics together with Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson for their research on how institutions are formed and how they affect prosperity. For years, Acemoglu’s work on institutions, democracy and economic development has been highly influential in liberal economic and political debates. Yet this summer, The Economist published a deliberately provocative assessment: “The world’s most influential economist is oddly unconvincing — Daron Acemoglu is revered. Why?” At the same time, Acemoglu has become increasingly critical of the direction of technological development and of the assumption that automation and AI will automatically generate broadly shared prosperity.

Question:Why do you think an economist whose ideas about institutions and prosperity have been so influential is now generating more debate — and sometimes discomfort — within liberal economic circles? More importantly: where do you personally agree with Acemoglu, and where does he lose you?

I partly agree with Acemoglu. We are entering a period where technology can give individual companies and people enormous economic power, larger than countries. This is not entirely new, think Rockefeller, Carnegie or J.P. Morgan, but the speed, scale and global reach of that power are different today.

Does AI threaten the world? There are a lot of risks and uncertainties : AI could further concentrate power, but it can also decentralise it. Starting a business from an idea has never been easier, small teams can now do things that previously required large amounts of capital and manpower.

That is why I partly agree with Acemoglu. We should not assume that technological progress will automatically lead to prosperity being broadly shared. There clearly needs to be a framework. Even the major technology companies recognise this: they are encountering applications and risks whose full potential they do not always understand themselves. The challenge is therefore to develop rules and institutions that mitigate the risks without holding back innovation itself.

At the same time, I think liberals should also embrace the enormous opportunities AI creates. I actually see huge opportunities for AI, particularly in government. There are countless administrative and analytical processes that can be automated or improved. GovTech will become a major market, with specialised niche players able to make a real difference. We already use Claude extensively for budget analysis, for example.

Where I differ from Acemoglu is that I think he sometimes puts too much emphasis on the risks and not enough on the opportunities. As with previous technological revolutions, some jobs will disappear while others will emerge. I think those who are best able to adapt will benefit the most. AI will fundamentally reshape work, but it may also increase the value of things that remain distinctly human: manual work, creativity, entrepreneurship, social interaction…

2. What if the problem is not “big government”, but bad institutions?

Background: One important implication of Acemoglu’s work is that economic success cannot simply be explained by taxation, public expenditure or the size of government. The quality of institutions — who has power, how decisions are made, how accountable institutions are and whether they are capable of reform — may be just as important.You are now seeing these questions from inside Brussels politics as a budget adviser.

Question:When you look at Brussels’ financial situation, do you primarily see a problem of expenditure and revenue — or a deeper institutional problem? In other words: can Brussels seriously reform its public finances without reforming the way Brussels itself is governed? And if you could change one element of Brussels’ institutional architecture tomorrow, what would it be?

I think it is actually all of it: taxation, public expenditure, the size of government and the quality of institutions. I see examples of all four every day in Brussels.

On taxation, we are seeing increasing overlap between regional and local taxes. This creates a system that is becoming increasingly complex and can make Brussels less attractive to residents and businesses, pushing people and companies towards the outskirts.

On public expenditure, we have repeatedly increased budgets without necessarily seeing better results. In many cases, the problems have actually become bigger. And when it comes to the size of government, there are clearly tasks that could be performed more efficiently and at a lower cost by private actors. We recently came across the enormous property portfolio of the Brussels government: hundreds of millions of euros in assets that are underused or simply left idle, while they could be developed into housing, parks or other productive uses.

But I actually see all these problems as symptoms of a deeper institutional problem. And for me, the key issue is accountability.

At every level of government, there is a strong lack of accountability in Brussels today. We are constantly discussing whose fault something is, rather than who is responsible for solving it. This happens within the regional government, between administrations, between the region and local authorities, and between Brussels and the federal level.

The administrative reform currently being led by my minister should already address part of this problem. By reorganising the administrations, we can make responsibilities clearer and create much stronger accountability between them.

But take cleanliness, for example: there are twenty different actors with responsibilities: one for each municipality and the region. On security, you again have different levels of government involved: federal, local and regional. When everyone is responsible for one part of the problem, it becomes very difficult to hold anyone accountable for the outcome.

That is why I think Brussels needs much broader institutional reform. The fragmentation of responsibilities makes it extremely difficult to develop and implement a coherent long-term vision. And this is not only a Brussels problem: successive state reforms have created a system in which it is increasingly difficult to think coherently about Brussels, both as a region and as the capital of the country.

If I could change one thing tomorrow, I would make responsibilities much clearer. Each level of government should have clearly defined responsibilities, the resources to fulfil them and, most importantly, be clearly accountable for the results.

3. Europe: too cautious to remain competitive?

Background: The United States and China represent radically different political and economic models. Yet they share one important characteristic: when they identify a strategic priority — artificial intelligence, energy, defence, semiconductors or infrastructure — they can often mobilise enormous amounts of capital, technology and political power very quickly. Europe has chosen another model: more regulation, consultation, institutional checks, social protection and precaution. These safeguards are fundamental parts of the European model, but they can also slow decisions and investment.

Question:This creates an interesting paradox for European liberals. Can Europe really describe itself as economically liberal if starting a business, investing, building infrastructure or developing new technology becomes considerably slower and more complicated than in competing economies? At what point does regulation designed to protect freedom begin to restrict economic freedom? And what should Europe learn from the speed of the United States and China without importing either American levels of inequality or the Chinese political model? More provocatively: is Europe simply becoming too cautious, too regulated and too institutionally heavy to compete?

I think Europe is becoming too cautious and too institutionally heavy in some areas. But I don’t think the answer is simply less Europe. The answer is a more strategic Europe.

One of our biggest problems today is that we have lost a sense of common purpose. The EU once stood for peace, economic prosperity and further integration. That sense of direction has faded. If Europe wants to compete with the US and China, we need to decide what we actually want to achieve together, whether that is defence, energy, technology or infrastructure.

That also means more integration where it makes sense and accepting that this requires member states to give up some sovereignty. A European army could be one such project. And if Europe wants to act faster, we also need to reconsider the unanimity rule.

At the same time, we have to reduce unnecessary regulation. Belgium is a champion at gold-plating EU rules, adding requirements on top of European legislation. That should stop. In many areas, EU law should simply be the standard across Europe.

The problem is also often not the objective, but the execution. The Green Deal is a good example. Making Europe carbon-neutral is a great goal, but if businesses mainly experience it as additional regulation and taxation, while the benefits are long-term and global, we risk undermining competitiveness. I would have preferred stronger tax shifts: use new carbon taxes to reduce other taxes and help European companies invest and adapt themselves.

The Draghi report makes many of these points very well. But there is also something slightly ironic about it. Draghi spent much of his career at the very top of the European institutional system, and now he is telling Europe that the system needs to change. And he is not the first former Italian prime minister to reach that conclusion. The real question is whether Europe is willing to implement those reforms and integration when they collide with national interests. We see this in banking and telecom, for example, and in debates around European consolidation.

The Siemens–Alstom case also showed the tension between competition policy and the ambition to create European companies capable of competing globally. We need competition, but we also need to ask whether we are actually creating a European market large enough for European companies to scale.

So yes, Europe can be too cautious. But I would not copy the US or China. Europe’s strength is that it is a safe haven: politically, economically and socially. The challenge is to keep those strengths while becoming much faster, more ambitious and more willing to act.

4. So what does being liberal actually mean in 2026?

Background:For previous generations, economic liberalism was often associated with lower taxes, entrepreneurship, individual responsibility, free markets and limiting the role of the state. But your generation is entering adulthood in a very different environment: expensive housing, demographic ageing, pressure on public finances, climate investment, geopolitical competition and technological disruption.

Question:What does being liberal mean to you personally today? Does it mean less government, lower taxes and more individual responsibility? Or is the real liberal objective no longer necessarily a smaller state, but a better state — one that intervenes less where it is unnecessary, but acts faster and more effectively where it is needed? Where do you personally draw the line between individual responsibility and collective solidarity?

For me, being liberal starts with a simple observation: when you look at outcomes such as wages, health, education, housing and social mobility, the number one predictor of where you end up in life is still who your parents are. That means that, despite all our talk about meritocracy, meritocracy is still largely a myth.

That is why I find Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach interesting. For me, liberalism is not simply about less government or lower taxes. It is about creating a system in which people have a genuine opportunity to develop their capabilities and make something of their lives.

