DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism 2017, 9(3):141-161 | DOI: 10.32725/det.2017.026

Chances of Effective Urban Policy in Hungary under the Influence of the European Cohesion Policy

Edit Somlyódyné Pfeil
Széchenyi István University, Faculty of Economics. Győr, Egyetem tér 1. H-9026

Keywords: urban policy, governance, territorial integration, medium-sized cities, centralisation

The goal of the paper is to search for the state environmental conditions for an effective urban governance by the analysis of the Hungarian processes of the last six years. The survey is focused, on the one hand, on Hungarian towns considered as small and medium-sized towns by European scales; on the other hand, the conditions for the birth of co-operations between these towns and their regions, and among the different sectors are also emphasised. This is the viewpoint from which the paper tries to grab the content and tools of Hungarian urban policy, and the special features of this policy. It is also crucial in this respect how the reform programme of public administration influences governance chances of cities both as regards the location of tasks and the organisational system; and also how much the cohesion policy of the EU and its urban dimension affects the public policy processes.

Published: October 31, 2017  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Somlyódyné Pfeil, E. (2017). Chances of Effective Urban Policy in Hungary under the Influence of the European Cohesion Policy. DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism, 9(3), 141-161. doi: 10.32725/det.2017.026
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Ágh, A. (2013). Progress Report on the New Member States: Twenty Years of Social and Political Developments. Together for Europe Series, No. 17. Budapest: Budapest College of Communication and Business.
    2. Altus (2016). The use of new provisons during the programming phase of the European Structural and Investment Funds. Final Report to the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy. European Commission, May 2016. (accessed August 26, 2017).
    3. Balázs, I. (2015). Az államigazgatási hatósági szolgáltatások közigazgatás-szervezési modelljei (Administrative organisational models of state auhority services). Új Magyar Közigazgatás (8) 3, 2-13.
    4. Beluszky P. (2003). Magyarország településföldrajza. Általános rész (Settlement geography of Hungary. General part). Budapest-Pécs: Dialóg Campus Kiadó.
    5. Berg, L. van den - Braun, E. - Meer, J. van den (2007). (eds.) National Policy Responses to Urban Challenges in Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
    6. Böhme, K., Doucet, P., Komornicki, T., Zaucha, J., & ¦wiatek, D. (2011). How to strengthen the territorial dimension of 'Europe 2020' and the EU Cohesion Policy. Report based on the Territorial Agenda 2020. Prepared at the Request of the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Warsaw. January 16, 2015 from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/challenges2020/2011_territorial_dimension_eu2020.pdf (accessed January 16, 2015).
    7. Börzel, T. A., & Heard-Lauréote, K. (2009). Networks in EU Multi-Level Governance: Concepts and Contributions. Journal of Public Policy. 29(2), 135-151, Networks in European Union Governance. Retrieved November 02, 2016 from http://www.jstor.org/stabel/40542335 Go to original source...
    8. d'Albergo, E. (2010). Urban issues in nation-state agendas. A comparison in Western Europe. Urban Research and Practice, 3(2), 138-158. Retrieved January 07, 2013 from http://www.eukn.org/E_library/Urban_Policy/Urban_issues_in_nation_state_agendas_a_comparison_in_Western_Europe Go to original source...
    9. EC (2014) Investment for jobs and growth. Promoting development and good governance in EU regions and cities. Six report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. July 2014. Brussels: EC Regional and Urban Policy. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion6/6cr_en.pdf (accessed January 16, 2015).
    10. European Governance. A White Paper. Commission of the European Communities. Brussels, 25.7.2001 COM (2001) 428 final.
    11. Farole, Th., Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2011) Cohesion Policy in the European Union: Growth, Geography, Institutions. Journal of Common Market Studies. 49(5), 1089-1111. Go to original source...
