8.

Where does Brussel, the third region, come in? We propose to treat this question at the level of Belgium comparing the latter to the Randstad Holland. The functioning of the Randstad has been analyzed in terms of:

* specialization (based on comparative advantages)
* integration or interaction
* complementarity or specialization leading to integration

* symmetry as opposed to hierarchy [4]

However weak and vulnerable the nation state, Brussels is positioned asymmetrically and hierarchically vis-a-vis the agglomerations of Flanders and Wallonia: both as capital region and capital of Europe. One can also expect a specialization as far as inter-firm relations are concerned, especially at the global level. The journey-to-work pattern reveals a high degree of integration: 34% of those working in Brussels live in Flanders as against 19% living in Wallonia. Thus it seems difficult 'to take Brussels out of Belgium', to create 'Brussels & Wallonia', 'Brussels & Flanders' or 'Brussels DC'. It has for example been estimated that if Flanders would have to pay taxes to 'Wallonia & Brussels', the total amount would equal the amount that Flanders today transfers to Wallonia in order to cover its social security deficit.

The economic weight of Brussels is somewhat weakened by its high unemployment rate: 16.3% in 2005 (21.5% of those aged 15 to 24 are unemployed; 51.7% are long-term unemployed). To this one has to add serious financial, linguistic and functional problems insufficiently catered for by the Flemish-dominated Federal State [5]. The 'Confederation model' - Brussels 'managed' by both Flanders and Wallonia - (recently proposed by Flanders) seems much less attractive than an inclusion of Brussels in a cross-border corporation between Flanders and Wallonia. This would require, among others, a strategic vision on Brussels as capital of both Belgium and Europe as well strategic projects aiming at solving Brussels' current problems, but also introducing, for example, large projects in the 'quartier européen'.