Impact assessment on the Hungarian urban network

1. Impact assessment on the Hungarian urban network Szepesi Balázs Lead Researcher Workshop Territorial development evaluations April 25, 2013

2. Contents • Goals, tasks, methods of the assessment • Results • Recommendations

3. Tasks of the assessment Recommendations based on in-depth analysis aiming the system of development policy.

4. Tasks and methods • 81 IUD questionarries • Delphi: 35 participantsinfirstround, 27 insecondround, 40 inworkshop • 20 expertinterviews • 20 casestudiesontowns • 13 local IUD interviews • 71 projectsanalyzed • 19 documentsondevelopment policy analyzed

5. Urban network trends Wealth, quality, attractiveness, location • Attractiveness and pace of development in wealth positively correlates with the size of the town and central location • Proximity of motorways strongly affects economic development. • Setback of backward towns grows by time. • The increase of wealth improves quality but has no effect on attractiveness. • There is no link between attractiveness and wealth.

6. Findings – urban network • Urban rank and urban function differs (1990: 166 towns; 2012: 328 towns). • Good accessibility is the main factor to define the attractiveness and wealth of a town. • Development deficit of lagging towns grows with an accelerating pace. • Central subsidies for towns considerately shrunk, therefore local debts increased. • From 2013: task-based financing, consolidation of municipalities.

7. Findings – urban network Towns performing the highest/lowest values according to the variables examined (2010): Quality Wealth Attractiveness Development

8. Findings – financing • Main aspects affecting resource allocation: • population, economic power • influential mayor • capacity for proposal writing and project management • good informal network • development strategy • Aspects of territorial development get little emphasis – with the exception of the LAMR program and the key projects of towns at county rank. • Overall, it has not been proven that towns with better situation in 2007 got more funding (excluding the effect of key projects).

9. Findings – developmental routines • Most popular programs: small-scale and diversifying urban revitalisation, development of business premises • Experts say that urban success is based on a sound strategy, sound leadership and sound economy • Inter-municipal cooperations are sparse, mostly covering exchange of expertise and common lobbying • Rates of resource absorption is acceptable, though the actual benefits of projects are often questionable

10. Findings:Integrated Urban Development (IUD) • 45% of townsdonotfollowthe IUD intheirdevelopmentactivity; • There is no correlationbetweenthequality of the IUD and resourceabsorption; • RegulatoryframeworkdoesnotguaranteeconnectingIUDsto local, regional, and nationaldevelopmentplans; • Typically, IUDsarenotharmonizedwiththose of othertowns and/ortheagglomeration; • Local expertssaythatexpanding IUD tomicro-regionallevel is necessary; • Urban socialrevitalisation is a less popular program, giventhediscrepancy of problems and sources; • Tomakeurbandiversifyingrevitialisationprojectsinducespillovereffects, a receptive local environment is needed; • Settingupurbandevelopmentoffices is becoming more frequent, especiallyinlargertowns; • IUDsactivelycontibutedtothestrenghtening of local strategicthinking.

11. Suggestions #1 • Success should be measured on development effects instead of fund allocation. • Realistic frameworks for inter-urban cooperations are needed to be set up, especially regarding links between counties and towns at county rank. • Larger emphasis should be put on harmonizing local and national development plans. • Instead of creating new infrastructure and capacities, emphasis should be put on revitalising the existing ones and improve their efficiency. • Predicability of fund allocation is a key issue. • It is crucial for town leaders to implement tangible and visible developments.

12. Suggestions #2 • Balancing responsibilities and opportunities in the grant system has great importance as well as keeping administrative duties realistic and moderated. • There is a need for dedicated national plans and execution agendas for developments of government competence (i.e. education, health, transportation). • For managing micro-regional development programs a three-legged system is suggested: • local development programs; • national development programs involving local bodies into implementation; • national development programs backed by local reconciliation.

13. Suggestions #3 • Features of a local development program: • Implementation of local (aggloomerationwide) developmentsbasedonlocal management and institutions; • Local decisiononactions, beneficiaries, and participants; • programscoveringwholedevelopmentperiods; • governmentelaboratestheframework, thencooperateswiththe local levelin an equalmanner; • urbanfocus: ITI/key project/globalgrant; • micro-regionalfocus: local and cooperatingdevelopmentsintheframe of ITI or CLLD; • usingexecutionmodelsbasedon performance, credibility, orstandards, depedingonthearea of use.

14. Thank you for your time! szepesibalazs@hetfa.hu