Discussion Papers 2006. No. 48.
Changes in The Organisational Framework of
Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
CENTRE FOR REGIONAL STUDIES
OF HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
DISCUSSION PAPERS
No. 48
Changes in The Organisational
Framework of Cooperation Within
Urban Areas in Hungary
by
Edit SOMLYÓDYNÉ PFEIL
Series editor
Zoltán GÁL
Pécs
2006
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 48.
Changes in The Organisational Framework of
Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
ISSN 0238–2008
ISBN 963 9052 55 8
2006 by Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Technical editor: Ilona Csapó.
Printed in Hungary by Sümegi Nyomdaipari, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató
Ltd., Pécs.
2
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 48.
Changes in The Organisational Framework of
Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
CONTENTS
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5
1 Retrospective situation analysis...................................................................................... 7
2 Tendencies to change in Hungarian public administration-related areas...................... 11
3 Basic factors of public administration in the micro-regions ......................................... 14
4 The broader interconnections of public service reform ................................................ 19
5 Relation of medium-sized urban areas to the new public administration structure ...... 22
6 Budapest, Hungary’s sole metropolitan area ................................................................ 25
7 Case study based on the example of the Budaörs micro-region ................................... 30
7.1 The basic features of the statistical micro-region ................................................. 30
7.2 Budaörs as centre of the micro-region – public services map of the micro-
region .................................................................................................................... 34
7.3 Vision of the development of the Budaörs micro-region within the
framework of cooperation..................................................................................... 37
7.4 The importance of public administration structures to building spatial
relations in an agglomeration-based micro-region................................................ 41
8 Comparative analysis of three agglomeration-type micro-regions ............................... 42
9 Responses of regional policy and planning to the development needs of the urban
network ......................................................................................................................... 53
10 Elements in approaches to the future institutionalisation of urban areas...................... 57
References .......................................................................................................................... 61
3
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 48.
Changes in The Organisational Framework of
Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
List of figures
Figure 1
The regional locations of the Gyır, Miskolc and Pécs agglomerations .......... 43
Figure 2
The relationship of the three examined agglomerational regions
to the borders of the statistical micro-regions .................................................. 49
List of tables
Table 1
A comparison of the delineation of agglomerations and statistical micro-
regions according to the number of settlements in 2003 ................................. 24
Table 2
Certain demographic characteristics of the micro-region of Budaörs,
2003 ................................................................................................................ 32
Table 3
The presence of state institutions, determining the micro-regional
sphere of activity in the towns of the Budaörs micro-region .......................... 36
Table 4a
The amount of income (personal income tax base) per capita at current
prices in the examined micro-regions ............................................................. 44
Table 4b
The estimated value of the gross regional value added percapita at
current prices in the examined micro-region................................................... 45
Table 4c
Balance of migration per 1,000 population in the examined micro-
regions............................................................................................................. 46
Table 5
The size of the examined agglomerations and their relation to the
statistical micro-regions .................................................................................. 47
Table 6
Principal tasks of the three micro-regional associations ................................. 52
4
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
Introduction
It is quite often said of the new EU member-states in the Central and Eastern Euro-
pean area, that they possess neither a national urban policy, nor a policy aiming to
integrate the urban areas. Urban areas, however, do not mean conflict or obstacles;
on the contrary, they create opportunities and bridges for development. Undoubt-
edly, the dimensions of city development are widened, and the towns have to be
positioned less within a national hierarchy of towns, but rather in a widened eco-
nomic area, and their place and role will be examined in a European context. Since
the towns are still critical places concerning their identity, acting and decision-
making, simultaneously, they are extremely important for the national economy
(Parkinson, 2005).
In our globalised life, the urban areas more often emerge as places of economic
activity competing with each other. In the case of metropolitan areas, it is evident
that the city centre can form an economic area with an important role only together
with its region. Small- and medium-sized towns can be competitive with metro-
politan areas if they unite their forces in a network and abandon competition (at
least in certain fields of cooperation and common interest). Despite the changing
environment, we can say that the horizontal cooperation of local governments will
play an important role in the development of the network of towns and urban areas.
However, we must add, that the international experience also underlines something
which is especially true in the case of Hungary, that the ways of inter-settlement
cooperation can be formed with the greatest difficulty in respect of urban areas,
since the local authorities have no confidence in each other, all parties being afraid
that the other party will take unreasonable advantage (Jänke–Gawron, 2000).
According to the opinion of the European Union regarding its member-states,
we can talk of uniformity in administrative areas, but not in the implementation of
compulsory norms. The strict rules for using Structural Funds, the main method of
implementation of the Cohesion Policy of the EU, strongly influence national ad-
ministrative institutional systems. In this way, the three priorities defined by the
European Commission (the EC) in the Third Cohesion Report (European Commis-
sion, 2004), for the further development of Cohesion Policy after 2006, as Conver-
gence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment and Territorial Cooperation are
unarguable. In connection with the last, the vision of the EC to be implemented in
the near future, that is, the smooth and balanced integration of the territory of the
Union, will give a primary role to cooperation, network-development and the ex-
change of experience covering regions and urban settlements in the next phase of
planning from 2007 to 2013.
The EC also calls our attention to the importance of strengthening regional co-
hesion – which is supported by the specific geographical location of towns. City
networks are driving forces in regional development, although we can conclude
5
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
that, with the exception of the metropolitan areas of Europe, the expected coopera-
tion network of the large and smaller urban settlements has not yet developed.
Moreover, among the newly acceded 10 member-states, the network-demanding
strategic cooperation between small and medium-sized towns exists exclusively in
the Czech Republic and in Slovakia (European Commission, 2004, p. 29.).
A widespread theory in political science is that, alongside the traditional forms
of governance, i.e. market and hierarchy, cooperation has emerged as a new form
(Powel, 1996). We are witnessing the evolution of cooperation (Fürst, 1994), the
incentives for the development of institutional frameworks and networks, which
are the sole responsibility of the given nation through appropriate state policies. At
the same time, the administration opens itself towards both the economic and non-
profit sectors, from which it expects to raise additional resources to achieve its
goals. This strategy is especially a characteristic of the cooperation of small and
medium-sized towns, so as to be able to compete with the metropolitan areas. Their
final expectations are that the organisation of public services and the local
governmental economic incentives should become more effective. This is why it is
more often expected from local authorities that they should play the role of the
engine of economic growth and sustainable development.
Based on this, this study focuses on the issue of the extent to which the Hun-
garian town- or city-network in general, and the four agglomeration areas chosen
as a subject of the study, possess institutions complying with the new challenges of
European urban development. Today, important questions are: In what kind of
context is the cooperation of urban regions translated? Should a town or city be
treated as a region? How developed is the organisational framework of network
cooperation? The approximation of this subject takes place primarily from the
point of view of territorial or regional sciences and the administration organisation,
since it is a generally accepted theory nowadays that good governance and
effective institutional structures mean an important source of development of re-
gional competitiveness. From this point of view, it is important what kind of possi-
bilities and opportunities the Hungarian towns possess, including the atmosphere
created by the new administration reform, and the revitalised culture of horizontal
cooperation.
6
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
1 Retrospective situation analysis
Fifteen years have passed since the Regime Change and the new Act on Local
Government – and the announcement of a structured urban policy in Hungary has
still not taken place. A key to the incentive of socio-economic development, with
the popular term competitiveness, would be a governed, but at least an oriented
urban development, and not to use this tool would reduce the country’s chances
when it tries to catch up with the European mainstream. We have to accept that
Hungary’s accession to the European Union means that its urban network became
part of the so-called European City Competition in all aspects, and to cope with
these challenges, administration and territorial development must have appropriate
answers.
At the end of 2004, of the total number (3,145) of settlements, 274 were ranked
as a town, meaning that the ratio of urban inhabitants was 74.9% in Hungary
(Magyar Köztársaság Helységnévkönyve, 2004). This high proportion is a result of
the dynamic process of town ranking started in 1990, since on the first of January
1990, the country had 166 towns. In the 15 years which have passed since the
change of regime, this number has increased by 61%, the development path mainly
covering quantitative change. The aim of reducing the number of non-urban areas
has not been linked to planned urban development, and, consequently, settlements
unprepared to be regional centres (and often with a rural character) have become
towns in recent years. Therefore, to achieve town rank can be regarded as no more
than a formal administrative act, with no quality requirements.
The incorporation of city and its suburb into the administrative structure as a
planning-development-administrative unit did not succeed historically, but this
does not mean that there were no intentions towards the institutionalisation of the
city and its region as a functional unit. From the beginning of the 20th century, sev-
eral experts in the field of administrative studies worked out modern theories to
resolve this problem, though no-one could expect practical implementation. How-
ever, there was a short period in the era of state socialism, when the so-called sub-
urban-administration system temporarily functioned. The introduction of the sub-
urban model was connected to the formation of the two-level administrative system
from the traditional three-level system. The termination of the district, as a low-
meso-level unit, has been followed by the decentralisation of administration, al-
though the increase of independence and of the powers of the local administration
units took place continuously. The towns were involved so as to be prepared for
increased tasks, and, therefore, the concept of the complex suburban area was
transformed into a structure dominated by administration. Within the framework of
the suburban administrative system, the city and the village had a supervisory type
of (subordinated) relationship, while the synchronised planning and development
of suburban areas was neither assisted by a developed organisational authorisation,
7
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
nor by a financial background. Despite this, the suburban model was introduced in
the country generally in 1984, by the formation of 139 administrative areas. In the
meantime, research (Beluszky, 1987) revealed that the suburban-type relations (so-
cial, economic, public-utility, employment, communication that are mutually
strong) were characteristic of only 55% of the territory of the country at that time.
This explains why only 105 suburban areas and only 34 large village areas were
formed.
Although the suburban system had a short life-span and could not develop
within the framework of a socialist state, it still plays an important role in imple-
menting the idea of unification of urban and suburban areas and in helping to take
the first steps towards cooperation among the local authorities. It is unfortunate that
the new state born of the change of regime, in one of its first and most important
legislative products, the Act on Local Government, simply does not take into con-
sideration the regional role of towns and the administration-related connections of
suburban zone relations.
Thanks to the above, an effective regulation-related view of the towns has not
been worked out specially, neither from an administrative, nor from a territorial
development point of view. Primarily, the Constitution provides for the territorial
formation of the Republic of Hungary, dividing the country to the capital, towns,
counties, villages, and still further, the capital itself into districts. The Constitution
does not contain detailed rules concerning towns. Whilst, according to Act LXV of
1990 on Local Government, the urban and rural local authorities are equal in re-
spect of their legal status, the government makes no distinction between the mu-
nicipal rights to which they are entitled – following European traditions. The prin-
ciple of differentiated delegated powers favours the larger and more effective local
authorities, since these – primarily, towns – are authorized to carry out more tasks
with greater powers, although theses tasks (transferred to them by the state) are
expressly administrative and authority-type powers and have no connection with
municipal autonomy, since they are conferred upon the leaders of local authorities
which were designated centrally.
The town and country development decisions mean the core of the – rather short
– regulations concerning urban local authorities in the Act on Local Government.
The President of the Republic shall decide on the granting of town rank. The leg-
islative approach is rather interesting, since the Act does not explicitly contain a
single provision for the cooperation of urban areas or a city and its region. If we
follow this theory, we can confirm that the Act on Local Governmental Associa-
tions passed in 1997 does not contain any special institution, agglomeration or ad-
ministrative model regulating the relationship of towns and their suburban zones.
The agglomeration association of the capital is the only voluntary association that
the Act refers to. The government now regards regulation as being complete, listing
the possible fields of cooperation since 1994. Therefore, to solve the problems
8
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
arising from the fact that settlements depend on each other in the area of admini-
stration – and especially public services – only sectoral association agreements
with a single goal were established between the capital city and some local au-
thorities of the agglomeration.
Based on these facts, the analyst can only confirm the lack of adequate legisla-
tion, whilst, on the contrary, the rationale relating to the Act contained, during the
change of regime, several expectations regarding urban areas. Moreover, organisa-
tional development and task-performing requirements, together with adequate in-
stitutional consequences were not incorporated in the Act. For example, the ration-
ale relating to the chapter containing local government associations acknowledges
a rather far-sighted and modern concept: “It is an important requirement, that the
towns shall create a strong relationship with their agglomeration. This is the com-
mon interest of towns and villages in their agglomeration, and regional develop-
ment plans and institutions are needed for their execution”.1
The explanation of the Act concerning the grant of town rank establishes re-
quirements which are still surprising, since their legal basics are still not devel-
oped: “It can be expected from the towns, that they shall employ not only their in-
habitants, but also the inhabitants of their region, and shall mainly provide public
services. Their geographical location and good communication connection with
their region could be utilised in the regional role of towns. In order to have a re-
gional role, a settlement shall have medium-level (education, health care) institu-
tions, and provide public services utilised by the region also. The city acts as a
radial centre for the whole region, acts as a catalyst, and cooperates with the local
authorities of its region”.2 Unfortunately, neither the regional role, nor the
administrative law-interpretation of meso-level institutions has yet occurred.
The conditions for granting town rank were not regulated for a long period fol-
lowing the change or regime. The acceptance of the Act on Regional Development
Procedure also could not stop the progressive devaluation of town rank over the
last 10 years. Parliament brought detailed provisions into Act XLI of 1999 for the
procedures for granting town rank, and its conditions, although, since the Act has
been law, the latter has not been enforced. This has two explanations: on the one
hand, the pressure from villages aiming for town status proved too strong, and, on
the other hand, there were no other settlements among the local authorities, whose
urbanisation level could reach expectations regarding town functions.
The latest urban network research highlights that the structure of the urban net-
work has changed, and the proportion of towns with under 10,000 inhabitants has
increased considerably. Whilst the ratio of “micro-towns” in the urban network
barely reached 25% in 1999, by 2000 the ratio was approximately 45%, which in-
1 Rationale – Paragraph 41 of Act LXV on Local Government.
2 Rationale – Paragraph 94 of Act LXV on Local Government.
9
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
dicates the widening of the base of the so-called city-pyramid (Szigeti, 2002, p.
151–152.). The threshold level of urbanisation in Hungary is rather high in terms
of inhabitants, approximately 10,000, which means that about 50 settlements with
town-rank cannot be considered functionally as being a city (Beluszky–Gyıri,
2004). Therefore, we find more and more villages with no central role providing
urban services – 18 in 2004, and in 2005 a further 15 such settlements were granted
town rank.
On the other hand, the dividing-line between villages and towns began to disap-
pear and now remains unclear, although the legal criteria of town rank have been
specified and enacted. A significant factor among the reasons for this are the state-
administrative functions determining town rank (court, state-attorney, fire-brigade,
other state institutions with nation-wide branches) – for the most part missing in
the newly-founded towns. The widening of the state-administrative structure is not
justified, although the administrative functions are undeniably of a generally re-
gional type and strongly influence the place of the town in the hierarchy. A very
good indicator of the dispersion of the town-network is that, in consequence of the
differentiated delegation of powers, the number of micro-regions followed the
number of towns for a long time. All towns were granted so-called micro-regional
rank, but, from 2004, the youngest towns have to be satisfied only with the partial
state-administrative functions.
The public services provided by the towns are more and more used by their own
inhabitants, due to the significant increase of the urban population; since the rural
areas, i.e. suburban areas, are shrinking. The villages which are new candidates for
town rank, can only partly account for the – otherwise correct – provisions of the
Act on Regional Development (e.g. service provider functions offered to its re-
gion).
Unquestionably, due to forced industrialisation before the change of regime, the
development policy of the state focused only on towns, which resulted in so-called
anti-urban behaviour, still visible today. Moreover, the fact that the government has
not initiated horizontal cooperation – even at the level of legislation between the
town and its suburb – has impacted on the foundation process of regional develop-
ment associations. At the outset, these associations aimed to unite the villages
against the town becoming the centre of the region, and towns were excluded from
the cooperation. From the mid-90’s, however, the situation has eased, but in 1995,
of the 139 registered and active micro-regional development associations, only
25% had integrated the relationship of town and suburban municipalities (G. Fe-
kete, 1995). Meanwhile only a few associations were cooperating in the field of
state-administrative public services between villages and towns.
It is clear that, however important the increase of the administrative level of the
settlements was for the national political and local social elite, it was not taken into
consideration that it is an important transformation process, which needs govern-
10
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
ance, coordination and help, raising issues in the field of administration and re-
gional development also. Regardless of the administrative urbanisation process,
neither the development of the urban network, nor the implementation of an appro-
priate urban policy has taken place in Hungary since the change of regime, al-
though basic social relations have changed drastically.
2 Tendencies to change in the Hungarian public
administration-related areas
The Hungarian situation in terms of handling the urban network based on public
administration is by no means reassuring, although the territorial structure of the
Hungarian urban network has changed favourably since the change of regime: we
can now barely find any regions without towns. Recent events might indeed be-
come the very grounds for change.
The structure of public administration devised at the time of the change of re-
gime became an early target for reform- from the middle of the 90’s. The thought
of regionalising public administration has been clarified only gradually, and in the
programme of the government which came to power in 2002, one of the objectives
was to introduce the so-called selected regions. The spread of regionalisation in
public administration is spurred on by the EU’s Cohesion and Regional Policies
and also by processes implemented within the framework of the institutional sys-
tem of regional development based on the effect of these policies. However, the
planned decentralisation lost its momentum after the erroneous belief, that the EU
requires NUTS 2 regions to become levels of public administration and play a po-
litical role in the member states through elected bodies was laid to rest. Moreover,
recently we can see more dynamic intentions in the de-concentration of public ad-
ministration.
Hungary belongs to a group of countries that changed their regime, where the
institutional system of regional development was built relatively separate from
public administration, rather, parallel to it (see in more detail Pálné Kovács I.
2001). The first step was the admission of the seven planning-statistical regions by
accepting the Act on Regional Development and Physical Planning in 1996. In the
amendment to the Act in 1999, the government ordered regional development
councils to be established in NUTS 2 regions, and so these regions obtained a role
in regional development. Although the members of the development councils,
which are built on principles of delegation, are solely public administration actors,
these bodies cannot be entitled to local government-type functions and compe-
tences. Their main scope of authority is to accept regional development concepts
and programmes for the region, and to distribute regional development subsidies,
decentralised to their level, through tendering processes work-organisations of the
11
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
councils were charged with the conduct of PHARE programmes before accession,
and currently they also are the mediators of regional operative programmes for the
requisition of Structural Funds. Regional development councils and their agency-
type work-organisations are highly ambitious in building foreign relations, and
strengthening international and cross-border cooperation. However, these institu-
tions are not really capable of substantive cooperation, due to their unclear legal
status and lack of their own sources of income.
The institutional system of regional development was built up on a territorial
basis in Hungary, and also the means of support in national regional policy are
used similarly in all regions: every region is entitled to subsidies. It is absolutely
true that, according to the criteria on the use of the Structural Funds, the whole area
of Hungary – except the Budapest-centred region – is considered “underdevel-
oped”.
The allocation of regional development funds has been tightened by forming
privileged regions, which means that, currently, the biggest share of national and
EU resources is given to the most backward regions, whilst the (more) developed
ones are left without subsidies. The point is that, since 19973 privileged regions are
formed on a much smaller scale compared to EU practice, seeing that these regions
are continuously formed at NUTS 4 level, or the so-called level of statistical mi-
cro-regions, which usually have about 47,000 residents. A revision of this system
of micro-regional dominance was last undertaken in 2003.4 One can notice that the
district-system of statistical micro-regions has been adjusted on several occasions
since its establishment in 1994. As a result, the number of districts is gradually in-
creasing; from the original 138, the number has grown to 168. As a consequence,
their size started to decrease. The centre of a micro-region is, in most cases, a town,
but, considering that there are about a hundred more town-level settlements than
NUTS 4 regions, a micro-region often contains several towns.
Relevant regulation does not differentiate micro-regions either in terms of the
significance of towns on their territory, the intensity of their gravitational relations,
or their functions. Hungarian regional policy does not differentiate between urban
and rural regions, while operating with the concept of the 48 most underdeveloped
micro-regions. Accordingly, statistical districts of different size are judged from the
same standpoint, and the legislator applies the same conceptual category for every
urban region, with the exception of Budapest and Debrecen. The explanation is that
the formation of micro-regions is based on the meso-level gravitational relations of
cities, since the currently applied system of regional planning does not set centres
of gravity in the urban network, and it also does not distinguish among them in
3 Parliamentary Decision 30/1997 (April 18) on the concepts of regional development funds and
decentralisation, condition system of the prioritised regions categorisation.
4 Governmental Decree 244/2003 (December 18) on the order of creation, definition and amendment
of micro-regions.
12
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
terms of functionality. Consequently, there are great differences in the number of
residents in various micro-regions. It is almost natural that, whilst in some micro-
regions which are formed around cities (Miskolc, Gyır, Pécs) the population is
near to (or over) 200,000, the population in 23 statistical micro-regions does not
even reach 20,000.
During the course of urbanisational development, Hungary also reached the de-
velopment stage of the so-called suburbanisation in the 1990s, characterised by the
feature that the focus of population increase is moved from towns to surrounding
settlements. Closer examination shows that this is not merely an outflow of the ur-
ban population, but also some kind of suburban development which has already
started in the industrial and service sector. As decentralisation plays a significant
role in the recent development tendency of public administration, so the suburbani-
zation can be considered as a kind of decentralisation in socio-economic develop-
ment (Timár–Váradi, 2001). As we will see, however, state policies and public
administration do not react to these changes.
Besides the new formation of statistical micro-regions, changes to the urban
network gave grounds for the revision of agglomerations (agglomerációk) and
functional settlement groups (településegyüttesek) in 2003. The Hungarian Central
Statistical Office discovered (led by professional considerations) that every county-
seat (19 in number) is more or less characterised by the phenomenon of agglom-
eration. Considering the intensive suburban areas relations, the country has three
agglomerations besides Budapest, from which the so-called agglomerating areas
(agglomerálódó térségek) and functional settlement groups have to be distin-
guished, although these also show intensive increase in density. It is a fact that
there are complex relations between core towns or cities and their suburban areas,
and, as a result of their continuous change, the circle of settlements connected to a
centre also changes from time to time. The rearrangement of regional trends is sug-
gested, for example, by the fact that Gyır and its suburbs (which was an agglomer-
ating area) became an agglomeration. On the other hand, however, Ózd and its sur-
roundings became a crisis region, and thus the region lost most of its significance.
As a result, the agglomerating area of Ózd is no longer kept under observation. It
shows the transformation of regional trends after the change of regime, that both
the number of centres observed (from 23 to 21) and the number of settlements in
their agglomerations (from 517 to 386) decreased, compared to the results of 1996
(Kovács–Tóth, 2003).
These recently performed analyses do not change the fact, however that, from a
Hungarian view, the agglomerations are still no more than subjects of statistical
data collection. Although the Hungarian Central Statistical Office has regularly
published data about these regions since 1985, they do not seem to be relevant, ei-
ther in terms of public administration or regional planning.
13
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
3 Basic factors of public administration in the micro-regions
According to the official position of the Central Statistical Office, the so called sta-
tistical micro-region hypothetically is an urban area reflecting the relations of the
primary and meso-level supply of the population. It is the regional unit of
settlements co-existing and depending on one another (Kovács, 2003). However, in
1994 the system of districts originally formed for statistical purposes was re-
evaluated, and, firstly, it became the basis of the classification of regions preferred
in terms of regional development, and, later, in 2004, it was given administrative
substance.
In Hungary the basis of local public administration is the principle of “one
settlement – one local authority”. That is, all the settlements with local
administration rights have, at the same time, the right to self-governance. In the
past 15 years, the widely scattered primary administration adopted only one
element of the principle of subsidiarity, the “close-to-client” concept, whilst the
requirements of effectiveness and economy were long neglected. During this time,
and with insufficient state incentives, co-operation among local authorities could
not be improved as desired, although there was a great need for associations as
support mechanisms in optimising local administration, dispersed it was. Co-
operation to improve the collective performance of municipal duties is least
developed between towns and their urban agglomerations, since it has been
historically held back by opposing interests and by the simple lack of a co-
operative culture.
The situation changed radically in 2004, when the government introduced the
institution of the multi-purpose micro-regional association, as the first step in the
announced process of administrative reform. Through these organisations, often
termed “complex associations”, central government made known (for the first time
since the change of regime) the aims of the local government system: effective
administration and a nation-wide high and integrated level of public services. The
basis principle of the new structure is to establish equal opportunities for access to
public services. As yet, unfortunately, the principle only exists as a political
declaration of intent: it has not been written into any legal framework; nor is it
interlinked with the methodology of local territorial planning.
The Constitution is based on the principle of local authorities’ freedom to
associate, which means that compulsory or obligatory association is unknown in
law. This fact, and, furthermore, a lack of support from parliamentary opposition
parties, has clearly limited the legislative scope for action and for the means to
introduce micro-regional reforms.5 As a result, the multi-purpose association is
5 Act CVII 2004 on the multi-purpose micro-regionalassociations of the settlements’ local
authorities.
14
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
based on the voluntary co-operation of local authorities. Nevertheless, the related
financial incentives soon produced a great effect: in the South-Transdanubian
region, for example, where 24 associations were established – with all local
authorities participating, so covering the entire region. Nationally, in October,
2005, the rate of institutionalisation was 92%, since, 152 statistical micro-regions
associations were established of a possible 166.
Albeit within the voluntary framework, the law did make binding the regional
borders of municipal associations, since it was determined that those must adjust to
the micro-regional statistical districts formed in 2003. In addition; a restriction was
introduced, under which a local authority can be a member of only one multi-
purpose association. Thus, the statistical methodology based on the meso-level
(urban service providing) agglomerations of the towns was vested with a public
administrative role, but it has to be emphasised that the micro-region has not
become an independent level of public administration.
The legal objective of the new type of association is to make possible the
concerted development of the micro-region through the preparation and
implementation of collective plans and programmes and, further, the organisation
and improvement of public services and maintenance of the required institutions.
The institution does not diminish municipal autonomy; nor does it necessarily
mean that tasks should be carried out centrally. It has, however, to be provided for
the more effective operation of municipal institutions. Under the auspices of the
association, duties can be carried out in several ways: they can be undertaken
entirely by the multi-purpose association itself, through the existing micro-
associations of several local authorities, or by one of the established operations of
any local authority. A precondition for gaining access to the additional state
subsidy is to achieve – each budgetary year – uniformly higher rates of utilisation
with regard to the operation of institutions (schools, kindergartens, social- and
child-welfare institutions), and, moreover, the service can only be provided for the
minimum number of persons or inhabitants as stipulated by the government. This
latter criterion targets a more effective organisation of public services, whilst it also
shows that it is focusing on the situation of rural micro-regions with deteriorating
demographic figures and paying no attention to urban micro-regions struggling
with development problems.
