DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism 2021, 13(2):101-124 | DOI: 10.32725/det.2021.015

Practical experiences, regulatory principles and issues of the territorial delimitation of development policy in Hungary

István Finta, Péter Dombi
Institute for Regional Studies, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies; Papnövelde u. 22., H -7621 Pécs, Hungary

Both at national and EU level, the differentiation of specific territorial units is a key issue in development policy. The objective of the delimitation at the highest legal level is to mitigate territorial differences; it is intended to provide support for the delimited (beneficiary) territorial units. Benefits (e.g. the rate and intensity of support) are fundamentally influenced by development and growth opportunities, so the methods and the results of delimitation are both politically and professionally sensitive. This is particularly important for rural areas and rural development, because the beneficiaries' delimitation - or lack thereof - is most affected by these regions. Hungary has been operating and developing a delimitation system since the '90s, the elements of which are at community level can serve as a model, and can be well-utilized. For this purpose, the paper presents the regulatory starting points and principles of spatial delimitation, the statistical methods used so far, the range of data used, and the problems that can be associated with the methods and data used so far. The authors propose a data set and a calculation method that more faithfully reflects the real situation of territorial development, which would enable development resources to better contribute to reducing territorial disparities.

Keywords: territorial-rural development, development policy, delimitation, beneficiary areas, development, backwardness

Published: October 1, 2021  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Finta, I., & Dombi, P. (2021). Practical experiences, regulatory principles and issues of the territorial delimitation of development policy in Hungary. DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism, 13(2), 101-124. doi: 10.32725/det.2021.015
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. Bakaric, I. R. (2005). Uncovering regional disparities - the use of factor and cluster analysis. Economic Trends and Economic Policy, 105, 52-77.
    2. Boldrin, M. P., & Canova F. (2001). Inequality and convergence in European regions: reconsidering European regional policies. Economic Policy. 16, 207-253. Go to original source...
    3. Booysen, F. (2002). An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development. Social Indicators Research, 59(2), 115-151. Go to original source...
    4. Bossel, H. (1996). Deriving indicators of sustainable development. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 1(4), 193-218. Go to original source...
    5. Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for sustainable development: Theory, method, applications. A report to the Balaton Group. International Institute for Sustainable Development.
    6. Copust, A. K., & Crabtree, J. R. (1996). Indicators of socio-economic sustainability: An application to remote rural Scotland, Journal of Rural Studies, 12, 41-54. Go to original source...
    7. Davies, R. (2014). Measuring well-being and progress: Looking beyond GDP, EPRS.
    8. Deakin R. E., Bird S. C., & Grenfell, R. I. (2002). The Centroid? Where would you like it to be?. Cartography, 31(2), 153-167. Go to original source...
    9. De Smedt, M. (2013). Measuring subjective issues of well-being and quality of life in the European statistical system, Social Indicators Research, 114(1), 153-167. DOI:10.1007/s11205-013-0389-5 Go to original source...
    10. Dhongde, S., & Haveman, R. (2015). Multi-dimensional poverty index: An application to the United States.
    11. Faluvégi, A., & Tipold, F. (2009). Kedvezményezett települések az új országgyűlési határozat mutatói alapján - próbaszámítás [Beneficiary settlements based on the indicators of the new parliamentary decision - trial calculation]. Területi Statisztika, 3, 264-279.
    12. Faluvégi, A,. & Tipold, F. (2012). A társadalmi, gazdasági és infrastrukturális szempontból elmaradott, illetve az országos átlagot jelentősen meghaladó munkanélküliséggel sújtott települések [Socially, economically and in infrastructural sense disadvantaged settlements and hit by unemployment significantly above the national average]. Területi Statisztika, 3, 278-290.
    13. Faluvégi, A. (1995). Az elmaradott térségek lehatárolásának módszerei [Methods for delimiting backward regions]. Statisztikai Szemle, 73.(7), 571-590.
    14. Farkas, S. (2018): Changing intermediary system of repayable EU Funds in Hungary (2007-2013, 2014-2020). Deturope, 10(3), 180-198. Go to original source...
    15. Foster J., & Sen, A. (1997). On economic inequality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    16. Gáspár, T. (2013): A regionális fejlesztés új megközelítésben [Regional development in a new approach]. Gazdálkodás. 58(1), 41-57.
    17. Hagerty, M. R., Cummins, R. A., Ferriss A. L., Land, K., Michalos, A. C., Peterson, M., Sharpe, A., Sirgy, J., & Vogel, J. (2001). Quality of life indexes for national policy: Review and agenda for research, Social Indicators Research, 55, 1-96. Go to original source...
    18. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Go to original source...
    19. Hák, T., & Janoušková, S. (2013). "Beyond GDP" indicators in the Czech Republic. Statistika, 93(2), 86-99.
    20. Harcsa, I. (2007). Magyarország a társadalmi jelzőszámok tükrében [Hungary in the mirror of social indicators]. In Kolosi, T.,Tóth, I. Gy., & Vukovich, Gy. (Eds.), Társadalmi riport. 2007 (pp. 471-498). Budapest: TÁRKI.
    21. Harcsa, I. (2014). I. A települések fejlettségét mérő mutatószámok. II. A települési-térségi sajátosságok és a család/háztartás szerkezet közötti kapcsolat [Indicators measuring the development level of settlements. II. Relationship between the local-regional characteristics and the family / household structure]. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. (Műhelytanulmányok).
    22. Huff, D. (1954). How to Lie with Statistics. New York: Norton.
    23. Jenkins, S. P., & Micklewright, J. (Eds.) (2007). Inequality and Poverty Re-Examined. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Go to original source...
    24. Koós, B. (2015). A szegénység és depriváció a magyar településállományban az ezredfordulót követően - avagy kísérlet a települési deprivációs index létrehozására [Poverty and deprivation in Hungarian settlements after the Millennium - an attempt at creating a rural deprivation index]. Tér és Társadalom, 29(1), 53-68. Go to original source...
    25. Kutscherauer, A., Fachinelli, H., Hučka, M., Skokan, K., Sucháček, J., Tománek, P., & Tuleja, P. (2010). Regional disparities in regional development of the Czech Republic. Technical University of Ostrava.
    26. Lepenies, P. (2016). The power of a single number : a political history of GDP. New York: Columbia University Press. Go to original source...
    27. Lipshitz, G. (1993). The main approaches to measuring regional development and welfare, Social Indicators Research, 29(2), 163-181. Go to original source...
    28. Mabogunje, A. L. (1980). The development process: A spatial perspective. London: Hutchinson.
    29. Marchante A. J., & Ortega, B. (2006). Quality of life and economic convergence across Spanish regions, 1980-2001, Regional Studies, 40(5), 471-483. DOI:10.1080/00343400600757460 Go to original source...
    30. MTA RKK, TERRA STÚDIÓ, VÁTI (1999). A kedvezményezett térségek besorolása feltételrendszerének felülvizsgálata. - Összefoglaló zárójelentés [Revision of the criteria for the classification of beneficiary areas. - Summarizing final report] (szerk. Csatári B.). Kecskemét: MTA RKK ATI.
    31. Nagy, A. (2011). A kedvezményezett térségek besorolásának alakulása, a lehatárolások módszertanának sajátosságai [The evolution of the classification of the beneficiary regions, the characteristics of the methodology of the delimitations]. In Területi Statisztika, 2, 148-160.
    32. Nemes Nagy, J. (1990). Területi kiegyenlítődés és differenciálódás Magyarországon [Territorial equalization and differentiation in Hungary]. Földrajzi Értesítő, 39(1-4), 133-149.
    33. OECD (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide, OECD.
    34. Özaslan, M., Dincer B., & Özgür, H. (2006). Regional disparities and territorial indicators in Turkey: Socio-Economic Development Index (SEDI), ERSA conference papers ersa06p858, European Regional Science Association.
    35. Pénzes, J. (2014). Periférikus térségek lehatárolása - dilemmák és lehetőségek [Delimiting peripheral areas - dilemmas and opportunities]. Debrecen: Didakt Kft.
    36. Pieterse, J. N. (2010). Development theory. London: Sage.
    37. Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 168(2), 307-323. Go to original source...
    38. Salamin, G., Kígyóssy, G., Borbély, M., Tafferner, B., Szabó, B., Tipold, F., & Péti. M. (2014). Az Országos Fejlesztési és Területfejlesztési Koncepció és a 2005-ös országos területfejlesztési koncepció érvényesítésének tapasztalatai [Experiences in the implementation of the National Development and Regional Development Concept and the 2005 National Regional Development Concept]. Falu, város, régió, 20(1), 5-24.
    39. Salvatia, L., Zittia, M., & Carlucci, M. (2016). In-between regional disparities and spatial heterogeneity: a multivariate analysis of territorial divides in Italy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60, 997-1015. Go to original source...
    40. Scherbov, S., & Ediev, D. (2011). Significance of life table estimates for small populations: Simulation-based study of estimation errors. Demographic Research, 24, 527-550. Go to original source...
    41. Sen, A. (1987). The Standard of living. (Hawthorne G). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Go to original source...
    42. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: A. A. Knopt.
    43. Simó, B., Gordos, T., & Józsa, V. (2018), Regional instititutions at the doorstep of post 2020 cohesion policy - status report from Hungary. Deturope, 10(3) 14-32. Go to original source...
    44. Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit (2017). Chances of Effective Urban Policy in Hungary Under the Influence of the European Cohesion Policy. Deturope, 9(3), 141-161. Go to original source...
    45. Stamenković, M., & Savić, M. (2017). Measuring regional economic disparities in Serbia: Multivariate statistical approach. Industrija, 45, 101-130. Go to original source...
    46. Stiglitz, J. E., & Walsh, C. E. (2006). Economics. 4th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
    47. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J-P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/8131721/8131772/Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi-Commission-report.pdf
    48. The lagging regions report, Submitted by: Applica sprl, Cambridge Econometrics, wiiw, April 2017.
    49. UN (2003). Indicators for monitoring the Millennium Development Goals. UN, New York.
    50. Vrtenová L., Sobotka, M., & Malá, L. (2009). Measurement of regional disparities and economic competitiveness of regions.
    51. Widuto, A. (2016). Beyond GDP: Global and regional development indicators, EPRS.
    52. Wishlade, F., & Yuill D. (1997) Measuring disparities for area designation purposes: Issues for the European Union. University of Strathclyde.

    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