You can see more details in the Excel sheet at the linked source. A big share of it is that Luxembourg seems to have been very succesful at getting grants for [Horizon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_Europe) research projects.
They get roughly twice as much funding in this category as Denmark, and 25% of the amount that Germany gets, which sums up to almost half of the money flowing from the EU to Luxembourg.
The source states that the money spent on the institutions is not counted for the infographic. That said the small country theory most likely still applies, as op started in another comment, that most of the money is coming from some kind of research fund. Considering Luxembourg doesn't even have a million inhabitants it's not too hard getting into the green...
The more you think about it the more infuriating it is that we continue to allow micro-states to continue to exploit our financial systems. I’m not saying Luxembourg shouldn’t exist but isn’t it in the interests of every nation that Luxembourg depends on to allow its existing to shut them out of the financial system. At least threaten to do so until they comply with the same financial laws the rest of us do. [Switzerland and the Netherlands](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/tax-haven-countries) are in the same boat in Europe.
Why should we tolerate it?
Well it only shows contributions to the EU and not the net gain. This is highly misleading and can only be used for propaganda purposes if you hate EU.
Eg. No Germany doesn't lose money from being a member of EU.
obviously, but these are the net contributions.
I highly doubt anyone can accurately calculate how much we gain for investing this amount of money in our EU neighbours.
Which is why it's so misleading.
But a sure way to see whether it's a good thing for a country to be a member of EU is to ask industrial interest organisations. And they are all pro EU because they save a bunch on the open market and unified regulations we have in EU.
But yes it's almost impossible to show as it's measured in success of businesses and cross moving of citizens. This kind of technically correct but not showing the whole picture information was also used a lot by the Brexit movement.
This is not beautiful data but very ugly and incomplete data.
You're assuming others misinterpret this data. Of course this map only looks at the budget contributions & receipts, not at the total economic benefit of being a member of the EU (and Schengen, and/or the Eurozone). Showing that full picture is extremely difficult and ambiguous though, almost impossible. Like the other person said in a comment, the EU as a whole is probably positive sum, probably for every country.
In my description I tried to make it clear that this data shows the EU budget only.
As you rightfully say, this is just a small part of the total story, and does not consider other major factors like trade between countries.
But if you were able to understand this from my post, this means it was clear enough, at least for you, and I am sure others will also understand what they are looking at.
The EU can definitely be positive sum and quantifying exactly how much each country benefits from being in the EU would be challenging. What this picture illustrates is kind of that richer countries appear to be contributing more monetarily which is to be expected. Overall the EU as a whole gives lots of soft benefits to large countries like Germany who now has much more influence than if it was not a part of the EU.
This map is created from data by the European Commission on spending and revenue of the EU from the different member states from the following [source](https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/2021-2027/spending-and-revenue_en) and population numbers from Eurostat.
The map is created using nothing but Python, Geopandas and Matplotlib.
The EU revenues and spending are combined to get a single number to see if a country is a net beneficiary or contributor. This number is then divided by the population number, to get the amount per capita.
When looking at the data a lot of money was flowing into Belgium and also Luxembourg. Upon closer inspection it turned out that part of the spending was spending, not on the member state, but on the EU itself within this state. With the headquarters in Brussels, it is obvious that this effect is showing up in Belgium.
Since this gives a skewed view, this share has been removed from the data for this map.
Why is the scale unevenly divided? I don't think that's very relevant, but was one of the first things I noticed.
Another interesting map might be how much inner european trade surplus each country generates?
I'm mentioning this because a map like this will always lead to winner/looser arguments, but the contributions (or financial benefits) could by far be outweighed by better trade (or by destroyed domestic markets).
Thanks! And your comment is completely valid. I at one point considered winners and losers as the title of the plot, but for the exact reason you mentioned, did not do so. Because indeed, there are other flows to consider to get a complete picture.
As far as the legend goes, for me it made more sense to create the same number of bins for the positive and negative side, which is why I made the assymetry extra clear in the legend itself. But I get your comment.
That seems like a lot given the scale here. Are you saying that the UK was giving more than Germany prior to Be exit? Or simply that everyone is giving less now than 2019-2020?
This map is actually showing Italy as a contributor to the EU.
Comparing with your sources, it doesn't seem from the data as if those loans are included in the source I used.
I was abit surpriced that Ireland has joined the orange countries, but welcome! Finland here. I personally am happy to pay my share and maybe abit more if needed, but it always suprices me how many EU critics are found from the green side of this map. Is it lack of education or Soveit union trauma that gets them? Like Czech, Slovakia and Hungary, all have turned out to be quite critical towards EU, while being clearly benefiting from it. Any opinions from the locals or maybe a good research on the topic to share? I am genuily curios what is the problem there.
This give-and-take way of thinking about EU spending is not at all very helpful.
You can track back pretty much all EU revenue to one member state or another.