The association itself can promote the provision of integrated primary public
services in several ways. It can contribute to the undertaking a task at micro-
regional level through its organisational work and expertise. This, however, may
result in tasks (education¸ health-care, social-, and child-welfare etc) being carried
out within a micro-region, which earlier, due to a lack of professional or financial
capacity, could not be handled by certain local authorities.
It should also be mentioned, that, during the drafting of the framework for
micro-regional public services, it was not clear whether the micro-regional quasi-
15
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
level would become a suitable framework for providing meso-level public services,
or whether it would aim to provide integrated, high-quality primary services.
However, the model introduced made it clear that the administrative micro-region
focuses, in the first place, on primary supply within public education, social and
health provision, family-, child-, and youth protection, general education, library
work, local transportation, the maintenance of public roads and municipal internal
controlling. The practical functioning and task-organisation of multi-purpose
associations reveal however, that the micro-regional scale, as provided by the new
institution, is much too large for some tasks to be performed; in most instances it
cannot manage its activity adequately over the whole micro-region. Instead, it
divides the micro-region – mainly in a centrally supported way – into sub-divisions
and sub-centres, which inevitably reflects the lack of a large municipal dimension
of primary supply. The organisation of public services between the borders of the
statistical micro-region is accomplished by establishing several other municipal
associations – the so called micro-districts.6
In this process, however, it is interesting to see that the government puts all the
responsibility for carrying out the (centrally ordained) reforms upon local actors. It
is logically a subject for future discussion, as to whether or not the virtual
dimension of the local authorities, negotiated by local politicians and formed for
the optimisation of public service organisation is satisfactory. It cannot be denied,
however, that, without the differentiated management of the micro-regions, the
reforms were clearly directed towards realising integrated primary level supply.
For this reason, structures which totally meet the requirements of rural micro-
regions are not necessarily suitable for the institutionalisation of more developed,
urban micro-regions: neither will they meet their development demands. It is true,
most of all for those towns or cities with county rank, that contributing to
organising primary services in surrounding settlements cannot be of strategic
importance to the development of the towns or cities themselves. However, we
may attribute it to a system-error that, although it thinks in sub-divisions, it does
not take account of the division of functions among several towns within the given
micro-region; moreover, it does not support relations between regional spheres of
activity by means of regional planning. In terms of the latter, it is disquieting that
the micro-regional administration cannot accept the towns and cannot manage
aspects of the question of the agglomeration as a unit. Therefore, it does not have
6 This phenomenon is well illustrated by the fact that, according to the situation in September 2005,
133 micro-regional associations were established to fulfil basic social functions, with 792
settlements participating, to operate the elementary level of primary education; 551 micro-regional
associations participate (with 1,620 local authorities involved), whilst, in relation to upper level of
primary education, a further 567 micro-regional associations are involved , comprising 1,709 local
authorities as members.
16
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
ready responses to numerous public services-planning and development questions
regarding the regional roles of the towns.
Overall, however, it is promising that, 15 years after the change of regime the
systematic management of resources and institutions has started at local, municipal
level. In any case, those public services that are organised in a reasonably
integrated way can expect state subsidies. Those multi-purpose associations that
embrace all the municipalities of a micro-region receive greater levels of state
subsidy than those, in which the coverage is only partial – that is, cover at least
60% of the population of the micro-region or, in addition to a coverage of 50%,
embrace 60% of the settlements allocated to the micro-region. The new institutio-
nal structures are shaped in several ways, but they still are under development. In
cases where the government has allowed local authorities to utilise their full
powers after strict guidelines have been met, these authorities are the ones who
have to provide more effective organisational solutions. As a result, it cannot be
foreseen, at least in the shorter term, how unified and – eventually at micro-
regional level – how centralized the system will be. The fact is that those budgetary
calculations, which could reveal the amount saved by this administrative reform at
aggregate and at local level, are not yet available. At the current stage, what can be
seen is rather an increase than a reduction in expenditure. Although relevant pilot
schemes are in hand, the government has not waited for any result, but decided on
an early national introduction of the system. Consequently, the experiences gained
by experimenting associations cannot be used, for instance, for cost and benefit
calculations.
In spite of criticism, however, the newer type of organisation designed to
promote co-operation between local authorities and which reinterpret the concept
of association, can clearly be regarded as progress. Hungary is, in effect, on the
way to close the gap between its own and the regulations of European nations
(Somlyódyné Pfeil, 2003a). In this respect, it is to be emphasised, that the
government has empowered multi-purpose associations to set up economic
organisations and to participate in undertakings. Moreover, the fact that the method
of dividing revenues deriving from local taxes can be included in the complex
association agreement reflects, in terms of international comparison, an extremely
liberal attitude. This opportunity can boost the co-operation of local authorities in
economic and tourism development, and, in addition, the basic forms of real estate
and property management. To date, however, no experience has been recorded on
actual results and on the reception from side of the authorities. For the time being,
all their energies are tied up in the effective and professional organisation of
primary supply – something which the government also prioritises through its
incentives.
17
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
Contemporaneously with micro-regional reform, the institution of regional
development was also changed in 2004.7 A new institution affecting the micro-
regional level was set up – the so-called micro-regional development council,
whose authority has been adjusted to coincide with the borders of statistical micro-
regions. The purpose of this measure was to cover the country by micro-regional
development institutions with no duplication, and, in contrast to earlier practice,
one local authority can be a member of only one council. After a number of years,
the legal provisions, which declare that, in those micro-regions in which multi-
purpose associations were formed with the participation of all the local authorities,
the association council shall act as the micro-regional development council, have
produced a positive network of municipal and regional developmental
organisations. With this, the possibility of organisational duplication is eliminated.
The legislation provides for the framework of regional development and territorial
planning activities for the multi-purpose micro-regional associations, and, in
relation to this, they may apply for subsidies to prepare and modernise micro-
regional development concepts and programmes. The expansion of micro-regional
planning to the operation and economy of institutions providing public services is
deemed to be a modern governmental effort. However, this process is still in its
development phase.
Reforms, therefore, are underway in both branches of Hungarian administration,
affecting both local authorities and public administration. Whilst, in several older
EU member-states significant changes are detectable in connection with urban
policy and with government policy affecting urban networks, Hungary fell into a
difficult situation in respect of several features of urban networks. The
institutionalisation of the multi-purpose micro-regional associations must be
deemed as a milestone in terms of increasing the level of public services and
modernisation of public administrative office work. However, it has to be
established that the aim of complex micro-regional associations is, in the first
place, the rationalisation of primary public administration and the provision of a
uniform level of public services, which currently is not manifested in urban policy.
7 Micro-regional development councils were created as the norm at micro-regional level on the basis
of the Amendment to Act XXI 1996 on Spatial Development and Spatial Organisation (paragraph
7) LXXV 2004.
18
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
4 The broader interconnections of public services reform
Linked to the implementation of the Hungarian public administrative reform pro-
gramme – which, over time, was narrowed down to a public service reform pro-
gramme – in 2002 the government launched investigations into a number of fields.
– the development of a regional local government model,
– the rationalisation of local public administration together with improvements
to its effectiveness, and
– the implementation of the municipal finance reform programme.
Of these, reform has been successful in one only – in the establishment of quasi
micro-regional public administration. At the heart of this lies a deliberate public
subsidy policy which created a micro-region-level integration of the local govern-
ment system set in accordance with the borders of NUTS 4-level areas. Neverthe-
less, this solution to the problem of organising public administration did not create
a new level of public administration, nor did it affect the (politically significant)
autonomy of the units in terms of local governance. On the one hand, in fact, we
can speak of the optimal limits of organising basic public services, whilst on the
other hand – in connection with the establishment of multi-purpose micro-regional
associations – of creating equal opportunities for citizens for access to public ser-
vices. Treating statistical micro-regions as administrative units will inevitably im-
prove regional attitudes, but it should also be stressed that, if a regional municipal
level is introduced, a relevant public administrative framework should be elabo-
rated.
In connection with all of these factors, it is worth noting that, in each transition
country and in each new member state of the EU, a structural change of public ad-
ministration is either currently taking place or has done so only within the last 10
years. The explanation for this derives from the fact that the public administration
of the traditional, centralised unitary state does not meet the challenges of moderni-
sation of the state, economy and society, and is not suitable for creating adequate
conditions of competitiveness – which is one of the most important objectives of
the EU. Reforms have already been started in the CEEC region, but these are either
hampered, or, in some places, too slow – due mainly to a lack of political back-
ground in regionalisation. External as well as internal causes for this phenomenon
can be found.
“Good governance” is a magic term emanating from the EU. The crux of this is-
sue is to what extent its establishment requires administrative decentralisation to
achieve it. Hungary is a heavily centralised state, charecterised locally by low effi-
ciency, but it is a country which has built a politically strong system of local gov-
ernment. To contend with the centralised structure, structural reform must be intro-
duced which could create a meso-evel to nterbalance the centralised power, that is,
19
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
a region with a directly elected body. However, there is little chance of this bein-
grealised in either in the shorter- or longer-term. Even the micro-regional reform
launched in 2004 lacked the courage to modify the administrative structure. The
establishment of multi-purpose micro-regional associations can be regarded only
as a partial functional reform which left the numbers of administrative levels un-
changed.
As a matter of fact, an apparent similarity is to be found between the territorial
and administrative reforms achieved in West European countries following World
War II and the Hungarian reforms. Although accomplished by other means, their
object was the same: that is, to organise rational and effective local government
and, in time, to improve administrative efficiency. The difference is that, in Hun-
gary, the amalgamation of local authorities did not result in the appearance of or-
ganisations providing improved public services – which in some cases might have
led to the amalgamation of institutions as well as to organising public works at mi-
cro-regional level. We cannot speak of a real functional reform, in fact, since this –
from its very essence – would have had to determine the interrelationshps of local,
regional and central levels. In other words, from a functional point of view – within
the framework of total government operation – it ought to have resulted in the re-
distribution of public duties, and, consequently, in the shifting and regional decen-
tralisation of certain spheres of authority. Moreover, from an historical perspective,
in each country introducing functional reform, the handling of the issue is regarded
not merely as a problem of public administration science, but one of constitutional
law (cp. Zehetner, 1982).
Functional reform is a permanent process, which is by no means equivalent to
irrevocable decentralisation. Not being prone to divert the reform programme from
the main direction, a partial development characterised by centralism may reasona-
bly appear within its borders (Zehetner, 1982). For the time being, the public ser-
vices reform programme now taking place in Hungary also gives an impression of
decentralisation rather than of centralisation. The fact that the reform of municipal
finances came to a deadlock at planning level shows the one-sidedness of the re-
form. On the other hand, the regrouping of tasks and competencies would inevita-
bly require an adjustment to the financial structure, and one of the essential aspects
of providing appropriate resources is to decide who will collect them – and at
which level of public administration, and with the realisation of whose interests,
will it then be distributed.
In connection with the latter, an additional problematic point of the micro-
regional reform programme arises. As the Hungarian public administration system
does not acknowledge any rights of the county as a meso-level local authority to
distribute resources to town, community or local authority, subsidies encouraging
micro-regional reform are awarded by means of a tender-system to the multi-
purpose associations. When an association is founded, subsidies support their in-
20
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
vestments and purchases, but later they can be claimed only as operational expen-
diture. For the time being, subsidies are surrounded by a fairly large degree of un-
certainty, since their disbursement can only be guaranteed by the annual state
budget. Moreover, due to the competency for decision-making having been placed
in the hands of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Home Affairs, and to
the way in which subsidies are granted, the town or local authority depend even
more on the state than before. In fact, the degree of centralisation has not dimin-
ished, although it is evident to the profession that the actual handling of finances
should – as far as possible – be delegated to regional and meso-level administrative
units which, in the course of decisions regarding subsidies, can make use of their
closeness to the local level.
Finally, however, we can emphasise the following positive aspects of the intro-
duction of micro-regional public services:
– It promotes regional thinking and cooperation in the scope of public services.
– At regional level the types of public services, the categories of supply and the
existing and missing capacities are taken into consideration and, as a result,
in the settlements which to date have not been provided with certain admin-
istrative services, public services are organised in a cooperative or regional
form.
– With the participation of all the micro-regions – and financed by subsidies –
common planning may start. At first, concepts will be created for regional
development and there is hope that planning and development administrative
activities can be organised in a harmonious way.
– For the first time, the organisation of public administration and the institution
system of territorial development are linked together.
– After 15 years, now is the first time that towns as regional centres and as mu-
nicipal units with special knowledge can appear in the structure of public
administration.
21
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
5 Relation of medium-sized urban areas to the new public
administration structure
Since the transition, the existence of multipurpose micro-regional associations has
been the first sign that the policy – to some extent – acknowledges the towns’ au-
thority to organise their regions and their characteristic features as centres. How-
ever, this is done rather obliqely, and not by taking charge of it openly, but rather
on the basis that the decree on the establishment of micro-regions lays down that
every micro-region should have a main town. The names, locations and clear func-
tions of these main towns as regional and administrative categories are missing
from the whole system. Similarly, decrees containing the conditions of subsidies
for multi-purpose micro-regional associations never mention towns. Available ob-
servations immediately show that a significant number of conflicts occur within a
micro-region – for historical reasons – between the centre of the micro-region and
an individual settlement. It can often be seen that the leaders of a settlement’s local
authority also fear the increasing power of cities over the micro-regions. Since,
during the last 15 years, towns and the settlements belonging to their suburban area
existed in isolation due to a lack of trust among the cooperating parties (mainly
towards the centre of the agglomeration) complex micro-regional associations
could not be born.