That also means being very clear about what the state should and should not do. The state should provide the foundations: good education, base healthcare, security, infrastructure and a fair set of rules. But it should not determine how people live their lives, pick economic winners through company subsidies or guarantee particular outcomes. You cannot expect the state to make everyone successful. Its role is to create the conditions for people and businesses to succeed, while people still have to take responsibility for what they do with those opportunities.

So I believe in both individual responsibility and collective solidarity. Solidarity should be about giving people the capabilities and opportunities to stand on their own feet, and then giving them the freedom to do so.

5. How much inequality can liberalism tolerate?

Background: Liberalism places great importance on individual freedom and equality of opportunity. But formal equality of opportunity does not necessarily mean that people begin life with comparable opportunities.

Question:Suppose an economy is growing, businesses are competitive and markets are functioning — but wealth inequality continues to increase. At what point does inequality itself become an obstacle to individual freedom? Can a liberal society accept very large economic inequalities as long as everyone theoretically enjoys the same rights and opportunities? Or does there come a point when protecting freedom requires the state to intervene?

I think inequality is absolutely necessary for a society to function. People make different choices, take different risks and have different talents, and a liberal society should allow people to benefit from those differences.

But too much inequality can also become a problem. And for me, this connects directly to my previous answer: the question is whether people genuinely have the capabilities and opportunities to make something of their lives.

I am less concerned about inequality of outcomes than about inequality of opportunity. If your family background, wealth or social position largely determines what you can achieve, then individual freedom becomes much more theoretical than real.

There is also a point where extreme concentrations of wealth can become concentrations of power. At that point, inequality is no longer just an outcome of a functioning market, it starts to affect the functioning of the market itself.

But I also believe markets have a capacity to adapt. The economic cycle depends on people being both producers and consumers. If inequality becomes so extreme that this cycle starts to break down, the market itself will create pressures to adjust.

So I don't think the liberal answer is to eliminate inequality. It is to make sure that inequality does not become so extreme that it undermines opportunity, competition and the ability of people to participate in the economic system.

6. What happens when politics meets Excel?

Background:Political debate is usually about ambitions: more housing, better education, improved mobility, security, climate investment and stronger public services.A budget forces politicians to choose between those ambitions. As an adviser on budget and finance in Minister Dirk De Smedt’s cabinet, you see this tension from very close range.

Question: Is part of your job essentially to tell politicians: “It may be a good idea, but we simply cannot afford it”? Without revealing anything confidential, can you give us a concrete example of how a political ambition changes once it encounters budgetary reality?And has working inside government changed the way you personally think about political promises?

What a great description! No, I’m kidding, the role of the Budget Minister and his cabinet is much broader. We provide the financial framework within which government can make policy, make sure that framework is respected, follow up on political agreements and validate/or not all government expenditure. I also have specific responsibilities, such as debt management.

In a way, we are the glue of government, because almost every major political decision has a budgetary impact. You want to build a road, a metro line, more security cameras, a museum, give shelter to the homeless, do a certain reform or build social housing: it all comes back to the budget. That makes the Budget Minister a key player in defending government agreements and making sure they actually fit together.

But perhaps the most important part of my job is anticipating decisions. When someone proposes a new policy, we have to ask: what does it really cost? Is it well budgeted? What are the maintenance costs? What are the long-term consequences? Is it actually part of the government agreement? And what happens to the things we already have to pay for? There is a lot of reminding people to do their actual job in that.

That is particularly important because politics can have a short-term horizon. Take sewers: nobody cares about maintaining sewers, until they break. But if you keep postponing that kind of expenditure, someone eventually pays the bill, and it’s often the taxpayer. That is one of the reasons I think politicians should be held more accountable for the budgets and competences they are responsible for. Especially by the media. Another example is the Brussels Tunnels, a few years ago a part of the ceiling fell off.

And yes, working in government has changed the way I look at political promises. You learn very quickly that nothing is free. Never give gifts, you always get the bill in the end. People often only ride for their own, the quote I hear the most at my job is :‘the minister of budget will need to come up with a solution’, which just means: ‘I don’t want to pay for this’.

7. The uncomfortable question: where would you cut?

Background:Politicians generally prefer explaining where they want to invest public money. Budgetary discipline requires answering a much less popular question: where should government spend less?

Question: What is politically harder: cutting expenditure, increasing taxes, or admitting that a political promise cannot be financed? And let us make the question concrete.If you personally had to identify one area where Brussels could spend public money considerably more efficiently, where would you start?

