Regional development prior to the eu accession
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•306 views
Матеріали проекту «Аналітична підтримка економічних реформ у регіонах України в умовах європейської інтеграції»
More Related Content
More from Olya Rys
More from Olya Rys (10)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Regional development prior to the eu accession
- 1. Regional Development in Hungary Prior to the EU Accession Ms. Annamária Kékesi International Centre for Democratic Transition 2015 March
- 2. Hungary in the region of Central-Eastern Europe
- 3. Hungary – General Information • Area: 93.030 km2 (HU) / 603.500 km2 (UA) • Population: 9.87 million / 44.21 million • Ethnic majority: 83,7% ethnic Hungarian (2011 data) / 77,8% ethnic Ukrainian (2001 data) • No. of regions: 19 counties / 27 regions-oblasts • Memberships: – Council of Europe- 1990 / 1995 – WTO – 1995 / 2008 – NATO - 1999 / - – European Union/Schengen state – 2004 / -
- 4. Historical Background • No historical trace of regionalism in Hungary • Ordinary sub-state units: counties (19+1) • Socialist era reinforces centralization efforts • 1989-90: Constitutional guarantee of county independence • 2013: Legal reform of local governments – Loss of independence / financial competence
- 5. Timeframe of regional development 1989 - Constitutional guarantee of loc. gvts. 1991 - Association Agreement of Hungary 1996 - Legal Framework of Regional Politics – Act XXI. 1998 - Introduction of the NUTS system 2004 – EU Accession (Pre-association funds stop, EU cohesion funds start) 2004-2006 – First National Development Plan (NFT I.) 2013 – Reform of local governments
- 6. General Challenges Hungary is Facing 1. Extreme inequality between Budapest – Countryside 2. Stagnating unemployment rate 3. Aging society 4. Low level of private investments in underdeveloped regions
- 7. Map of counties and density of population
- 8. Unemployment rate of Hungary (2013)
- 9. The NUTS system • NUTS: Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics – the introduction is obligatory for EU members • The system consists of 5 levels – NUTS I: 3 regions – NUTS II: 7 planning-statistical units – NUTS III: 19 counties – NUTS IV: 174 minor areas – NUTS V: ~3100 settlements, towns, cities
- 10. NUTS I. map
- 11. NUTS II. map
- 12. NUTS III. map
- 13. Chronology of NUTS extension in Hungary • NUTS II. – The basis of EU fund allocation • 1996 – Regional development law – councils • 1999 – Amendment of the law to increase the influence of the regions (NUTS II.) • Annual country reports compiled by the EU • General aim: NUTS II. instead of III.
- 14. Pre-Accession Funds • PHARE (Poland and Hungary Assistance with Restructuring the Economy • ISPA ((Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession) • SAPARD (Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development) • Their purpose was to introduce EU funding systems and to prepare regions for Cohesion Funds
- 15. Hungarian Experiences with Pre-Accession Funds • PHARE – most successful, but complicated application procedure • SAPARD – unpredictable, regions could not accomodate themselves to it • ISPA – too large initiatives • Generally: too much erroneous applications, but successfully „rehearsal” of EU funding • Importance of SME (small-middle enterprises) support
- 16. How to prepare for • Bureaucracy • Corruption • Proposal and tender writing • Project management
- 18. Thank you for your attention!
Editor's Notes
- The purpose of my presentation is to provide a brief summary of the regional development history of Hungary. Followed by the general description of the county, the presentation will present the challenges of regional development along with the most important milestones if regionalism
- This is just a kick-off map to demonstrate the key location of Hungary within Europe and the European Union, which ultimately determines the interests of the country, as well as the means to achieve its goals.
- Magyarázat: fekete: magyar számadat, piros az ukrán Based on development experiences, picking the appropriate development strategy for the country is ultimately determined by its features. Area is much smaller, and the state structure is much more centralized The population is more homogenous, which determines that development goals will not be affected by different development orientations of certain regions based on ethnicity, or even language differences If you look at the dates of accessions (Ukrainian dates in brackets) – you can see how deep-rooted Hungary’s presence is in certain cases, compared to Ukraine Important to mention, that Hungary’s goals and also obigations are defined by the existing memberships (the freedom is somewhat limited)
- Traditionally Hungary was extremely centralized, it has never been a federal state The latest experiences of state-reforms include the socialist (1949, extreme centralization) and the post-socialist (1989- constituency liberalization to some extent) In 2010, the governing party coalition called Fidesz-Christian Democratic People’s Party won by 2/3 majority, implying the possibility of a comperhensive state reform – it is important to list the new regulations, to describe how the system worked between 1990-2013 The new law on local governments came to power in 2013, and its main features are: strenghtening the „commanding” role of ministries budgetary planning / loan needs ministerial approval the wealth of the local government is now PART of the state wealth (before it was separated) previously the roles of the local government (maintenance of certain institutions or services) were strictly described, after 2013 the local government can indicate its willingness to manage that issue but is not obliged to local government funding is now basically state approved and state provided the role of local mayors has increased in decision-making
- In terms of regional development policy, we can categorize the eras based on their attitude: 1989-1996 – The period before the „Law on Regional Politics” can be considered as unsystematic, too bureaucratic. The state did not have any strategy with regions and no policy to implement in them 1996-2004 – The law on local governments and the era of „preparation for the EU” 2004-2013 – Implementation of the European Regional Policy and the extension of „local governmental policies” 2013 – New Local Government Regulation: in 2010, the governing party coalition called Fidesz-Christian Democratic People’s Party won by 2/3 majority, implying the possibility of a comperhensive state reform – it is important to list the new regulations, to describe how the system worked between 1990-2013 EZT FONTOS LENNE FELSOROLNI, HOGY ÉPÜLT LE AZ ÖNKORMÁNYZATISÁG A 2013-as TÖRVÉNNYEL: The new law on local governments came to power in 2013, and its main features are: strenghtening the „commanding” role of ministries budgetary planning / loan needs ministerial approval the wealth of the local government is now PART of the state wealth (before it was separated) previously the roles of the local government (maintenance of certain institutions or services) were strictly described, after 2013 the local government can indicate its willingness to manage that issue but is not obliged to local government funding is now basically state approved and state provided the role of local mayors has increased in decision-making
- 1. The extreme inequality also refers to: population distribution of capital investments (Budapest attracts the most) distribution of prestigious universities, thus intellectuals complete immobility of Hungarians within the country allocation of EU funds (since Budapest exceeds EU average, is entitled to a minimum 2. Unemployment rate is maintained through state-labour, which does not reflect real labour market relations (közmunkások számával való kozmetikázás) 3. The aging tendency of Hungary is a nationwide problem effecting social welfare (with 1.3 child rate/couple the population is decreasing) and also certain non-urban regions are determined to disappear (az elöregedő falvak problémája, ahonnan elvándorolnak a fiatalok) 4. Due to its unattractive features, Hungarian regions that are in serious need of development funds, can only rely on Hungarian State or EU funds (felzárkóztatásba a régiók versenyképtelensége miatt csak állami/EU-s forrásokat lehet irányítani, magánbefektetést nem)
- Magától értetődő, egy szemléltető térkép arról, hogy mekkora vízfej Budapest és egyes megyeszékhelyek a többi kárára.
- Probably the most serious challenge that Hungary needs to overcome is the structure of unemployment. As the map indicates, the most prosperous regions are Budapest and North-Western Hungary in that sense. Legend is a comparison to the national average of unemployment rate Blue = the unemployment rate is lower than the average White = average Yellow = higher than the average
- - To put it simple: EU prefers the NUTS II system when it comes to regional development