Hungary has a two-tier administration structure introduced in 1990 and repre-
sented by a local gorvernment system in which, at local level, there are the village,
town or city local authorities Village, Town or City Councils), and at regional level
county authorities (County Councils). Within the 19 counties the county-towns
(county “capitals”) with county rights and an additional 4 towns with more than
50,000 inhabitants were all accorded priority status and county rights. From these
there emerged Hungary’s total of 8 major towns (cities) with more than 100,000
inhabitants. The priority status of these is regulated in a somewhat “contrary-wise”
fashion as, in their own region, they have to carry out regional government duties
and, since they are at the same time considered to be a settlement, local authority
duties also. In this way legislation does not take into consideration the energy radi-
ating from these county-level towns and the fact that their regional functions go far
beyond their borders. All the responsibility arising from the division of duties be-
tween the county-level local authorities and the towns with county-level rights are
on the shoulders of the local politicians, leaving the correlations of planning and
development shrouded in mystery.
The organisation of statistical micro-regional systems around towns with county
rights has been achieved, with the result that each has a suburban area surrounding
it. Nevertheless, it may be interesting to compare the numbers of settlements in
micro-regions around the county-towns to those in the suburban area formed as
part of the concept of agglomerations and functional settlement groups in the case
22
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
of the same towns with county-level rights. In some cases a significant difference
can be found between the urban areas defined in these two different ways. It is easy
to see that the number of settlements ranked among statistical micro-regions usu-
ally exceeds that of the ring of suburbs characterised by an agglomeration process.
This phenomenon is subject to question. The reason for it may be that, originally,
the delineation of statistical micro-regional complexes did not take place for the
sake of the administrative organisation, nor was the development of an urban net-
work defined within the framework of micro-regional reform. Spatial planning – in
its current state – is not ready for highlighting the elements of the urban network
from a functional point of view.
Regarding the agglomeration relations of urban areas, Table 1 reveals that
maybe some large and medium-sized towns are troubled unnecessarily with the
basic maintenance issues of such a micro-region, which accords neither with the
functional settlement groups attracted by it nor with the whole of the agglomeration
covered by its regional role. According to our search hypothesis, in some cases –
especially in the suburban areas characterised by a process of agglomeration – a
statistical micro-region is not an adequate framework for the administrative organi-
sation and a multi-purpose association is not the appropriate form. It has long been
proved that county-towns, being the most effective motors of their region, are op-
pressed by the disproportionately large institutions of their public administration,
while – due to the lack of resources – they are simply unable to implement certain
development investments. In turn, they cannot fully qualify for regional subsidies,
for the indices of economy and development characterising a town-centered micro-
region are usually higher than the national or regional average.
It is well known that, in different countries, the concept of town, city and urban
area are defined differently. The European Union also took sides on this issue, and,
according to the European Commission’s pronouncement on sustainable city de-
velopment, the concepts are interchangeable. Within the EU, the Commission as-
serts, we can term it an “agglomeration” where the population exceeds 250,000
”Medium-sized towns” have 50,000–250,000 inhabitants, whilst urban areas with
10,000–50,000 inhabitants belong to the “small town” category (Europäische
Kommision, 1997). As a contrast, “big cities” on the European scale are totally
missing from the Hungarian urban network (we shall revert to this later) since none
of the cities reaches a population figure of 200,000–250,000. Consequently, Hun-
gary’s urban network is special, and, for this reason, we must accept the standpoint
of the Central Statistical Office and rank the areas surrounding Budapest and three
other cities as agglomerations (Table 1), since, in these regions, the interrelation-
ship of the attraction and supply of labour is at its the most intensive, and certain
features of suburbanisation can also be found (the criteria and delineation of these
functional settlement groups, however, are not the subject of our current research).
23
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
Table 1
A comparison of the delineation of agglomerations and statistical micro-regions
according to the number of settlements in 2003
Name
Number of settlements in
Number of settlements in
the agglomeration
statistical micro-region
Budapest agglomeration
81
–
Gyır agglomeration
29
27
Miskolc agglomeration
13
40
Pécs agglomeration
21
39
Balaton agglomerating region (developing)
52
–
Eger agglomerating region
10
14
Szombathely agglomerating region
31
24
Zalaegerszeg agglomerating region
29
79
Békéscsaba functional settlement group
10
5*
Debrecen functional settlement group
9
1
Kaposvár functional settlement group
14
77
Kecskemét functional settlement group
9
18
Nyíregyháza functional settlement group
5
9
Salgótarján functional settlement group
9
22
Sopron functional settlement group
6
39
Szeged functional settlement group
12
12
Szekszárd functional settlement group
5
26
Székesfehérvár functional settlement group
13
18
Szolnok functional settlement group
6
17
Tatabánya functional settlement group
12
–**
Veszprém functional settlement group
10
20
Total
517
–
* Békéscsaba micro-region and functional settlement group shows the parity of three settlements.
The urban area is a special special 5-town and 5-settlement formation, with a polycentric character.
** Tatabánya functional settlement group is situated at the conjunction of three statistical micro-
regions – Tatabánya micro-region: 10, Tata micro-region: 10, Oroszlány micro-region: 6
settlements. This is the other typical polycentric area in Hungary.
Source: A compilation of the author on the basis of Kovács, T. – Tóth, G. (2003) and on the data of
County Statistical Yearbook, 2003. Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Budapest, 2004.
24
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
6 Budapest, Hungary’s sole metropolitan area
On the basis of our international comparison, we can confirm that the entire urbani-
sation circle has so far only been achieved by the most developed industrial coun-
tries, whilst less developed countries, such as the nations of the former socialist
bloc, are in a relatively deconcentrated situation. This latter phenomenon is indi-
cated by the general appearance of urban agglomerations in Hungary. However,
Budapest’s development preceded that of all other towns in the country by decades,
since the population of this large city has been decreasing for a long time (Enyedi,
2004).
Budapest can only develop into a modern and competitive city on condition that
it progresses symbiotically with its agglomeration – with a common sharing of all
of the tasks. Unfortunately, whilst, in the majority of European cities, the organisa-
tion of public administration followed changes in the city structure relatively flexi-
bly, with Budapest, the development of the city and its region has been seriously
hindered several times – and is hindered even now – by the lack of harmony be-
tween its public administration structure and its true regional structure. Regarding
public administration the capital and its gravitationa zone are divided into two; al-
though in the course of the 20th century several suggestions emerged concerning
common public administration and uniform planning (most recently, in 1993); all,
in turn, fell through (Perger, 1999).
The borders of the agglomeration have been redrawn several times during re-
cent years but it was always the subject of professional debate. Whilst, in the state-
socialism period, the National Agglomeration Development Concept officially rec-
ognised 44 settlements as being part of the agglomeration, a revision conducted in
19978 widened its circle to 78. Currently, including Budapest, there are 81 local
authorities in the region, since – though the size of the territory has not changed –
two new local authorities were established in the meantime. However, the accurate
demarcation of the agglomeration had no effect at all on the legal regulation of
public administration, which still cannot provide a special organisational solution,
let alone a model of agglomeration-management for administering the region as a
unit.
Hungary’s only large, international city and metropolitan region is the Budapest
agglomeration which deserves – after such a long time – aid from the state in es-
tablishing a metropolitan managment organisation. This would certainly indicate a
step forward compared to the years of uncertainty since 1990. The capital and its
agglomeration – according to authentic opinions – can only bid for a subcentre role
even within Central Europe, but the role it plays in the international division of la-
bour has not been defined yet (Enyedi, 2004). Therefore, much is at stake.
8 Government Decision 1005/1971. (February 26), 89/1997. (May 28) Government Decree..
25
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
Budapest has an almost unique administrative structure. Concerning its inner
functioning, it can be seen that the capital and each of its 23 districts have full mu-
nicipal status with equal rights; it is only the division of tasks that makes the sys-
tem double-level: municipal tasks are performed by district local authorities while
tasks and powers relating to the whole city (or an area greater than a district – as
well as those attached to the capital status) are performed by the local authority of
Budapest. This solution has had a paralysing effect on the harmonised development
of the whole city. In 1994 the municipality law authorised the local authorities of
the capital and of certain districts to associate voluntarily with each other and with
other local authorities outside the capital. In addition, it authorises inter-municipal
cooperation in connection with topics such as elaborating plans for the surround-
ings of the capital, the harmonisation of mass communication, the management of
water supply and the cleansing of foul water, the coordination of communal in-
vestment and the organisation of educational, medical and social services. How-
ever, in the past decade, neither sufficient governmental support nor municipal de-
termination appeared for the foundation of the comprehensive organisational solu-
tion for the metropolitan region.
Since a full-scale solution for this administrative problem could not be reached,
some measures were taken for handling the problems of agglomeration from the
aspect of regional development. The City and Regional Development Planning re-
quired by law to establish the Budapest Agglomeration Development Council
which has been operating since 1997. The predominance of the government in this
body was evident. This was ensured by not only the presence of the deputies of
nine ministries but – surprisingly – also the position of its chairman was fulfilled
by a representative of government. The authority of the council embraced the
capital and the agglomeration, which, in the meantime, was formed by 78 settle-
ments. At the same time it also indicated that, though in an administrative sense the
area of the agglomeration was excised from the territory of Pest County its rela-
tionship was not organised legally.
Local authorities surrounding the capital were represented in the Council ac-
cording to the six statistical micro-regions defined by the state. An oddity of the
municipal associations of regional development created on the basis of micro-
regional interests is that they were joined by several adjoining district local au-
thorities from the administrative area of the capital. By this step they demonstrated
that the capital was not a suitable representative of their interests. Undoubtedly, the
formation of these micro-regional associations took place with the help of the gov-
ernment, just as the integration of the district local authorities. The latter progres-
sion can be explained by the fact that – according to some experts (Perger, 1999) –
during the 20th century Budapest effectively annexed the communities and towns
belonging to its gravitation zone several times over, and, consequently, some
settlements surrounding the capital ended within its administrative borders.
26
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
Due to the parallel existence of certain peripheral conditions, the activities of
the Agglomeration Development Council were to be unsuccessful: it was not
granted real power to decide on issues of regional development; apart from minor
sums for operating expenses, it had no funds at its disposal; it had no authority over
the execution or coordination of administrative tasks and, in addition, Budapest
could not play an appropriate role worthy of its significance. Under such circum-
stances, it was not surprising that the Amendment to the Regional Development
Law which came into force in 1999 simply abolished the institution. This move by
Parliament clearly showed that the government did not want the Budapest agglom-
eration – a large-scale economic area and population centre – to become a political
and administrative unit corresponding to its importance.
It is indisputable that the institutionalisation of the Budapest agglomeration was
made difficult by the fact that, according to the regional division of Hungary (cor-
responding to NUTS 2) Budapest and the surrounding Pest county (the latter being
in the NUTS 3 regional category) jointly comprise the Central Hungary Region.
The concept of “region” does not equate to that of “agglomeration”, since the latter
is only its main part, its core. In spite of this, and after a five year interregnum, the
2004. amendment of the Regional Development Law re-established the Budapest
Agglomeration Development Council.
The council was established by the government as an organisation targeting
spatial development and as a legal entity within the regional development council
category. According to this, the Budapest Metropolitan City Council and the Cen-
tral Hungary Regional Development Council established the Budapest Agglomera-
tion Development Council for the purpose of harmonising the development aims
and interests of the capital and its surrounding region. The founders (the Metro-
politan Local Authority and the Regional Development Council concerned) were,
to a certain extent, given a free hand to lay down in their “Rules and Regulations”
which tasks they would perform within the confines of the Budapest Agglomera-
tion Development Council.
The Agglomeration Council’s weak point is its poor organisational quality,
since the government did not adopt a clear position on deciding the tasks of the
institution to be implemented by means of delegation. Those drawing up the legis-
lation lost themselves in the labyrinth of organisational formation. The “control-
ling” concept also makes it clear that, on this occasion likewise, the government
did not intend to establish a politically and economically strong institution, since –
under the terms of the legal authority – in a paradoxical way, it refers back to the
competence of the Regional Development Councils as the maximum achievable
where the common operation can be expanded by the will of the members. In
general this means the following [Act on Spatial Development Article 13. section
(2)]:
27
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
The Council
– examines and evaluates the social and economic state of the agglomeration,
– works out and accepts its long term concept for regional development,
– coordinates the preparations for micro-regional development,
– issues preliminary judgements on micro-regional concepts and programmes,
– prepares a financial plan to promote the accomplishment of its own develop-
ment programme,
– participates in the management of social and economic crises in its region,
– determines its budget and collects resources for the operation of the council.
It is evident that no special organisation has been established with the ability to
handle the problems of the micro-region and to offer a perspective for the associa-
tion – not to mention the fact that administrative tasks, involving the issues of or-
ganising public services, fall outside the scope of authority of the Agglomeration
Council. Control over the development of this large-scale political and economic
region fell into the hands of the Council, which assumes the cooperation of the
capital, the districts, the Regional Development Council (regionally, a partial
overlap) and – through the Micro-regional Development Councils – the city or
communal local governments. It is worth mentioning that the eight Micro-regional
Development Councils operating in the statistical micro-regions and affected by the
formation of the agglomeration may delegate only three representatives to the or-
ganisation in which 77 settlements present their interests. The government sends
one representative to the Council.
