Administrative Reform and Regional Development Discourses in Hungary. Europeanisation Going NUTS?

Abstract

Starting from the empirical observation of high levels of absorption of EU cohesion funds but strikingly low levels of substantive change in regional cohesion, this essay offers a contextual analysis of regional development policies in Hungary. Based on theoretical frameworks dealing with Europeanisation, new regionalism and participative development, it explores the reasons for this observation by analysing the role of administrative and planning structures and of development discourses. The essay shows that the Europeanisation of regional development policy triggered several changes in the planning process and led to the partial inclusion of new actors. However, the main effect of this was a growing centralisation of development policy making. The essay explains this by pointing to the domestic political context and the historical foundations of regional development discourses of the conservative and leftist liberal parties. While there are overlaps between the discourses on both sides of the ideological divide, they are perceived as incompatible by political actors. Thus, it is argued that considerations of political power, rather than ideological nature, shape Hungarian regional and development policy and explain the incremental reform process.

Notes

¹ This is exactly the opposite of the Polish case where the objective was to set up organic regions, although as a result of the boundaries of the 16 NUTS 2 units, statistics were hard to assess retrospectively.

² The funds allocated for the seven ROPs were to be used for improvement in economic competitiveness (10.44% of the funds), for transportation (17.99% of the funds), for the development of human capacity (16.31% of the funds), for environment, water and nature protection (17.75% of the funds), and for energy (23.72% of the funds) (HVG, 25 February 2006).

³ ‘Saját emberei térítenék észhez a Fideszt’, available at: http://www.origo.hu/archivum/20090407-jovokep-a-fidesz-szamara-keszult-gazdasagpolitikai-tanulmany.html, accessed 2 June 2011.

⁴ See for example, Tibor Navracsics, ‘Gyurcsány “dzsungelesít”’, available at: http://www.mno.hu/portal/357553, accessed 2 June 2011.

⁵ ‘Butikos állam, plebejus állam’, Népszabadság, 1 April 2007.

⁶ ‘Széchenyi uniós pénzből’, Népszabadság, 28 July 2010.

⁷ Interview with Zoltán Cséfalvay, Figyelő, 15 July 2010, available at: http://akadalymentes.kormany.hu/hu/nemzetgazdasagi-miniszterium/parlamenti-es-gazdasagstrategiaert-felelos-allamtitkarsag/az-allamtitkar/beszedek-publikaciok-interjuk/figyelo-interju-csefalvay-zoltan, accessed 17 July 2013.

⁸ See ‘A Kormányzat gazdasápolitikájának fő vonásai, az államháztartás alakulása 2011. Évben’, available at: http://www.mkogy.hu/irom39/01498/adatok/altind.pdf, accessed 18 July 2013.

⁹ See ‘Orbán előadta többszázmilliárdos csomagját, Kósával összeszólalkozott’, Népszabadság, 28 February 2011, available at: http://nol.hu/belfold/orban_eloadta_szazmilliardos_csomagjat__majd_kosaval_osszeszolalkozott, accessed 17 July 2013.

¹⁰ See ‘Csak a fejcserék után?’, Figyelő, 15 July 2010, available at: http://figyelo.hu/cikkek/129948_csak_a_fejcserek_utan, accessed 17 July 2013.

We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments.