DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism 2015, 7(2):28-44 | DOI: 10.32725/det.2015.014

Regional Development Trends and the Regional Development Institutions in the Visegrad Countries - Enabling or Hindering Institutional Environment?

György Nagyházi
Szent Istvan University, Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, Address: 17, Budai Nagy Antal Street 2890, Tata, Hungary

Keywords: Regional Development, Institutions, Regional Disparities, Subsidiarity

Different regional development patterns and processes have emerged in the Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) since their accession into the European Union, in the past ten years. The reasons behind these different regional development trajectories mostly have been contributed quite rightly to the economic transformation processes where these post-socialist countries have to reorganize and to reconstruct their economies.
The aim of this paper is to highlight the possible linkages between the individual countries' particular central and territorial development institutional settings with the different regional development process trajectories: the two types of regional development systems in the Visegrad countries (centralized and decentralized) and the two main regional development processes (growing and non-growing regional disparities).

Published: July 31, 2015  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Nagyházi, G. (2015). Regional Development Trends and the Regional Development Institutions in the Visegrad Countries - Enabling or Hindering Institutional Environment? DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism, 7(2), 28-44. doi: 10.32725/det.2015.014
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. Bache, I. (2010): Europeanization and multi-level governance: EU cohesion policy and pre-accession aid in Southeast Europe, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2010, 1-12 Go to original source...
    2. Báger, G., Pulay, Gy. & Vígvári, A., (2010): A magyar államműködés főbb jellemzői és szükséges átalakítási irányai (The Main Characteristics of the Hungarian State's Operation and the Possible Directions for Restructuring). Pénzügyi Szemle, 2010/2., 217-242.
    3. Baun, M., & Marek, J. (2006): Regional Policy and Decentralization in the Czech Republic, Regional and Federal Studies, Vol. 16 no. 4., 409-428. Go to original source...
    4. Capello, R., & Peruccia, G (2013) Do Eastern European Regions Move Towards and Endogenous Growth Pattern? A Diachronic Perspective of Regional Success Factors, WP-1 Task 3. Politecnico di Milano Go to original source...
    5. European Commission (2010): Investing in Europe's Future - Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial, European Commission, Bruxelles
    6. Blazek, J. (2002): System of Czech Local Governmental Financing as a Framework for Local Development: 12 Years of Trial and Error Approach. Acta Universitatis Carolinae 2002 Geographica No. 2., 154-177. Prague
    7. Brusis, M. (2003): Regionalisation in the Czech and Slovak Republics: Comparing the Influence of the European Union; (The Regional Challenge in Central and Eastern Europe, Territorial Restructuring and European Integration). Paris, Presses Interuniversitaires Européennes/Peter Lang 2003: 89-105.
    8. Bruszt, L. (2007): Multi-Level Governance - The Eastern Versions Emerging Patterns of Regional Developmental Governance in the New Member States. European University Institute, EUI Working Papers, SPS 2007/13., San Domenico di Fiesole
    9. Bruszt, L. (2008) Multi-level Governance - the Eastern Versions: Emerging Patterns of Regional Developmental Governance in the New Member States, Regional and Federal Studies, Vol.: 18, No. pp.:607-627 October 2008 Go to original source...
    10. Camagni, R. (2009). Territorial capital and regional development. In: (Capello, R. - Nijkamp, P. ed.) Handbook or regional growth and development theories. Northampton, MA. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 118-132.
    11. Dabrowski, M. (2007), Implementing Structural Funds in Poland: Institutional Change and Participation of the Civil Society. Political Perpectives, 2007. Vol 1 (2)
    12. European Commission (2014): Country Fact Sheet: Polska. Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy Analysis Unit, June 2014. Bruxelles
    13. European Commission (2014): Country Fact Sheet: Slovensko. Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy Analysis Unit, June 2014. Bruxelles
    14. European Commission (2014): Country Fact Sheet: Magyarország. Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy Analysis Unit. 2014. Bruxelles
    15. European Commission (2014): Country Fact Sheet: Ceska Republika. Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy Analysis Unit, June 2014. Bruxelles
    16. Kulesza, M. (2002): The Polish Experience. (in: Mastering Decentralization and Public Administration Reform in Central and Eastern Europe ed. by Péteri, G.), Open Society Institute, Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, Budapest, 189-214
    17. Lóránd, B. (2009), A fejlesztéspolitika sikerességét elősegítő tényezők és a kohéziós országok tapasztalatai Magyarország számára. (Factors Supporting the Success of Development Policy and Experiences of Cohesion Countries for Hungary.) Tér és Társadalom, XXIII/2., 213-224. Go to original source...