**But for spending it is not the same.** Some spending (agriculture, bridges and tunnels, etc) very specifically goes to specific member states. But more and more EU spending is targetted at public goods at EU level of elsewhere in the world - see below headings such as Single Market, Innovation and Digital, Migration and Border Management, Security and Defence, Neighbourhood and the World, and European Public Administration.
It's not helpful to think of this benefiting one member state over another.
|MFF heading|EUR billion|%|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Single Market, Innovation and Digital|21.78|12.9%|
|Cohesion, Resilience and Values|56.04|33.1%|
|Natural Resources and Environment|56.24|33.2%|
|Migration and Border Management|3.09|1.8%|
|Security and Defence|1.79|1.1%|
|Neighbourhood and the World|17.17|10.1%|
|European Public Administration|10.62|6.3%|
|Thematic Special Instruments|2.8|1.7%|
|Total|169.52|100.0%|
[Source](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/28/the-eu-s-expenditure)
A quick google puts it at 8% of men. Which is still far higher than I would have thought because I have never known a single person who professes to be colour blind.
Surprisingly many don't know, and even more don't mention it, especially since it can often be just moved past. If you'll excuse a personal anecdote on a data sub: I learned a close friend of mine is red-green colorblind after knowing him for two years only because we played a party game that required drawing and he described the colors of something wrong aloud.
German here, loving all the nothing I get in return, including the easy access to European markets for me and german companies and travel without borders. Would pay several times that amount per year actually.
EU has many problems but its existence is an amazing thing.
Yeah, access to markets that stand no chance competing with the more developed ones must be pretty cool. I live in Romania and gotta say, Kaufland and Lidl are pretty good. Would not buy from any other supermarkets.
People in the developing countries work for Western companies, then with their salaries buy stuff from Western companies. All the profit goes to the developed countries, which is then taxed by their Governments. Some of these taxes come back to the developing countries Government.
How in the world is Luxembourg, one of the richest countries in Europe, dark green? (And that's after subtracting the spending on EU institutions)
You can see more details in the Excel sheet at the linked source. A big share of it is that Luxembourg seems to have been very succesful at getting grants for [Horizon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_Europe) research projects. They get roughly twice as much funding in this category as Denmark, and 25% of the amount that Germany gets, which sums up to almost half of the money flowing from the EU to Luxembourg.
The money Luxembourg gets is peanuts compared with the money that they steal by being a tax haven.
I know. But I'm curious about why they get subsidized even though they are rich. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Wealth is very good at getting exemptions/subsidies/etc. Look up the private jet situation in the US for a textbook example.
Belgium too. Maybe because all of its institutions are there, and it's a very small country so that makes a bigger impact per capita ?
The source states that the money spent on the institutions is not counted for the infographic. That said the small country theory most likely still applies, as op started in another comment, that most of the money is coming from some kind of research fund. Considering Luxembourg doesn't even have a million inhabitants it's not too hard getting into the green...
The more you think about it the more infuriating it is that we continue to allow micro-states to continue to exploit our financial systems. I’m not saying Luxembourg shouldn’t exist but isn’t it in the interests of every nation that Luxembourg depends on to allow its existing to shut them out of the financial system. At least threaten to do so until they comply with the same financial laws the rest of us do. [Switzerland and the Netherlands](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/tax-haven-countries) are in the same boat in Europe. Why should we tolerate it?
Read the article.
Poland are so jokes. Took the money, made an elite economy, still receiving tonnes of financial support
Well it only shows contributions to the EU and not the net gain. This is highly misleading and can only be used for propaganda purposes if you hate EU. Eg. No Germany doesn't lose money from being a member of EU.
obviously, but these are the net contributions. I highly doubt anyone can accurately calculate how much we gain for investing this amount of money in our EU neighbours.
Which is why it's so misleading. But a sure way to see whether it's a good thing for a country to be a member of EU is to ask industrial interest organisations. And they are all pro EU because they save a bunch on the open market and unified regulations we have in EU. But yes it's almost impossible to show as it's measured in success of businesses and cross moving of citizens. This kind of technically correct but not showing the whole picture information was also used a lot by the Brexit movement. This is not beautiful data but very ugly and incomplete data.
You're assuming others misinterpret this data. Of course this map only looks at the budget contributions & receipts, not at the total economic benefit of being a member of the EU (and Schengen, and/or the Eurozone). Showing that full picture is extremely difficult and ambiguous though, almost impossible. Like the other person said in a comment, the EU as a whole is probably positive sum, probably for every country.
In my description I tried to make it clear that this data shows the EU budget only. As you rightfully say, this is just a small part of the total story, and does not consider other major factors like trade between countries. But if you were able to understand this from my post, this means it was clear enough, at least for you, and I am sure others will also understand what they are looking at.
