Region-building in Hungary – the case of South-Transdanubia

1. Region-building in Hungary– the case of South-Transdanubia Ilona Pálné Kovács Centre for Regional Studies, HAS palne@rkk.hu

2. The structure of the paper • The process of region-building • Regional institutions-setting in South-Transdanubia • The agenda of Hungarian regionalism • Conclusions

3. Historical background • 1000- years tradition of centralisation, dominance of external patterns • 1990 systemic change: • Dominance of political values • European requirements

4. New territorial power structure • Fragmented municipalities (1600 →3200 units) • Weak county self-governments (19+Capital city) • State sector at county and regional level (40 types of deconcentrated organs)

5. Regional policy without regions • 1996 Act onregional policy – chance of correction • Three territorial levels instead of strong NUTS 2 regions • Decentralised institutions contra centralised redistribution

6. The key organisations of regional development in Hungary

7. Starting the region-building • 1998 – decision about NUTS 2 regions • 1999 – amendment of the composition of regional development councils • 2002 – government programme of elected regional self-governments (postponed) • 2004 − amendment again (stronger agencies, more limits)

8. After theaccession • Changing behaviour of the EU (2004 – centralised management of Structural Funds) • Preparing the Second National Development Plan (how many ROPs, how managed?)

9. South-Transdanubia on the map Micro-regions, counties in South Transdanubia region

10. Shaping the region in South Transdanubia I. • 1992 first bottom-up regional cooperation • 1996 institutionalised regional policy • First regional councilyet voluntarily (covering 4 counties) • Partnership in the composition of the council • Establishment of the development agency

11. Shaping the region in South Transdanubia II. • 1999−compulsory council (covering 3 counties) • Amendment of the „partnership” (chambers, employees excluded, less actors from the bottom, more actors from the top) • Dependence of theagency on the council • Fragmentation of the agency-organisation

12. The regional development agency • Non-profit company • Unstable financing (commissioned by central organs, expertise, grants etc) • Increasing tasks (preparation of council meetings, allocation of subsidies, own projects, intermediary body of ROP) • Increasing independence

13. Recent events, setting the agenda • 2005 − pilot programme in South- Transdanubia • 2006− „new” government, „old”programmes→ regional self-governments (rejected by the Parliament) • Regionalised state (?) • Nationalised (Europeanised) regional development?

14. Conclusions • External challenges alone are not enough • Decentralisation is not identical with region-building • Regional policy does not need self-governments (rather professional, decentralised management under the control of partnership organisations) • Top-down or bottom-up region-building are completely different