    18. Lux, G. (2013): Kritikus tömeg alatt: a fejlesztési együttműködés lehetőségei a kisebb nagyvárosokban. (Below the critical mass: developmental cooperation in minor cities.) Tér és Társadalom, 27. évf., 4. szám., 52-74. Go to original source...
    19. McMaster, I. (2004): From Regional Deficit to Institutional Overload? - Regional Policy in the Czech Republic. European Policy Research Paper, Number 52, European Policies Research Centre University of Strathclyde, Glasgow
    20. McMaster I. & Novotny V. & Polverari Ch. (2005): Slovakia, Benchmarking Regional Policy in Europe, University of Strathclyde, European Policy Research Centre, Glasgow; http://www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/benchmarking2/documents/Slovakia.pdf
    21. Mezei C. & Schmidt A. (2013) A lengyel regionális politika és intézményei (Polish regional policy and institutions) Tér és Társadalom / Space and Society 27. évf., 3. szám, 2013 109-124 Go to original source...
    22. Michalek, A. & Podolák, P. (2011), Impact of Key Socio-Economic Disparities on Migration in Slovakia: Economic Diversification vs. Traditional Pattern. European Spatial Research and Policy, 2011. Vol 18. No. 1., 71-87. Go to original source...
    23. http://www.mir.gov.pl/english/Strony/main_mrr_eng.aspx
    24. http://www.mmr.cz/en/Ministerstvo/Ministerstvo
    25. http://www.telecom.gov.sk/index/index.php
    26. Neuman-S &, Neuman M. (2010) Domestic Preference Formation in the Czech Republic vis-á-vis the EU's Foreign and Regional Policy: Polycentrism or Statecentrism? Paper presented at the Fifth Pan-European Conference on EU Politics, 23-26 June 2010. University of Oporto and University of Fernando Pessoa, Porto
    27. North, D. C. (1994), Economic Performance Through Time; The American Economic Review, Vol 84. No. 3. pp. 359-368.
    28. OECD (2008): Territorial Reviews - Poland. OECD, Paris
    29. OECD (2014): Regions at a Glance. OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/regions-at-a-glance.htm
    30. OECD LEED (2012): Delivering Local Development Review to Assess the Efficiency of the Regional Development Agencies Integrated Network of the Slovak Republic. OECD LEED Working Papers 2012/16.
    31. Ostrom, E., & Ahn, T. K. (2007): The Meaning of Social Capital and its Linkto Collective Action, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington W/07-19.
    32. Pálné Kovács, I. (2004): A regionális gazdaságfejlesztés igazgatási összefüggései. (The Connection between Regional Economic Development and Public Administration.) in: Pálné Kovács, I. szerk: Versenyképesség és igazgatás. MTA RKK, Pécs, 11-34.
    33. Pálné Kovács I. (2013): Miért hagytuk, hogy így legyen? A területi decentralizációs reformok Magyarországon. (Why we have let this happen? The Regional Decentralization Processes in Hungary.) Politikatudományi Szemle, XXII/4 pp., 7-34.
    34. Perger, É. (2009): EU kohéziós támogatások felhasználásának intézményrendszere és a forrásfelhasználás hatékonysága, eredményessége, (The institutional system and the effectiveness of using the EU cohesion funds) EcoStat, Budapest.
    35. Perger, É. (2010): Az "Alapok" mellé épült ház. Az EU támogatásokkal kapcsolatos intézményrendszer a magyar közigazgatási struktúrában. (The House Built Next to its Foundation, The EU Funds' Management System in the Hungarian Public Administration Structures.) in: Szigeti E (szerk.): "NYAKTAGI tanulmányok. Kitekintés a közigazgatás működésének jogi, szervezeti és térszerkezeti kereteire". ECOSTAT, időszaki-közlemények 36. Budapest, 245-338
    36. Perger, É. (2010): Az EU kohéziós politika kormányzati irányításának magyar sajátosságai (The Peculiarities of the EU Cohesions Funds' Hungarian Governance System) Tér és Társadalom 24:(1) pp. 119-136. (2010) Go to original source...
    37. Rechnitzer J. & Smahó M. (2011): Területi Politika. (Territorial Politics) Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
    38. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2010): Do institutions matter for regional development? Working Papers 2010-02, Instituto Madrileño de Estudios Avanzados (IMDEA) Ciencias Sociales. Madrid
    39. ©umpíková, M., Pavel, J., & Klazar, S. (2004, May). EU funds: absorption capacity and effectiveness of their use, with focus on regional level in the Czech Republic. In Conference on Problems Facing the New Member States. Conference proceedings of the 12th NISPAcee Conference. Available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/nispacee/unpan018547.pdf
    40. Tóth Balázs István (2012), Regionális rugalmasság - rugalmas régiók, (Regional Resilience - Resilent Regions) Tér és Társadalom 26/2. pp. 3-21. Go to original source...
    41. Vígvári, A. (2008): Szubszidiaritás nélküli decentralizáció néhány adalék az önkormányzati rendszer magyar modelljének korszerűsítéséhez. (Decentralization without Subsidiarity, Some Datums for the Modernization of the Hungarian Local Governmental Finances) Tér és Társadalom, XXII. évf. 2008/1., 141-167. Go to original source...
    42. Weingast, B.R. (1995): The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development, The Journal of Law Economics and Organization, Vol. 11. Issue: 1. pp.: 1-31.
    43. Wostner, P. (2008): The Micro-efficiency of EU Cohesion Policy European Policy Research Centre, European Policy Research Paper 64. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. 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