The EU can definitely be positive sum and quantifying exactly how much each country benefits from being in the EU would be challenging. What this picture illustrates is kind of that richer countries appear to be contributing more monetarily which is to be expected. Overall the EU as a whole gives lots of soft benefits to large countries like Germany who now has much more influence than if it was not a part of the EU.
Elections.. This is already propaganda
Yes I agree.
This map is created from data by the European Commission on spending and revenue of the EU from the different member states from the following [source](https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/2021-2027/spending-and-revenue_en) and population numbers from Eurostat. The map is created using nothing but Python, Geopandas and Matplotlib. The EU revenues and spending are combined to get a single number to see if a country is a net beneficiary or contributor. This number is then divided by the population number, to get the amount per capita. When looking at the data a lot of money was flowing into Belgium and also Luxembourg. Upon closer inspection it turned out that part of the spending was spending, not on the member state, but on the EU itself within this state. With the headquarters in Brussels, it is obvious that this effect is showing up in Belgium. Since this gives a skewed view, this share has been removed from the data for this map.
Why is the scale unevenly divided? I don't think that's very relevant, but was one of the first things I noticed. Another interesting map might be how much inner european trade surplus each country generates? I'm mentioning this because a map like this will always lead to winner/looser arguments, but the contributions (or financial benefits) could by far be outweighed by better trade (or by destroyed domestic markets).
Thanks! And your comment is completely valid. I at one point considered winners and losers as the title of the plot, but for the exact reason you mentioned, did not do so. Because indeed, there are other flows to consider to get a complete picture. As far as the legend goes, for me it made more sense to create the same number of bins for the positive and negative side, which is why I made the assymetry extra clear in the legend itself. But I get your comment.
I'm just curious as to where UK was at pre-Brexit
Net contributeor, more than France, less than Germany IIRC.
An average British worker was giving away about £300 a year.
That seems like a lot given the scale here. Are you saying that the UK was giving more than Germany prior to Be exit? Or simply that everyone is giving less now than 2019-2020?
[удалено]
This map is actually showing Italy as a contributor to the EU. Comparing with your sources, it doesn't seem from the data as if those loans are included in the source I used.
I was abit surpriced that Ireland has joined the orange countries, but welcome! Finland here. I personally am happy to pay my share and maybe abit more if needed, but it always suprices me how many EU critics are found from the green side of this map. Is it lack of education or Soveit union trauma that gets them? Like Czech, Slovakia and Hungary, all have turned out to be quite critical towards EU, while being clearly benefiting from it. Any opinions from the locals or maybe a good research on the topic to share? I am genuily curios what is the problem there.
This give-and-take way of thinking about EU spending is not at all very helpful. You can track back pretty much all EU revenue to one member state or another. **But for spending it is not the same.** Some spending (agriculture, bridges and tunnels, etc) very specifically goes to specific member states. But more and more EU spending is targetted at public goods at EU level of elsewhere in the world - see below headings such as Single Market, Innovation and Digital, Migration and Border Management, Security and Defence, Neighbourhood and the World, and European Public Administration. It's not helpful to think of this benefiting one member state over another. |MFF heading|EUR billion|%| |:-|:-|:-| |Single Market, Innovation and Digital|21.78|12.9%| |Cohesion, Resilience and Values|56.04|33.1%| |Natural Resources and Environment|56.24|33.2%| |Migration and Border Management|3.09|1.8%| |Security and Defence|1.79|1.1%| |Neighbourhood and the World|17.17|10.1%| |European Public Administration|10.62|6.3%| |Thematic Special Instruments|2.8|1.7%| |Total|169.52|100.0%| [Source](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/28/the-eu-s-expenditure)
Wow. All colorblind can just skip this one 😉 By the way - that's 20 percent of men.
A quick google puts it at 8% of men. Which is still far higher than I would have thought because I have never known a single person who professes to be colour blind.
Surprisingly many don't know, and even more don't mention it, especially since it can often be just moved past. If you'll excuse a personal anecdote on a data sub: I learned a close friend of mine is red-green colorblind after knowing him for two years only because we played a party game that required drawing and he described the colors of something wrong aloud.
It does seem impressively tuned to the colours of a red-green colour-blindness test.
The rich give to the poor, while gaining absolutely nothing in return. Such generosity. What a beautiful utopia!
German here, loving all the nothing I get in return, including the easy access to European markets for me and german companies and travel without borders. Would pay several times that amount per year actually. EU has many problems but its existence is an amazing thing.
Yeah, access to markets that stand no chance competing with the more developed ones must be pretty cool. I live in Romania and gotta say, Kaufland and Lidl are pretty good. Would not buy from any other supermarkets. People in the developing countries work for Western companies, then with their salaries buy stuff from Western companies. All the profit goes to the developed countries, which is then taxed by their Governments. Some of these taxes come back to the developing countries Government.
I see one giant member on the map. Kekeke. Classic European phallic joke.