If the operation of the new Agglomeration Council is taken into account as an
organisational alternative for representing the area of a large city as a city region,
doubts will arise regarding the interests both of the capital and the agglomeration
local authority. Although it is not the aim of the present study to draft an organisa-
tion model of a cooperation at the agglomeration level, it is of decisive importance
from the point of view of the future of Budapest as a potential mega-city. The re-
sult of research of the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON
1.1.1, 2003.) draws our attention to the fact that, within Europe’s city network (in-
volving cities of international significance) – in addition to that of the Pentagon – a
new Development Triangle may come into being with the participation of the Hun-
garian capital. The possibilities provided by this particular institution do not corre-
spond to these expectations and are far from meeting the requirements demanded
by the development dynamics of the Budapest Agglomeration – either from an ex-
ternal or from a national perspective.
Similarly, in the eyes of the local authorities – and especially urban local au-
thorities – the Budapest Agglomeration Council seems inappropriate as a forum in
which they could rationally and serioulsy determine their common future. The
composition of the delegated members may be regarded as the first step towards
cooperation – which, in itself, is not a negative feature. However, the fact that all
28
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
the concerned local authorities in the agglomeration organisation are deprived of
the possibility of enforcing their interests, must certainly be regarded as such. Since
the district and agglomerational municipalities have a restricted range of possibilies
for self-representation, it seems unnecessarily authoritarian that the right of veto is
built in the law, since, according to this, both the Mayor of Budapest and the
Chairman of the Regional Development Council have the right of agreement
regarding all the decisions of the Council. Considering the scope of duties of the
Council, the situation is little better here either, since the authority it possesses are
connected mostly to planning and coordination and the significant cooperation
areas typical of several organisations created for the management of European
agglomerations are simply missing from the scope of its authority. It cannot be
estimated yet what issues it will be capable of implementing and what kind of
resources it will possess, as the legal framework includes no regulations in
connection with these.
Recognising all of this, we can confirm that the agglomeration management to-
day has two directions: by which to assure the functioning of the public admini-
stration area characterised by the intensive interrelationship of towns and commu-
nities, and to create a unified “common foreign policy” for the city-region. By
common foreign policy we mean especially the stimulation of the regional econ-
omy as well as the implementation of common marketing and management activity
which is deemed to be a direction of development motivated by an external com-
pulsion (Priebs, 1999). The framework of these activities is common planning. In-
ternational development makes it clear that – on behalf of metropolitan areas –
harmonised, or perhaps unified, solutions for communal problems regarding the
circumstances of the population and the long term development of settlements
should be obtained on the basis of regional policy and on a regional scale.
The conclusion of the present study is that to work out the real problems of the
Budapest agglomeration and to improve its international competitiveness would
need important administrative decisions. It is evident that, by dividing an agglom-
eration into micro-regions and establishing multi-purpose micro-regional associa-
tions, we will be no closer to the solution of such a large-scale problem than by the
establishment of the Budapest Agglomeration Development Council.
29
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
7 Case study based on the example of the Budaörs
micro-region
7.1 The basic features of the statistical micro-region
Legislators created the administrative system of micro-regions, with no differentia-
tion, and covering all regions of the country. Only the two most densely populated
cities of Hungary – Budapest and Debrecen – are not covered by the regulation,
since a micro-region founded by a single local authority cannot form an associa-
tion. This means that, for the time being, the agglomeration around the capital, and,
additionally, the local authorities situated in the surroundings of the other agglom-
erations and groups of settlements, must likewise model their future and develop-
ment plans within the geographical and administrative boundaries of the delineated
statistical micro-regions. The organisational solution so introduced abandoned the
possibility of a differentiated institutionalisation of the urban regions, although the
scientific, professional workshop had suggested it within the framework of the
IDEA programme. (Somlyódyné Pfeil, 2003b).
The absence of an administrative model appropriate for the magnitude and
function of the network of towns and their suburban areas, is easily traced by
assessing the situation – and outlining the future planning and development
policies of – the micro-region of Budaörs, which is situated on the territory of the
Budapest agglomeration area. The assessment relies on the results of the empirical
research carried out following the establishment of the micro-regional
administrative system (Rechnitzer, 2005). The effective statistical micro-regional
classification divides the Budapest agglomeration area into eight micro-regions
(and, consequently, the settlements which belong to it) and the Budaörs micro-
region is one of these.
The curiosity of the town of Budaörs is that the town and its micro-region –
named after the town – is situated in the most developed Western sector of the
agglomeration of the capital, being in the post-suburban development stage of the
urbanisation process. The characteristic of this stage is that the town becomes an
independent centre, is less and less an agglomerative settlement unilaterally
subordinate to the capital – and its own suburban area, economic and occupational
sphere of duties will develop step by step. Traffic-wise, Budaörs probably has the
country‘s most favourable geographical location, since it is situated in the heart of
the Budapest-centred radial motorway network. Thanks to its location, the town
has had a fascinating course of development since the regime change. This means
that its position within the country-wide urban-network is exceptional, with a very
high innovation potential, and a very low unemployment rate (3,5% in 2003.). A
comparative analysis, expressly based on the economic and social regeneration
capacity of the urban network of the Budapest agglomeration area, pointed out that
30
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
three further towns (Budakeszi, Szentendre, Gödöllı) are significant in the region,
in addition to Budaörs. The consequence of this is that Budaörs is not only in fierce
competition, but has also reached a landmark in terms of its development
(Rechnitzer, 2005). Finally, it is worth taking a look at the results based on two
indices of all of the micro-regions of the Budapest agglomeration area (Budaörs,
Dunakeszi, Gödöllı, Gyál, Pilisvörösvár, Ráckeve, Szentendre and Vác), and their
migration balance, comparing the achievements against each other and to the other
micro-regions of the country (Table 4a, b, c). Compared to this, the absolute
measure of the gross regional added value in the Budaörs micro-region and its
development path in the past ten years has emerged from the whole metropolitan
agglomeration and demonstrates the economic strength of the region. As a whole,
the picture of the agglomeration shows that, sooner or later, a regional
administrative organisation has to embrace this especially large economic area.
First of all, however, the present situation should be described.
One of the main issues of the research when completed was: How can the
present administrative structure be evaluated, considering that the town has
entered a new phase of development, and, in the meantime, needs to preserve its
competitiveness. Further: in what new directions does the town, as a place in which
to live, now have to move in terms of the organisation of public services, urban
planning and development and regional cooperation, in order to be able to
strengthen its dynamic central role and maintain its economic and innovation
potential. At the same time, the empirical research method produced several
observations regarding the operative ability of the micro-regional administration in
an agglomeration area.
To characterise the Budaörs micro-region is rather complicated, considering the
present administrative framework and the institutional structure of public services.
Following the reform of the statistical micro-regional district system in 2003, the
borders of the statistical micro-regions and the number of municipalities belonging
to a micro-region was amended. As a result of the new borders, two settlements
were added to the micro-regions forming a statistical micro-region (Biatorbágy and
Herceghalom), and so, as a consequence, the micro-region now consists of ten
local authorities (Table 2). As we mentioned earlier, the relevant government
decree designated the central settlements of the micro-regions, and, due to this,
Budaörs became the centre of the micro-region. However, it has to be noted that,
within the borders of the NUTS 4 level territorial unit, there is no direct connection
between the organisation of public services of the voluntarily-formed, multi-
purpose micro-regional association, and having the status of the centre. The
legislature made no provisions that would constitute operational obligations for the
micro-regional centre regarding its suburban area, but, nonetheless, the
administrative model does not rely on the classical theory of central locations – that
is, that the parties are entitled to decide individually that collectively undertaken
31
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
duties shall be performed by the local authorities of the settlement or any other
member of the association through its own institution.
The Budaörs micro-region is situated in the metropolitan area, where a quarter
of the total population of Hungary lives, namely 2,5 million people. From a
demographic point of view, it is a developing micro-region, since nine out of ten
settlements have a positive balance of migration (Table 2). The population of the
statistical region significantly exceeded the size of the average micro-regions in
2003 (143,343 inhabitants). This fact is connected to the special composition of its
settlements, since three settlements ranking as towns are to be found in the micro-
region, Budaörs, Érd and Százhalombatta. Moreover, the population of the other
local authorities is significantly greater than the average size of local authorities in
Hungary, which, in 2000, was 3,204 inhabitants per settlement. (Szigeti, 2002. p.
59.). This is the reason why, on the map providing a nation-wide comparison, the
region shows a relatively even distribution of public services. In other words, this
particular characteristic generates balance in regional operations, whilst the
presence of the three towns creates sensitive, internal spheres of power.
Table 2
Certain demographic characteristics of the micro-region of Budaörs, 2003
Name of local
Population at
Domestic
Number of children
Number of children
authority
year-end
migration
admitted for 100
admitted for 100 places
balance
places in nurseries
in kindergartens
Budaörs
25,171
455
121
109
Érd
59,377
1175
112
111
Százhalombatta
17,365
–6
106
99
Biatorbágy
8,866
292
No data
108
Diósd
6,779
394
–
115
Herceghalom
1,537
78
No data
100
Pusztazámor
1,063
25
No data
108
Sóskút
3,026
43
No data
90
Tárnok
8,136
259
–
85
Törökbálint
12,023
216
120
113
Source: The Statistical Yearbook of Pest county, 2003. CSO, Budapest, 2004, together with the
questionnaires sent out within the framework of the research.
Regarding internal relationships with the micro-region, these are polarised, with
various factors being present in parallel in the background:
– It is clear, that the characteristics of the micro-region cannot be separated
from its situation within the Budapest agglomeration area, as the multi-polar
urban-network naturally belongs to the metropolitan agglomeration. Further,
32
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
the statistical data collection referring to the agglomeration ringing Buda-
pest, divides this territory into sectors: the Northern half of the micro-region
of Budaörs (Budaörs, Biatorbágy, Herceghalom and Törökbálint) is a part of
the so-called Western sector, while the settlements constituting its Southern
half (Diósd, Érd, Tárnok, Sóskút, Pusztazámor and Százhalombatta) are a
part of the Southern sector of the agglomeration. Here also we can detect a
deviation from the borders determined for the NUTS 4 category. The ten-year
history of micro-regional cooperation is not limited to its present borders,
and, moreover, a few local authorities in the region have clear gravitational
connections to settlements in the Zsámbék basin, settlements now belonging
to the neighbouring statistical micro-region.
– The cultural-ethnic tradition of the region is rich. Regarding its inhabitants,
what e might term a caesura can be seen between Budaörs and its
neighbouring settlements, which have a native German minority, and the
region of Érd, Százhalombatta and Tárnok, which were originally inhabited
by Slovak and Rác (Serb) minorities. It is evident that these ethnic and
cultural conditions shaped social relations, and they determined the daily
movements of the inhabitants, with effects lasting until today.
– The communication network is formed in accordance with the existence or
absence of social relations between the settlements of a micro-region. In the
communication network the transverse routes are missing, and the road-
network follows the North-South division of the area. From the service-
providing and occupational points of view, the whole region is organized
around two settlements with town functions, Budaörs and Érd, and the
communication network is developed to assist these functions. As a
consequence, the only way to Budaörs leads across Budapest – either from
Százhalombatta, or from any settlement linked to Érd. Clearly, in earlier days
Budaörs was not an important destination for the inhabitants of these
settlements.
– It is interesting to observe that the bipolar micro-regional inner structure
(described above) was only strengthened by the transfer of certain public
administrational rights to the town clerks of the local authorities. Literally,
we are talking about the foundation of the “personal document” offices, as
state offices, in which the state empowers the apparatus of local authorities to
perform specific state functions. These offices, once again, divide the micro-
region, since three of them are situated here. The competence of the office in
Százhalombatta exclusively involves the town, while the Northern
settlements of the micro-region belong to the office in Budaörs. The Southern
settlements are allocated to the Érd office. We can see that, where the
administration should be managed as close as possible to the inhabitants, the
legislators followed the daily movements of the population.
33
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
– As far as public services are concerned, the area of the region is covered
evenly by the independent basic services of the local authorities. It should be
emphasised that what we might term “associative cooperation“ in the micro-
region rarely exists in the field of the public services, although this quite
autarkic behaviour of the local authorities developed in spite of the fact, that,
before the introduction of the micro-regional administration, several social
and child-care functions were not carried out. It might be an explanation for
the independence-seeking of the local authorities that their size, economic
power – and, maybe, the number of those utilising the services theoretically
justify the maintenance of an independent institutional network. An exception
to this would be two associations founded for the maintenance of two schools
and two schools of music, which are financed by two local authorities of the
micro-region. This does not necessarily mean that the institutions of local
authorities are not used by inhabitants of other settlements as a consequence
of their daily commuting; moreover, in certain cases they even cross the
borders of the micro-region. For example Budaörs has a fairly strong labour
gravitational effect, not only from the settlements of the micro-region, but
from Budapest itself. Due to the favourable demographic circumstances of
the area, the institutions funded by the local authorities (schools,
kindergartens, nursery schools, etc.) are operating at (sometimes at more
than) 100 % capacity-much higher that the national average.
– As far as service-providing regions are concerned, in respect of meso- or
town-level public services, the multi-polar character of the micro-region is
again clearly detectable. A large number of institutions providing medium-
level public services operate in Budaörs, Érd and Százhalombatta, and the
present communication network determines where the inhabitants will make
use of them. In the future, parallel (and so too expensive) institutional
developments should be avoidable.