    12. Finta, I. (2015). Az integrált terület- és vidékfejlesztés eszközei és korlátai Magyarországon. (The Tools and Limitations of Integrated Regional and Rural development in Hungary.) Tér és Társadalom, 29 (1), 132-148. Go to original source...
    13. Frey, R. L. (2003). Regional Governance zur Selbststeuerung territorialer Subsysteme (Regional Governance as self-administration of territorial subsystems). Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 8-9. 451-462.
    14. Harding, A. (2007). Globalization, spatial economic change and urban policy. In: Proceedings of the OECD Conference on What policies for globalizing cities? Rethinking the urban agenda. Madrid 29-30 March. Retrieved July 02, 2014 from http://www1.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/49680222.pdf
    15. Harrison, J. (2012). Life after Regions. The Evolution of City-Regionalism in England. Regional Studies (46) 9, 1243-1260. Go to original source...
    16. Hegedűs, J., & Péteri, G. (2015). Közszolgáltatási reformok és a helyi önkormányzatiság (Public services reforms and local self-governance). Szociológiai Szemle 2. 88-119.
    17. Herrschel, T., & Newman, P. (2003). Die governance europäischer Stadtregionen (Governance of European city regions). Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, 9-10, 543-555. Go to original source...
    18. Joye, D., Leresche, J-P. (2004). Local government versus metropolitan government: the example of the Lake Geneva region. In: Jouve, B., Lefèvre, Ch. (eds.) Local Power. Territory and Institutions in European Metropolitan Regions. London-Portland, OR: Frank Cass. 128-152.
    19. Leipzig Charter (2007). Territorial Agenda of the European Union. Towards a More Competitive Europe of Diverse Regions. (To be presented for adoption by Ministers responsible for Territorial Development on the occasion of the Informal Ministerial Meeting to be held in Leipzig on 25 May 2007.)
    20. Mayntz, R. (2004). Governance in modernen Staat (Governance in modern cities). In: Benz, Arthur (Hrsg.) Governance - Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Eine Einführung. Wiesbanden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 65-75. Go to original source...
    21. Somlyódyné Pfeil, E. (2005). A tervszerződés intézménye bevezetésének időszerűségéről és szükségességéről (On the timeliness and necessity of the introduction of the institution of planning contracts). In: A tervszerződés rendszerének hazai adaptálási lehetőségei (Final Research Report). Megbízó: Magyar Terület- és Regionális Fejlesztési Hivatal. Témavezető: Somlyódyné Pfeil E. MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja, Pécs.
    22. Somlyódyné Pfeil, E. (2014). The End of Regionalism in Hungary? An Assessment of Local Governance Before and After. In: Pálné Kovács I., & Profiroiu C. M. (eds.) Regionalisation and Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe: Selected Revised Papers from the 21st NISPAcee Annual Conference May 16-18, 2013 Belgrade, Serbia. Bratislava: NISPAcee. 87-107.
    23. Somlyódyné Pfeil E. (2014a). A városrégiók pozícionálásának eszközei Svájcban (Tools of the positioning of city regions in Switzerland). Hardi T., & Somlyódyné Pfeil, E. (eds.) Városfejlődési trendek és állami szerepek. A győri járműipari körzet, mint a térségi fejlesztés új iránya és eszköze c. kutatás monográfiái 2. Universitas-Győr Nonprofit Kft. 136-150.
    24. Somlyódyné Pfeil, E. (2010). Hungarian Public Service Reform: Multipurpose Microregional Associations. In: Swianiewicz, P. (ed.) Territorial Consolidation Reforms in Europe. Budapest: Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative Open Society Institute. 255-264.
    25. Pact of Amsterdam (2016). Urban Agenda for the EU. Agreed at the Informal Meeting of EU Ministers Responsible for Urban Matters on 30 May 2016 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Retrieved January 30, 2017 from http:/urbanagendaforthe.eu.
    26. Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020. (2011) Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions. Agreed at the Informal Meeting of EU Ministers Responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development on 19th May 2011. Gödöllő, Hungary. http://www.nweurope.eu/media/1216/territorial_agenda_2020.pdf.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content