DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism 2018, 10(3):14-32 | DOI: 10.32725/det.2018.021

Regional Institutions at the Doorstep of post 2020 Cohesion Policy - Status Report from Hungary

Balázs Simóa, Tamás Gordosb, Viktória Józsac,*
a Hungarian Development Center, 1027 Budapest, 14-24 Horvát str.
b Pro Régió Agency, 1146 Budapest, Hermina út 17
c Nord Consult Ltd. 1106 Budapest, 45 Jászberényi Road

Keywords: Regionalism, Post-2020 cohesion policy, Public administration, Capacity development, Networking

'My Region, My Europe, Our Future' (EC, 2017). This is the main message of the Seventh Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion. In the post 2020 period, the European Commission continues to focus on the compliance with challenges of the knowledge-based economy, and in parallel, stands for a strong territorial approach and increased synergy and coordination of the connected sectoral financial means and measures. The question is if Member States are ready to face the challenges that are specified in the report, such as digital revolution, globalisation, demographic change and social cohesion, economic convergence and climate change. In connection to this basic question, our paper aims to provide an overview about the evolution - rise and fall - of the Hungarian regional level (NUTS2) institutions with a strong emphasis on the state-of-the art, especially regarding administrative capacities. Desk research focused on the era between 1990-2015, while empirical research - in the form of a questionnaire - was conducted in 2017 and 2018 amongst former employees of the former regional development agencies. As there are no institutionalized actors at regional level in Hungary responsible for the implementation of Cohesion Policy any more - with the exception of Central Hungary, that is currently under re-formulation - we hypothesize that former(?) regional development professionals as individuals could play an important role in the preparations for the post-2020 financial period. In case they are involved…