For me, certainly as a Belgian Liberal, increasing taxes is politically harder. I think we are already at a level of taxation in Belgium that is simply unsustainable. We tax almost everything, and we already have some of the highest taxes on wages. You cannot keep going back to people’s pockets every time government needs more money.

The bigger change I would like to see is a more dynamic approach to policy. We should be willing to try things, evaluate whether they actually work, and then adjust, improve or stop them if they do not. Too often, once a policy or programme exists, it simply continues and its budget keeps growing. Mathematically, that means that every new policy just gets added on top of the old ones. If you never stop anything, you will always need more money.

Employment policy is a good example. Actiris has a budget of roughly €650 million, but a lot of that spending goes into programmes and policies that have existed for years without being properly reevaluated, with here and there a few reforms. Some may still be useful, but we should be asking much more systematically what actually works and what does not.

Take employment subsidies. I understand giving a company a push to hire someone give a certain condition, particularly at the beginning. But if you are still subsidising the same job five years later, you have to ask whether the job is actually viable without the subsidy. The same principle should apply to other subsidies: give something a push, evaluate it, and if it does not work after a reasonable period, accept that and stop it.

And then there is the question of overhead. Only around 25% of Actiris's resources directly contribute to helping people find a job. The organisation and its spending structure deserve a fundamental review.

Good government is not just about creating new policies. It is about having the discipline to evaluate what already exists, stop what no longer works, and make room for something better, and more importantly: fail.

8. Are we sending the bill to your generation?

Background:Public debt creates an unusual democratic problem. The citizens who benefit from expenditure today are not necessarily the same people who will ultimately finance its consequences. At the same time, younger Europeans are dealing with expensive housing, uncertainty about pensions and increasing pressure on public finances.

Question: Do you think European politics sometimes protects the expectations and living standards of older generations by transferring too much of the financial burden to younger generations? When a government takes on debt that may still be repaid decades from now, who represents the taxpayer who is 15 years old today?And should younger generations have a stronger voice in decisions about public debt and long-term expenditure?

Yes and no. I do think there are areas where we have pushed too much of the burden onto younger generations. Pensions are an obvious example. Belgium chose a largely pay-as-you-go system, which means that today I am paying for the pensions of people who are already retired. Meanwhile, I don't know whether my own generation will have the same security when we retire.

I find the Dutch model, with a much stronger capitalisation component, more interesting. And there is something uncomfortable about asking younger people to finance very generous pensions while they face a much more uncertain housing market and future…

But I don't want to be populist about this either. Belgium has a high level of public debt, but we also have a high standard of living, good infrastructure and a strong welfare state, like cheap study costs, good hospitals. So a baby born in Belgium today may effectively inherit a large amount of public debt (around 60k today) but also inherits public assets and institutions that have real value. The question is therefore not simply how much debt we leave behind, but what we get in return for it. To be clear, this a certainly not a call for more debt, but it’s too easy to say “Well thanks to the older generation, I have 60k of debt”.

I try not to look backwards too much. The more important question is whether the decisions we make today are good decisions and whether they will still make sense in ten or twenty years.

As for giving younger generations a stronger political voice, I am not convinced that the answer is simply giving more voting rights to younger people. We already have youth councils and other ways of representing younger generations. I would rather strengthen accountability for long-term decisions.

For example, I would support putting a clear % of maximum yearly deficit into the Constitution or even a debt ceiling like in the USA. One government should not be able to accumulate large amounts of debt and leave the next government with the interest bill and much less room to act. That is ultimately an issue of accountability: if you make a decision today, you should also take responsibility for the consequences it creates tomorrow.

9. AI: should technology replace the state — or improve it?

Background:Digitalisation is also part of the policy environment in which you work.Artificial intelligence can potentially analyse documents, process administrative requests, detect inefficiencies and reduce administrative costs. But Acemoglu has also warned against a technological model focused primarily on replacing human labour rather than increasing human capabilities and productivity.The public sector will increasingly face exactly this choice.

Question: If AI can dramatically reduce administrative costs, should governments automate as much as possible? Or are there public decisions that should never be delegated to an algorithm, even if automation is cheaper and faster? More fundamentally: should the purpose of AI in government be to replace public-sector work, or to make public servants more productive? Where would you draw the line?