7.2 Budaörs as centre of the micro-region – public services map
of the micro-region
It is hard to find an example for the administrative separation of a town and its ag-
glomeration in Europe. Though the rules of the multi-purpose micro-regional asso-
ciations of local authorities are valid also for the Budapest agglomeration area, the
current organisational structure of the agglomeration does not support the strength-
ening of the region of the actual metropolitan area.
Since the micro-region of Budaörs had to form the association so as to benefit
from the financial support connected to multi-purpose associations, it has an
artificial organisational frame, which is not adequate for the present situation and
34
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
the existing problems. Naturally, the importance of cooperation between the local
authorities of the region must not be underestimated, and its advantages need to be
exploited, since the multi-purpose micro-regional association has the possibility to
provide high-quality public services evenly, and the possibility to operate
systematically and transparently. The only question is, whether the system of
tenders ensuring access to the additional subventions, will or will not change in
relation to the interests of the settlements in the agglomeration area of Budapest.
Namely, the national budget favours settlements with disadvantaged demographic
conditions, and primarily encourages the rationalisation or liquidation of under-
utilised institutions.9
There is no settled and accepted method in Hungary to define which criteria and
institutions are needed for a town to become the centre of a micro-region. 168
micro-regional settlements were awarded this rank by the government in an
administrative decision. The researches carried out into the settlement network can
more or less define the features of a town, based on the principle that settlements
can be ranked in terms of a hierarchy of towns and towns. The development course
of Budaörs – based on the latest research – is evaluated as a town currently and
indisputably representing a central micro-regional role. The municipal institutions
needed for this rank are: a magistrates court, police station, land registry office,
notary public, at least four financial institutions, two or three secondary-schools, a
real estate agency, tourism agency, units of the State Public Health and Health
Officers Service, a car dealership, hospital, etc. (Beluszky, 2003). Even if a town
provides the above services in their entirety, other characteristics may also come
into question, such as urban traditions, the townscape, an urbanised town centre
etc, and, since a great amount of subjectivity is involved in these characteristics, a
definition of the minimum criteria to qualify as a town is hardly possible.
The institutions with traditional administrative roles were important in the
process of Budaörs becoming the centre of the micro-region centre, and well-
established state institutions in the town are involved. Budaörs aimed for the
central role, and with a good, long-term strategy, managed to attract these
institutions, so strengthening its central role in the micro-region. Of these, the court
and the public prosecutor’s office cover the whole micro-region (Table 3).
Recently, the town established an emergency ambulance station, and is building a
modern town-hall. At the same time, however, neither Budaörs, nor any other town
in the micro-region has a hospital, since the role of Budapest in this particular field
is an exclusive one.
Examining the position and role of Budaörs within the micro-region is an
interesting exercise, since it was not Érd – the most heavily populated settlement in
9 It is most likely to be further strengthened in 2006, as the Ministry of the Interior is going to
provide separate funding for the support of multi-purpose associations formed in the 48 most
disadvantaged statistical micro-regions.
35
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
the region, and qualifying as a medium-sized town – that became the designated
centre. Therefore the interviews recorded with the leaders of the local authorities
during the research focus on an evaluation of the central role of Budaörs, the future
of cooperation between the participating settlements of a micro-region and its
possible directions.
Although several consider the micro-regional centre ranking of Budaörs, and
the drawing up of the micro-region’s borders as being political decisions, they do
not question its suitability for this position. A study of all of the opinions expressed
reveals that the position of Budaörs is thanks, on the one hand, to its economic
power and, on the other, to its dynamic and impressive development. Moreover, the
far-sighted thinking of the leaders of the town, and its even-handed treatment of all
the other local authorities of the micro-region, has ensured trust in the town in
respect of cooperation. Naturally, all local leaders expect concrete advantages,
common tenders and, most of all, new investments and developments from the
founding of the multi-purpose micro-regional association.
Table 3
The presence of state institutions, determining the micro-regional
sphere of activity in the towns of the Budaörs micro-region
Local authority
Court
Public
Police
Personal
Job
Public
Childcare
Fire-
prosecutor station documents Centre
Health
office
Brigade
office
office
Budaörs
X
X
X
X
X
–
X
–
Érd
–
–
X
X
X
X
X
X
Százhalombatta
–
–
–
X
X
X
X
–
Source: Region, Administration, Local authorities (ed. Szigeti E.) MKI (Hungarian Public
Administration Institute), Budapest, 2001.
One existing conflict in the area should be solved in the future. Naturally the
prospect of new types of cooperation will not affect existing relations in the field of
public service organisation, although they are likely to be modified. In addition,
those basic and specialised responsibilities which are not yet provided for should
be dealt with. Those settlements that are primarily linked to Érd in terms of
education, health and social (and other) services, will possibly make use of these
services here in the future due to the advantages of closeness and availability.
Incidentally, the administrative framework created by the institution of multi-
purpose micro-regional associations do not exclude, (rather, support) the division
of functions within a micro-region by establishing sub-centres, although the
relationship between the centres and the sub-centres is unsettled, and they are hard
36
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
to assess. At the same time, we have to admit that the Hungarian regional
organisational system does not apply the classical terms of centres, and does not
use the functional ranking method when shaping the structure of settlements (cf.
Greiving, 2003). The rehabilitation of territorial planning following the change of
regime is a continuous and slowly progressing process, which can hardly assist the
development of the urban network.
The number of fields subsidised by the government for the financial year 2005
is limited to those fields where the micro-regional associations are entitled to
normative functional support. Those preferred by the system are generally provided
locally, or at micro-district level, due to their character (e.g. primary education,
social, child care, internal control and mobile library) and so do not include meso-
level public services. Meanwhile the public service system of the Budaörs micro-
region is organised in a way that most of these tasks are performed by the local
authorities individually due to their size. In addition, in contrast to the rural areas
and due to over-utilisation in Budaörs, Törökbálint and Tárnok, plans were
announced for further developments. These factors do not show that, in order to
guarantee the effectiveness of the organisation of services, the micro-region needs
an integrated task organisation, but, inevitably, the effective and rational utilisation
of resources assumes harmonised planning development.
7.3 Vision of the future development of the Budaörs micro-region
within the framework of cooperation
The result of the research was that common planning must be the starting point of
cooperation in shaping the micro-region’s future. In respect of development plan-
ning, the region already has a few development concepts, programmes which may
form a basis for common tendering. Among others are found the tourism develop-
ment project (already prepared), a common environmental project, a plan for a cy-
cle path connecting several settlements in the micro-region and the micro-regional
development project under supervision.
In Hungary town and physical planning is strictly separated from regional
development planning, as far as the subject area and the decision-making are
concerned. For NUTS 4-level statistical micro-regions only documents of the
regional development planning-type are prepared, and according to legislation, the
acceptance of the town and country planning scheme is a non-transferable authority
of the body of representatives, and all local authorities are legally obliged to
prepare them. The plan authorized for development and the town-and-country plan
coincide solely at local and national level.
Although the legislative act prescribes that the town and country plans shall be
harmonised with those of neighbouring local authorities, the implementation of this
37
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
principle does not, in practice, go beyond the formal. One explanation for this is
that the settlements concerned with town and country planning do not have any
guaranteed entitlement in respect of reconciliation. According to experience, the
situation is no better in the Budaörs micro-region than in any other micro-regions
of the country, since the practice is that the architect carries out a reconciliation
exercise with the neighbouring local authorities. This may not qualify as
“satisfying”, since expressly professional guidelines may be followed, but the
harmonisation of regional interests and a probable political deal is impossible.
Clearly, not only must the micro-regional or the regional development plant be
harmonised within a short period of time, but also the town and country planning
which lays down the obligatory rules for territorial utilisation. At micro-regional
level, only regional development projects and programmes may be accepted, while
the construction and building regulations are established by the local authorities in
the so-called regulatory schemes.
The problem is acute, since three settlements of the micro-region, Budaörs,
Biatorbágy and Érd, have no vacant land for future building. This demands a
change of approach at local authority level, and collective action should be
encouraged. This is, of course, a phenomenon emerging in the great
agglomerations of the world, which simply means that free, available space is li-
mited. Generally, local authorities are forced to work out a new land-management
scheme and to cooperate with the neighbouring authorities; and so, consequently,
planning has become the most important element of cooperation. In the near future,
town and country planning and regional development activity should be reconciled
in order to handle the problems which affect our micro-region also – for example,
when a commercial or industrial zone on one side of the administrative boundary
between two settlements comes up against a residential area on the other, so
damaging the quality of life for the inhabitants.
15 years after the change of regime, the undeveloped areas available in Budaörs
are limited, although, in order to carry out a number of functions deriving from its
central role, more space is needed. From an objective point of view, neither an
extensive expansion of the residential areas, nor a further expansion of the
commercial/industrial area is in the interest of the town, and so any utilisation of
the undeveloped areas needs to be undertaken most carefully. Following the
quantitative phase of the development of a micro-region it has to move to the
qualitative, the signs of which are already visible. This assertion is based on the
undoubted fact, verified by Hungarian urban network research, that a few towns in
the agglomeration are indeed the result of spontaneous development and are,
essentially, sprawling suburbs. Érd and, in part, Budaörs belong to this category
and in these towns there has been to date no significant town centre development.
(Beluszky–Gyıri, 2003). The lack of an urban tradition is also seen in Százhalom-
38
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
batta, the region’s third town, although it is listed as belonging to the “industrial
towns” category.
For Budaörs to stay a successful and competitive town in the future, the quality
of life provided by the home area is hugely important, embracing the communal
services available, the opportunities for relaxation, sport and recreation – and also
the presence of culture and the arts in the centre. The residential town is closely
involved with attracting and retaining the highly qualified workforce. As a matter
of fact, the enterprises in Budaörs interviewed during the research are short of
qualified and creative local labour and also of the recreational services to be
provided for employees and inhabitants alike. The quantity and quality of the green
areas in the town were also considered insufficient. Above all, regarding public
services, in the future Budaörs needs an urban town centre to be built which is
worthy of its role and economic position and it also needs the construction of a
service-providing network, which helps to guarantee a quality of life in the town,
so increasing its competitiveness. In the long run the creation of new spheres of
activity and the distribution of responsibilities should be considered, making use of
the West European experiences of agglomerations.
Only a basic change of approach may assist in maintaining the comparative
advantage of the Budaörs micro-region. Whilst the local authorities of a micro-
region were basically competitors during the last fifteen years in the battle for
investors, jobs and infrastructural investment, emphasising their individuality, in
the present situation they should put aside this feeling of competition and act in
partnership. If nothing else, the physical borders of the extensive growth of the
undeveloped areas will force the agglomeration settlements to cooperate.
The proposal based on the research was that the local authorities of the micro-
region, within the framework of cooperation – realising the long-term problems
deriving from the limited amount of undeveloped land – should divide functions
among the settlements. The precondition is that the region shall be considered as an
integrated development area, where the interests of the settlements must be taken
into consideration in order to preserve its competitiveness. This means that the
planning process should include the whole region and make joint decisions as to
which of the local authorities shall focus on the residential areas, which on the
commercial/industrial activities, which on recreational and leisure activities
(sporting, relaxation, entertainment etc.), and where the industrial, agricultural and
other activities should be located. In this way the joint development of the border
areas of the local authorities would not be difficult. The model described here
might well work if the drafting of the future development and utilisation plan for
the whole region precedes the acceptance of individual town and country plans.
Considering this, the development and utilisation plan would inevitably be
reconciled, since it has to be realised on the territory of one of the local authorities,
and the territorial restructuring rules refer to these. Consequently, micro-regional
39
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
and town and country planning have to be synchronised. However, according to the
Act on Multi-Purpose Micro-Regional Associations, no sphere of activity is
assigned to the listed town and country planning tasks. Rather, it may be
considered as a specific task of a certain kind for the association in respect of the
common treatment of planning issues.
The town of Budaörs should, therefore, focus on becoming a town with an
urban view and a regional centre, which may be realised through far-reaching
developments. On the one hand, the centre of the micro-region may benefit from
the necessary division of powers, but, on the other hand, it has to pay a price for
this. If, therefore, it would like to become a town offering a high quality if life, and
having both natural and cultural values, being innovative and disseminating these
to the whole micro-region, it is probable that, in a short space of time, it will have
to transfer the enlargement of the commercial/industrial activities to the other local
authorities of the micro-region. On the other hand, the new establishments to be
built in the town should accord with regional requirements, and it is also likely that
the members of the association would consider a common housing policy. Finally,
and within the given legal framework of the multi-purpose association, the division
of functions of local authorities should be handled smoothly, with the investments
and returns of the authorities participating in the cooperation being balanced.
Common budgeting will be possible, since the method for dividing the local
taxes among the members of the micro-region association are clear. On the other
hand, the Hungarian state does not deal with the consequences of the so-called
spill-over effect when financing the local authorities system with regard to the
town and its gravitation zone; the redistribution of the income of the regions can
only be solved horizontally, that is, amongst the members of the micro-region and
the agglomeration. To create a successful redistribution policy, local authorities
have to put aside several conflicts of interest.