Published: October 31, 2018  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Simó, B., Gordos, T., & Józsa, V. (2018). Regional Institutions at the Doorstep of post 2020 Cohesion Policy - Status Report from Hungary. DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism, 10(3), 14-32. doi: 10.32725/det.2018.021
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. Bachtler, J., & McMaster, I. (2007). EU Cohesion policy and the role of the regions: investigating the influence of Structural Funds in the new member states [Pdf]. Glasgow: The University of Stratchclyde. Retrieved from http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/7811/(16.05.2018.)
    2. Baker Tilly Hungária Könyvvizsgáló Kft. (2014). A Nemzeti Fejlesztési Ügynökség és a Közreműködő Szervezetek közötti elszámolások felülvizsgálatának összefoglaló jelentése. [Summary report regarding the audit of the clearing between the National Development Agency and the Intermediary Bodies.]
    3. Blazek, J., & Vozáb, J. (2006). Ex-ante evaluation in the new member states: the case of the Czech Republic. Regional Studies, 40(2), 237-248. Go to original source...
    4. Cooke, P., & Laurentis, C. D. (2010). Trends and drivers of knowledge economy. P. Cooke, C. D. Laurentis, C. Collinge, & S. Macneill (Eds.), Platforms of Innovation: Dynamics of New Industrial Knowledge Flows (pp. 1-26). London: Edward Elgar. Go to original source...
    5. Crevoisier, O., & Jeannerat, H. (2009). Territorial knowledge dynamics: from the proximity paradigm to multi-location milieus. European Planning Studies, 17(8), 1223-1232. Go to original source...
    6. Dabrowski, M. (2013). EU cohesion policy, horizontal partnership and the patterns of sub-national governance: Insights from Central and Eastern Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 21(4), 364-383. Go to original source...
    7. EGTC (2009). The European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC): state of play and prospects [Pdf]. Retrieved from http://cor.europa.eu/en/documentation/studies/Documents/EGTC-state-of-play/EGTC-state_of_play_and_prospects_EN.pdf
    8. Gordos, T. (2009). A területfejlesztés intézményrendszerének és eszközeinek fejlődése és problémái, régiós szemszögből. In: Falu, Város, Régió 2009(3), 88-92.
    9. Halkier, H., & Danson, M. (1996). Regional Development Agencies in Western Europe: A Survey of Key Characteristics and Trends. Aalborg University: Department of History, International and Social Studies, Aalborg University.
    10. Halkier, H., Danson, M., & Damborg, C. (1998). Regional Development agencies in Europe (pp. 13-25). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Regional Policy and Development Series No. 21.
    11. Halkier, H., Danson, M., & Bellini, N. (2012). Regional Development agencies: towards a new generation? In Bellini, N., Danson, N. & Halkier, H. (Eds.), Regional Development Agencies: The Next Generation? London: Routledge
    12. Józsa, V. (2016). Regional Processes In Hungary - From Phare To Smart Specialisation, Deturope - The Central European Journal Of Regional Development And Tourism, 8(3), 14-32. Go to original source...
    13. Kirchner, E.J. (1999). Decentralization and Transition in the Visegrad Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Basingstoke: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin's Press. Go to original source...
    14. Kovács, R. (2007). Helyzetjelentés a Közép-Magyarországi Régióról. [Status Report about the Central-Hungary Region). In T. Kaiser, A. Ágh, & J. Kis-Varga (Eds.), A régiók Magyarországa I. A regionális intézményrendszer körvonalai (pp. 157-218). Budapest: MTA Szociológiai Kutatóintézet.
    15. Miniszterelnöki Hivatal (2003). Ex-ante értékelés - Regionális Fejlesztési Program 2004-2006. [Ex-ante evaluation of the Regional Development Programme 2004-2006] Budapest: Nemzeti Területfejlesztési Hivatal. Retrieved from www.nefmi.gov.hu/download.php?docID=290
    16. Nagyházi, G. (2015). Regional development trends and the regional development institutions in the Visegrad countries - enabling or hindering institutional environment? DETUROPE, 7(2), 28-44. Go to original source...
    17. Nemec, J., & Matejová, L. (2014). Decentralisation and Quality of Governance: Selected Issues from the Czech and Slovak Republic. BULLETIN OF TARAS SHEVCHENKO NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF KYIV. ECONOMICS, Kyjev: Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Neuveden, 26-33. Go to original source...
    18. Nemzeti Fejlesztési és Gazdasági Minisztérium (2009). A hazai területfejlesztési és támogatási rendszer átfogó értékelése (1996-2008). [Comprehensive evaluation of the domestic territorial development system (1996-2008.] Budapest: NFGM.
    19. Palermo, F., & Parolari, S. (2013). Regional Dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe, New Approaches to Decentralization. Leiden, Boston. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN: 978-90-04-24231-9 (e-book) Go to original source...
    20. Pálmai, É. (2014). Evaluation of using EU funding sources in the Regional Operative Programmes DETUROPE, 6(3), 85-96. Go to original source...
    21. Pálné Kovács, I. (2003). A területfejlesztés irányítása. [The governance of territorial development.] Pécs: Pécsi Tudományegyetem Közgazdaság-tudományi Kar, Regionális Politika és Gazdaságtan Doktori Iskola.
    22. Pálné Kovács, I. (2015). AER Study on the state of regionalism in Europe. Country report on Hungary. Pécs: Institute for Regional Studies.
    23. Pálné Kovács, I. (2016). A magyar területi közigazgatási reformok főbb állomásai. [Major milestones of the Hungarian public administrative reform.] In I. Pálné Kovács (Ed.), A magyar decentralizáció kudarca nyomában (pp. 73-85). Pécs: Dialóg Campus Kiadó.
    24. Rechnitzer, J. (2012). A területi politika és az új állam. [The territorial policy and the new state.] MRTT conference, Győr.
    25. Yoder, J. A. (2003). Decentralisation and Regionalisation after Communism: Administrative and Territorial Reform in Poland and the Czech Republic. Europe Asia Studies, 55(2), 263-286. Go to original source...

    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