Yes, absolutely. I think there is huge potential for GovTech. There are so many repetitive administrative tasks that could be done by AI. In those cases, it is almost a no-brainer.

Take housing permits. Checking whether a dossier is complete, whether all the required documents are there and whether basic conditions are met is something AI could do much faster and more cheaply. There is little reason for a civil servant to spend hours on that.

But I don't think the answer is simply to replace public servants. It should be both: automate where automation makes sense, and make people more productive where human judgement is needed. Some decisions need a human touch and, more importantly, someone who is ultimately accountable for the decision.

We saw something similar with the computer. Computers made us dramatically more productive, but they did not simply eliminate the workforce. AI could be an even bigger breakthrough because, unlike a traditional computer, it can actually perform tasks and work more autonomously.

So I would draw the line at judgement and accountability. Let AI handle repetitive work, analyse information and prepare decisions. But where a decision requires judgement, discretion or has a significant impact on someone's life, there should still be a human being responsible for it.

10. What does liberalism offer a frustrated 20-year-old?

Background:For many young Europeans, their first experience of the economy is not entrepreneurship or the stock market. It is rent, difficulty finding affordable housing, insecure employment and uncertainty about whether the welfare state they finance today will still exist when they need it. This creates a fundamental challenge for liberal politics.

Question:Imagine a 20-year-old tells you: “You ask me to believe in individual responsibility and economic opportunity. But I cannot afford to buy a home, I am expected to finance a system designed by generations before me, and I am told that eventually the market will reward my efforts.” What is the liberal answer to that young person?And if liberalism cannot provide a convincing answer, why shouldn't that generation start looking elsewhere politically?

I think this question gets to the heart of why extreme parties are on the rise. They offer a story, a view of what society should look like. They don't necessarily make it very concrete, but they appeal to people's emotions and tell them: this is where we are going. A lot of traditional parties, including Flemish liberals, have lost that. We focus too much on individual measures without asking the bigger question: how do we actually want to live, and where do we want to go as a society?

I think we need to redesign the liberal contract with people. We should be very clear about where they can expect help from the state, and where they are on their own. It is about offering a hand, but also being clear that you have to take it yourself. That’s also why personal income taxes should be reduced significantly, so people can keep more of what they earn.

Something that often frustrates me is that every problem is framed as a crisis that the state has to solve for you. But the first question should be: what can you do about it? How can you solve it? What actions can you take yourself? And then you have to ask whether the state is actually giving you the tools and opportunities you need to solve it yourself. That is the balance I think liberalism should strike between individual responsibility and collective solidarity.

That brings us back to the capabilities approach. The goal should be to make sure everyone has a genuine opportunity to develop their capabilities and find their own way in life. But after that, we also need to leave people alone much more. We should stop constantly intervening in people's lives and accept that people sometimes make choices that don't work out. You have the freedom to make your own choices, and sometimes to hit your head against the wall.

I also think we need to be honest about expectations. Is it really normal that a 20-year-old should be able to buy a house immediately?

Probably not. At the same time, we should recognise that young people's consumption expectations have changed as well. Many young people travel several times a year, buy expensive coffees, and want the newest iPhone. That doesn't mean the housing problem isn't real, but we should be honest about the trade-offs.

So I don't think the liberal answer is to promise everyone a house or guarantee a certain standard of living. It is to offer people a real starting point, real opportunities, and the freedom to make something of them. If liberalism can provide that, I think it still has a very strong story to tell.

Let us finish with a forced choice!

If you had to choose only one as the foundation of future prosperity: free markets or stronger institutions?You cannot answer “both”.Which comes first — and why?

If I have to choose one, I would choose stronger institutions. On that, I agree with Acemoglu.

You need the rule of law, good data, smart policy-making, effective government and institutions that are capable of making and implementing good decisions. Without that foundation, markets cannot function properly either.

And when institutions work well, markets benefit from it. They create the stability and predictability that allow people and businesses to invest, innovate and take risks.

Because once you create the right framework, I have a lot of faith in markets. Markets will adapt. They will find opportunities, respond to incentives and find ways to work within the rules, they’re way faster.

So if I have to choose what comes first: stronger institutions. The role of government is to build the framework and make the rules work. Then let the market do what it does best.

Best,

Gilles