The spirit of regional cooperation will arise from the common identity of the
cooperating partners and the inhabitants. Naturally, the birth of a territorial,
regional identity is a result of a long process which can be supported with different
measures. Today, however, neither the local authority of Budaörs, nor the board of
the micro-regional association is characterised by openness towards local society,
the civil sphere and the actors in the local economy. The drafting of the
development and the town and country plans are interpreted as a professional task,
and only the final documents before acceptance are published for the inhabitants,
complying minimally with the legal regulations. In contrast to this, the very
fashionable term of partnership would mean that civil society is in a dialogue with
the members of the economic and non-profit sector, and that it is involved in the
drafting of the development guidelines. This would result in the mobilisation of its
own intellectual and financial resources in order to implement a successful
development policy. Following the common interests in planning and realisation,
40
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
an identity might be born which could further strengthen the common regional,
foreign policy. We need only mention the extremely strong local economy, which
might take part in the financing of the Budaörs micro-region and its settlements, if
its interests are built in from the very beginning in the planning and decision-
making process.
7.4 The importance of public administration structures in building
spatial relations in an agglomeration-based micro-region
As a result of the research, we can conclude that the administrative structures pro-
vided by the current regulations are unable to serve the future development of the
micro-region. Neither the model of a multi-purpose micro-regional association, nor
the Budapest Agglomeration Council connected to the area development institu-
tional scheme, is an adequate organisational structure for Budaörs and its region,
for the town to become a competitor in the European competition of towns as a part
of the regional cooperation and planning unit. The concept already accepted in pro-
fessional circles, that the region is the town itself, and that the town with its region
shall be interpreted as a co-operational network, is not yet accepted in Hungary
(Krau, 2005).
If the completion of the planned development goals is interpreted within the
framework of the multi-purpose micro-regional association, then, rationally, a new
dimension of the development of Budaörs may be opened through this, which
means, at most, a short-term and somewhat limited perspective of the town. In this
case, the town has to accept the idea of becoming a full-scale centre of the micro-
region. This direction of development may rely on the opportunities given by
suburbanization, which would open a sub-centre within the town, but, at the same
time, would suggest the separation and isolation of the micro-regions from each
other and from Budapest, and would deprive them of the opportunity of playing a
regional role. Naturally, concerning Budaörs and its area, the only option is one
which would balance the advantages and disadvantages deriving from cooperation
between or among the parties.
The government intended to broaden the horizons of the multi-purpose micro-
regional association, since it accepted tasks demanding so-called regional
cooperation into its institutional competency, for which the member local
authorities may extend their cooperation voluntarily:
– development of economy and tourism,
– protection of the environment and nature,
– recycling of waste materials,
– employment,
41
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
– 53local communication and maintenance of public roads,
– cultural and public collection activity,
– management of real estate and other assets,
– provision of a sewage system and sewage treatment
– veterinary and phyto-sanitary control,
– public utilities and energy supply,
– town and country planning,
– implementation of programmes for equal opportunities.
Most of the listed tasks are above the micro-regional level, and at least a
NUTS 3 level of cooperation is necessary among the interested parties. In the
meantime, the transfer of the competence for town and country planning to the
micro-regions is legally absurd, since the effective law does not consider the
micro-region as a planning level within the town and country planning process.
The contradictions regarding the multi-purpose micro-regional association,
therefore, indicate that for the institutions to operate well will take some time.
Obviously a clear view is hindered by the fact that, in the meantime, the new
associations have to comply with the divergent requirements of the countryside and
of agglomeration areas.
The ultimate interest of the Budaörs micro-region is that it should be able to
shape its development and future within the framework of the Central-East-
European metropolitan region and that the necessary institutions with adequate
planning, administrative and financial institutions should develop.
8 Comparative analysis of three agglomeration-type micro-
regions
In this chapter the regions of the cities of Gyır, Miskolc and Pécs (medium-size
cities on a European scale) will be the subject of our analysis, which – besides the
metropolitan agglomeration – were classified as agglomerations by statistical
methodology in 2003. These are situated in three different regions of the country,
and, as a consequence, each represents distinctively different types in terms of de-
velopment and economic situation (Figure 1). The Gyır agglomeration, situated on
the Vienna–Gyır–Budapest axis, is in the central part of the West Transdanubian
region, the most dynamically developing region of the country. In contrast, Mi-
skolc, referred to as the centre of the North Hungarian region, was the second larg-
est and most significant industrial city of the country prior to the change of regime.
However, from 1990 onwards, it has been considered as a crisis area of the coun-
try, confirmed by the fact that it has lost one quarter of its population in a short
time. The third agglomeration area is that of Pécs, situated in the South Transda-
42
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
nubian region. Currently, it does not feature among the developed parts of the
country; nor did it earlier. However, from the turn of the 20th century, its centre
has played a regional-centre role. As in the Miskolc region, the signs of develop-
ment are not visible in this southern part of the country, but South Transdanubia
has, in recent years, not been allocated as generous subsidies for restructuring pur-
poses as the northern part of the country.
Figure 1
The regional locations of the Gyır, Miskolc and Pécs agglomerations
Key: 1 – National border; 2 – Regional border; 3 – County border; 4 – Statistical micro-region border.
Source: A compilation of the author on the basis of on the data of County Statistical Yearbooks, 2003.
Central Statistical Office, Budapest.
The situation of the three agglomeration centres and the statistical micro-regions
surrounding them is well characterised by the time series calculated for the gross
regional added value per capita, for the personal income tax base per capita and for
the balance of migration (Tables 4a, b, c). In order to make the evaluation of the
metropolitan and the three provincial agglomerations totally clear, we have
compared their figures with the county- and regional-average values of the three
agglomeration-type micro-regions, and with their most disadvantaged micro-
regions, respectively. We have to add here, that the current practice of statistical
data gathering and evaluation only enables the comparison of the characteristic
43
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
features of the statistical micro-regions. The tables clearly show that the urban
areas examined rank among the best situated regions of their county, region and,
moreover, among those of the country, a reflected by the phenomenon of
agglomeration itself.
Table 4a
The amount of income (personal income tax base) per capita at current
prices in the examined micro-regions (ft ‘000s)
County
Micro-region
1992
1995
1999
2002
Agglomeration-type
micro-regions
Baranya
Pécs
119,0
175,7
333,2
507,1
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén
Miskolc
103,5
153,7
284,9
433,6
Gyır-Moson-Sopron
Gyır
122,3
191,7
405,2
617,7
Pest (Budapest)
Budaörs
120,1
198,0
413,4
636,8
Pest (Budapest)
Dunakeszi
122,8
187,4
388,5
627,1
Pest (Budapest)
Gödöllı
90,3
137,1
337,1
544,2
Pest (Budapest)
Gyál
94,6
135,7
275,0
442,9
Pest (Budapest)
Pilisvörösvár
118,0
176,3
383,4
617,4
Pest (Budapest)
Ráckeve
95,9
139,3
265,6
447,4
Pest (Budapest)
Szentendre
117,1
179,4
372,8
610,0
Pest (Budapest)
Vác
106,8
163,7
331,6
523,9
The most disadvantaged
micro-regions
Baranya
Sellye
59,1
80,0
142,3
252,4
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén
Edelény
62,4
89,0
161,6
259,1
Gyır-Moson-Sopron
Tét
73,6
110,5
259,3
423,6
Pest
Nagykáta
80,5
112,5
211,5
344,1
County average
Baranya
96,9
139,6
264,5
403,4
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén
86,3
126,5
238,0
365,6
Gyır-Moson-Sopron
106,5
165,6
344,8
526,6
Pest
98,3
148,8
307,8
496,4
Regional average
South-Transdanubia
91,0
136,0
257,4
393,8
North-Hungary
87,0
127,9
247,5
384,7
West-Transdanubia
104,4
161,6
329,5
505,2
Central-Hungary
245,6
362,9
717,6
1067,8
Country average
Hungary
134,1
198,7
390,6
592,5
Source: the author’s own work on the basis of Lénárt, P. (2004.)
44
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
Table 4b
The estimated value of the gross regional value added percapita at current
prices in the examined micro-region (ft ‘000s)
County
Micro-region
1992
1995
1999
2002
Agglomeration-type
micro-regions
Baranya
Pécs
139,9
211,5
476,8
1024,4
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén
Miskolc
94,0
148,8
275,2
427,0
Gyır-Moson-Sopron
Gyır
194,3
361,5
1355,9
1746,9
Pest (Budapest)
Budaörs
93,9
235,7
1079,8
2299,6
Pest (Budapest)
Dunakeszi
40,6
105,2
309,9
633,0
Pest (Budapest)
Gödöllı
51,9
139,1
503,5
661,3
Pest (Budapest)
Gyál
27,3
73,6
209,9
461,8
Pest (Budapest)
Pilisvörösvár
77,6
181,8
382,8
564,9
Pest (Budapest)
Ráckeve
57,1
96,3
257,4
541,4
Pest (Budapest)
Szentendre
80,2
147,8
254,3
464,9
Pest (Budapest)
Vác
75,0
201,0
458,0
664,0
The most disadvantaged
micro-regions
Baranya
Sellye
9,5
20,9
35,4
69,7
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén
Edelény
15,8
27,6
48,8
97,2
Gyır-Moson-Sopron
Tét
20,1
24,5
75,2
145,4
Pest
Nagykáta
30,4
38,6
79,7
168,2
County average
Baranya
80,8
136,9
282,4
568,6
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén
63,0
148,7
246,2
387,3
Gyır-Moson-Sopron
111,5
223,8
721,3
977,0
Pest
52,7
118,7
357,2
661,2
Regional average
South-Transdanubia
84,2
135,4
285,7
497,0
North-Hungary
58,1
127,8
235,1
423,4
West-Transdanubia
89,7
201,5
565,0
738,6
Central-Hungary
235,8
443,3
1034,7
1716,1
Country average
Hungary
117,3
225,0
511,1
821,1
Source: the author’s own work on the basis of Lénárt, P. (2004).
45
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
Table 4c
Balance of migration per 1,000 population in the examined micro-regions
County
Micro-region
1993
1995
1999
2002
Agglomeration-type
micro-regions
Baranya
Pécs
6.5
–1.1
0.0
2.5
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén
Miskolc
–1.6
–2.9
–1.3
–5.1
Gyır-Moson-Sopron
Gyır
3.8
3.8
4.9
5.9
Pest (Budapest)
Budaörs
16.0
18.0
22.6
19.0
Pest (Budapest)
Dunakeszi
17.0
17.4
16.5
14.6
Pest (Budapest)
Gödöllı
9.2
19.4
18.0
17.9
Pest (Budapest)
Gyál
7.2
8.0
8.9
7.4
Pest (Budapest)
Pilisvörösvár
14.7
19.3
21.5
23.6
Pest (Budapest)
Ráckeve
13.1
14.0
22.9
19.9
Pest (Budapest)
Szentendre
11.5
17.1
24.1
21.2
Pest (Budapest)
Vác
7.3
9.9
6.7
5.1
The most disadvantaged
micro-regions
Baranya
Sellye
–10.0
–1.7
1.9
–12.9
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén
Edelény
–11.1
–6.0
–3.9
–2.0
Gyır-Moson-Sopron
Tét
0.3
4.7
2.7
3.9
Pest
Nagykáta
5.2
11.0
18.9
12.3
County average
Baranya
1,1
–1.1
–0.1
–0.4
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén
–4,4
–3.4
–2.7
–3.6
Gyır-Moson-Sopron
1,6
2.8
2.7
3.8
Pest
9,2
13.6
16.9
15.0
Regional average
South-Transdanubia
-0,2
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
North-Hungary
–2,9
–2.3
–1.1
–2.4
West-Transdanubia
0,7
1.3
0.9
1.6
Central-Hungary
2,7
0.9
1.2
2.0
Country average
Hungary
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Source: the author’s own work on the basis of Lénárt, P. (2004).
46
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
As already mentioned, the Hungarian city-pyramid is imperfect, since it is
easily seen that, below Budapest, the category of large provincial cities with a
population of 300–500,000 is lacking. On the next level of the settlement hierarchy
are the regional centres, among which Gyır has improved its ranking only recently,
following Debrecen, Pécs, Szeged and Miskolc. The population of these, the
largest, Hungarian towns or cities – except for Debrecen – does not exceed 200,000
inhabitants. Gyır is already characterised by the newer type of urban development,
in which greater emphasis is laid upon modern business services (e.g. it is the most
significant provincial banking centre) than upon conventional administrative centre
functions. The professional terminology of settlements refers to Szeged, Debrecen
and Pécs as indisputable regional centres, whereas Miskolc and Gyır are
categorised as regional centres with an inadequate sphere of activity (Beluszky,
2003 p. 326.). Eventually, according to the standard set by the EU, the three
agglomerations delineated by the Central Statistical Office do not reach the
threshold value characteristic of large cities in terms of population (Table 5).
Table 5
The size of the examined agglomerations and their relation
to the statistical micro-regions
Name
Number of
Population
settlements
(1st January 2003)
Gyır statistical micro-region
27
176,546
Gyır agglomeration
29
182,929
City of Gyır
–
128,913
Miskolc statistical micro-region
41
279,231
Miskolc agglomeration
13
220,773
City of Miskolc
–
180,282
Pécs statistical micro-region
39
185,786
Pécs agglomeration
21
180,304
City of Pécs
–
158,942
Source: The author’s own calculation on the basis of “Gazetteer of the Republic of Hungary” 1st
January, 2004. Central Statistical Office, Budapest.
Not only the agglomerations, but also the statistical micro-regions have been
formed around Gyır, Pécs and Miskolc, and so the regulations of multi-purpose
micro-regional associations have also come into effect in respect of them.
