The preliminary agreement reached between PSC and ERC to implement a “singular” funding approach for Catalonia has shaken the national political scene. The text, which still needs base-level approval and lacks specifics to gauge its real reach, has drawn outright rejection from PP-led autonomous regions such as Valencia, and even from some regions governed by the Socialists. Yet, that unanimity in criticism softens a bit when experts are consulted on the matter.
This newspaper contacted six funding experts to gauge their opinion on the impact that Catalonia’s fiscal arrangement could have on the Community of Valencia, a long-time loser in the resource-sharing mechanism and one that watches closely any change that might alter the current landscape. The group included former Finance Ministers Juan Carlos Moragues (PP) and Vicent Soler (PSPV); the current regional secretary for finance, Eusebio Monzó, and his predecessor during the Botànic era, Francesc Gamero (Compromís); and two members of the expert commission of the Cortes, Juan Pérez and Rafael Beneyto.
The opinions vary, at times even opposing, and the lack of concrete details makes a clear diagnosis difficult. Monzó warns that the fiscal arrangement “splits Spain,” while Gamero celebrates it as “clearly positive for the Valencian Community’s interests.” Moragues is not much more optimistic than Monzó, arguing that it would spell the “collapse of interterritorial solidarity” and divert resources from the common treasury, which would affect underfunded regions like Valencia.
The number two to the regional minister Ruth Merino centers her critique on using the regional financing system, calling it “sacred money” that could be traded as a political bargaining chip. Monzó agrees with Moragues that this approach also jeopardizes solidarity among territories, suggesting that Catalonia would not continue contributing to the fund at the same level as before.
“It Marginalizes Valencian Singularity”
Pérez, a researcher at Ivie, condemns the Government’s bilateral negotiation on a common issue, calling it a move that “marginalizes” the rest of the territories, especially those chronically disadvantaged like Valencia, while insisting on Valencia’s “singularity.” He also argues that the solidarity quota Catalonia would pay should be calculated as before, through the Guarantee Fund, to keep it at the same level. Otherwise—and here he agrees with Monzó—this cooperation with the rest could “tend to disappear,” drawing on the Basque model as a reference.
The former Valencia of Soler, who calls for dropping ideological prejudices from analysis, adopts a cautious stance and notes that the agreement “could be beneficial” for Valencia if it manages to “pierce” the status quo that has left the autonomous community with “up to 30 percent less financing per capita than some other regions (Cantabria) for the same responsibilities.”
The view that this could be a chance to end chronic mistreatment is shared by Gamero. The Compromís leader argues that the move would “unlock the system’s reform” and “open a landscape of possibilities” for Valencia, including the very fiscal arrangement, which could be requested in this moment. Beneyto also believes that if the PSOE’s step becomes concrete, it would push the government to reform the current system, creating momentum for change.
Every vote in Congress matters, Gamero adds, noting that the pact requires amending the financing law (LOFCA) in the lower house, where Compromís and other peripheral forces advocating system reform could leverage their votes to condition support for a new model. He cautions that passing LOFCA without a global reform seems unlikely, thus risking unresolved Valencian discrimination. Beneyto is less optimistic and sees it as difficult for the government to assemble a stable majority.
The agreement also contemplates the path toward Catalonia’s singularity. Pérez and Beneyto believe that the transitional period gathers several Valencian demands. Pérez highlights a commitment to the system’s sufficiency and to respecting ordinality, which implies breaking the status quo, while Beneyto emphasizes that the pledge to compensate imbalances created by the current model would spell out the transitional fund leveling in detail.