Although, due to the progress of the development of agglomerations, the situation
of the three regional centres may be deemed special, no regard was paid to this
when the legislation was drawn up. However, certain micro-regions were marked
out, among them the Miskolc micro-region, for administrative micro-regional pilot-
47
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
scheme purposes. It should, however, be added, that the success of these pilot-
schemes is questionable, since they were launched contemporaneously with the
nation-wide introduction of the new administrative system.
In the case of the largest agglomeration (Miskolc), a significant difference
shows in the number of settlements classed among statistical micro-regions and
among agglomerations. The population (Figure 2) of the statistical micro-region
reaches, in fact exceeds, that of four Hungarian counties (Nógrád, Tolna, Vas, and
Zala), that is, the population of the meso-level regional administrative units.
Although each of the settlements marked out for the agglomeration is chosen from
the micro-region, there is a major and inexplicable difference to be seen between
the extent of the statistical micro-region and that of the agglomeration. The
phenomenon of agglomeration is visible on a much smaller territory around Mis-
kolc than the borders of its micro-region. In the case of the Pécs agglomeration,
there is also a significant difference between the two suburban areas in terms of the
number of settlements, but, on the other hand, only two communities which belong
to other statistical micro-regions and, therefore, are not part of this micro-region,
were included in the agglomeration.
Examining the most dynamically developing agglomeration (Gyır), we find
that the actual territory of the agglomeration significantly deviates from that of its
administrative micro-region, although the number of settlements is approximately
the same. This is due to the fact, that the agglomeration embraces eight such
communities (Écs, Gyırság, Gyırszemere, Hédervár, Kóny, Lébény, Mecsér and
Mosonszentmiklós), that have very close socio-economic relations to Gyır but
belong to other statistical micro-regions. Six other settlements, on the other hand,
do not bear the marks of agglomeration, but, in terms of administration,
(considering the borders of multi-purpose micro-regional association) they still
belong to the city.
Among the three regional centres, Gyır is the only one whose government has
been dealing with the issue of institutionalisation of gravitation zone-relations for
some years. First, research was conducted (on the city’s initiative) to explore the
existing and potential forms of co-operation within the agglomeration (Hardi,
2002), and then, in 2003, with the participation of 46 local authorities it was the
first to establish voluntarily the Agglomerational Development Association of
Municipalities in the Gyır surroundings. The legal form of the co-operation is the
municipal regional development association, the objectives of which are the
concerted development of the settlements, the drawing up of common regional
development programmes, the submission of collective tenders and the pooling of
resources in order to implement the development programmes. The characteristic
feature of this grass-roots initiative, without any state subsidy, is that settlements of
three statistical micro-regions (the Gyır, Pannonhalma and Tét micro-regions)
have joined it – in the interest of carrying out a successful development policy. The
48
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
development strategy of the agglomeration could not have been elaborated as yet,
since the tender submitted to obtain resources for its financing proved to be
unsuccessful. However, preparation-works for the organisation of suburban mass
transit have been commenced.
Figure 2
The relationship of the three examined agglomerational regions
to the borders of the statistical micro-regions
Key: 1 – National border; 2 – County borders; 3 – Statistical micro-region borders; 4 – Administrative
territory of the city; 5 – Territory of the agglomeration; 6 – Territory of the micro-region.
Source: A compilation of the author on the basis of on the data of County Statistical Yearbooks, 2003.
Central Statistical Office, Budapest.
49
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
The local authorities making up the Development Council of the Suburban Area
had to face a dilemma in 2004, since it became clear that co-operation at
agglomeration level cannot count on any kind of state subsidy for planning or
development – nor for the operation. However, by establishing a multi-purpose
micro-regional association, subsequent financial resources become available by
application for one-time joint developments, for the operation of the institutions
and to fulfil the undertaken tasks. Moreover, the state also takes part in the
financing of drafting of a micro-regional development concept. There is, however,
a fly in the ointment: the NUTS 4 territorial unit, providing the administrative
frame of the micro-regional association, significantly deviates from the gravitation
zone co-operation in terms of structure, participants and geographical borders.
Six months after a majority of the micro-regional associations had been formed,
and just before the deadline of the application for subsidies, the bigger part of the
affected local authorities yielded and established the Gyır multi-purpose micro-
regional association. The fact that, out of 27 local authorities of the statistical
micro-region, only 18, that is, only two-thirds, took part in the co-operation within
the state subsidised framework, could obviously be due to the forced nature of the
situation. Namely, there was a high level of political mistrust towards the new
administrative structure in the Gyır region. On one hand, the leaders of the local
authorities did not see any guarantees for the long-run operation of the public ser-
vice structure newly set up, since its financing would depend upon the annual state
budget. On the other hand, they did not accept the necessity of rationalisation urged
by the government. Eventually, they questioned the justification for the quasi-
micro-regional level “wedge” between the authorities at local and county levels.
Only those local authorities undertook the obligations of an association (in the hope
of additional state subsidies) that were demographically in an advantageous
situation and could easily meet the required rates of utilisation. Due to their
economic maturity, the majority of the local authorities in the area can generate
sufficient own resources and are less defenceless, in budgetary terms, than their
counterparts in the rural areas. This is true despite the fact that the average number
of inhabitants in the settlements surrounding the regional centre is only 1,832,
which is very low.
The newly formed co-operations in the three agglomeration areas face several
difficulties in organising the execution of works within the multi-purpose
association. The primary reason for this is mistrust towards the large city. In
addition, Miskolc and Pécs have not maintained good relations with the local
authorities within their suburban areas during the past 15 years. Due to external
circumstances, the cities had been busy with their own problems, which were
significantly different in magnitude from those of the surrounding settlements. It is
true that, in Hungary the county-towns (county capitals) are the most heavily
burdened with the operation and maintenance of institutions – a fact which
50
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
produces huge budget deficits. The situation is close to the dramatic, since, for
instance, public education, which is a compulsory municipal task, heads the budget
of (mainly) the regional centres in a forced direction. Behind this problem is also
the fact that the consequences of the spill-over effect – when the inhabitants of the
gravitation zone make use of the services of centre-institutions in large numbers –
is only marginally compensated for by the state from central government level, by,
for example, day-pupil subsidies. In fact, previously the towns had no records of
how many non-residents received various forms of institutional services. However,
during the 90s there were attempts from the town side to settle the deficit with the
surrounding settlements within the framework of an agreement for cooperation, but
the latter refused to accept any kind of burden. Regretfully, the stereotype,
according to which communities are poor but towns are prosperous, still exists.
It is almost always a matter of course anywhere in the world that the large cities
are primarily interested in an agglomerational co-operation, and, therefore, that
such cooperation is initiated by them. Moreover, they are the most likely to be the
leaders of such organisations. In Hungary, however, due to the fundamental
purpose of the multi-purpose micro-regional associations, the situation is a totally
different one. The main purpose of these associations is to establish a system of
basic public services. The three city councils in question at most support in
principle the activities of the associations by making their administration available
to them, but, amongst the examined cities, Pécs and Gyır treat the association
somewhat arrogantly. The situation of Miskolc differs somewhat, since it is the
subject of a pilot scheme. Nothing reflects this better than the fact that, in the case
of this former region, the mayor of the centre city is, at the same time, chairman of
the Association Council, whilst Pécs and Gyır abandoned this position to a
municipal council, to the mayors of Orfő and Ikrény, respectively. This conduct
shows the problem that, for regional centres, the organisation and discharge of
micro-regional tasks fall outside the scope of strategic goals; the competence of the
associations is not relevant in terms of the future development prospects of the
cities.
Regional centres are most likely to have such an attitude towards the new-type
associations in which they lend their name to the co-operation, but otherwise
continue to perform all the tasks of collective interest individually. If it concerns
the micro-regional organisation of a task (family support, child welfare, social
issues etc.) in the examined large town regions, the organisation is usually carried
out by assigning it to the internal departments and to suitable sub-offices. The
reason for this is, that the magnitude of such tasks does not enable one centre to
discharge these basic level tasks. The methodology of de-centres was specially
adopted by the Miskolc micro-region, considered to be a huge region, where the
leaders of the local authorities ad concluded an agreement – by taking notice of the
51
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
transport and commuting relations – on the assignment of subdivisions and
communities belonging to them.
Due to this “constellation”, the large cities make no effort to use the given
organisational framework for the establishment of higher level co-operations.
However, if, in terms of their future cooperation, the three regional centres
considered a two-level system, the existing structure of fulfilling their tasks could
be integrated into a comprehensive organisation that enables action at regional
level (Table 6). There is no denying though, that setting up the micro-regional
development programmes has started nationwide. It is a state supported and
subsidised planning activity, which – we hope – will, in the future, become the
basis of development financing. However, central regional policy seems to open up
new, somewhat more independent, prospects for the regional centres.
It will later cause difficulties relating to handling the dichotomy of urban and
rural settlements that, in the course of planning the new public supply network the
rural communities are eyeing with suspicion the shadowy presence of the large
towns; they are wary of their assistance and, at the same time, are concerned for
their independence acquired with the change of regime.
Table 6
Principal tasks of the three micro-regional associations
Range of task
Gyır multi-purpose
Miskolc multi-
Pécs multi-purpose
micro-regional
purpose micro-
micro-regional
association
regional association
association
Public Education
X
X
X
Educational tasks
X
X
–
Social care
–
X
X
Family- and Child Protection
X
X
X
Library services
–
X
–
Local public road maintenance
X
–
–
Waste management
–
X
X
Environmental Protection and
–
–
–
Nature Conservancy
Drinking water supply, Purifica-
–
X
–
tion of waste-water
Internal audit
X
X
X
Spatial development/Spatial plan-
X
X
X
ning
Other (official administrative
–
X
X
tasks, crime prevention, etc.)
Source: the author’s own research.
52
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
9 Responses of regional policy and planning
to the development needs of the urban network
In Hungary the exact conditions for a town to be officially designated as such have
not been worked out, as is the case with the methodology needed for the differenti-
ated management of urban networks. However, some initial steps now appear to
have been taken, since the preparation, or revision, of some plans at international
level is on the agenda. Two of these are the acceptance of the new National Spatial
Development Concept (NSDC), and drafting the National Development Policy
Concept (NDPC) – which is part of the preparation for the EU’s next planning pe-
riod. Those drafting both national-level projects clearly aim to realise the main pri-
orities drawn up by the EU, in order to renew the Cohesion Policy, especially the
principles of regional competitiveness and the efforts to create employment. The
documents which are the subject of our analysis are still in the social and profes-
sional discussion phase, although they will probably be accepted by the end of
2005 (NFH [National Development Office] 2005, MTRFH [Hungarian Spatial and
Regional Development Office] 2005).
The NSDC is a document on long-term development policy for acceptance by
Parliament. It outlines the country’s long- and medium-term objectives and priori-
ties in terms of regional policy, and its main virtue is its regional approach. The
document draws up a vision of Hungary in 2030, a picture of a cooperative urban
network with numerous centres, prioritising the creation of regional poles. To em-
phasise the regional centres (poles) in the country’s regional structure is a totally
new notion, which confers innovative and economic organisational and dynamising
powers on towns, sufficient to compensate for the dominance of the capital. We
can, in addition, recognise the aim to develop intensive town-region relationships,
in order to create relations between towns which have a central role and their wider
environment, based on the division of functions.
The urban network of Hungary in its current state shows scarcely any trait of
polycentralism (ESPON 2003), and so it is no accident that to create a polycentric
cooperative urban network is one of the comprehensive objectives for competitive-
ness. On the other hand, among the objectives for closing regional gaps, the de-
mand to reduce inequality in terms of basic life-opportunities (accesible public ser-
vices, community infrastructure) at local level (settlements and micro-regions) and
between the main settlement categories has reappeared – after a long period. We
can use the term reappeared, since the so-called privileged centres were once des-
ignated in the main documents of state-socialist regional policy10 in 1971, as part of
10 Governmental decision No 1006/1971 of 16 March 1971 on directives of spatial development,
Governmental decision No 1007/1971 of 16 March 1971 on the national settlement-network
development concept.
53
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
a four-tiered structure. At that time – perhaps an irony of fate, but certainly no co-
incidence – these privileged centres were exactly the same towns (Miskolc, Debre-
cen, Pécs, Szeged and Gyır) which we intend to develop into poles of competitive-
ness. Accordingly, directives relating to regional development had already identi-
fied the following tasks some thirty years ago, in order to develop a modern settle-
ment-network:
– to increase the significance of large and medium-sized towns
– to set up establishments which correspond with the functions of certain (na-
tional, high-, medium- and low-level) centres, and position them in a way en-
suring adequate services for the national population, according to the level of
economic development, and adequate conditions for economic development.
If we examine the social objectives of regional development drawn up thirty
years ago, we can clearly see the intentions to harmonise the quality of social
services provided for residents living in the same types of settlement, and to reduce
the difference in quality distribution and efficiency of productive forces, they
decided to encourage the gradual resolution of the social-economic tension which
had emerged in the agglomeration of Budapest, so ensuring the harmonious
development of the area.
At this distance in time, we already know that the regional policy of the socialist
era brought no success, and so the central authorities of the new democratic state
has to face practically the same problems, since, at most, only the political and
economic environment has changed. In order to handle the situation, the National
Spatial Development Concept plans to introduce seven national regional objectives
for the period to 2015:
1) To create a competitive metropolitan area in Budapest
2) To develop regional innovation poles and urban-network relations
3) To close up external and internal peripheries, lagging areas
4) The integrated development of environmentally sensitive regions of national
significance
5) To strengthen cross-border cooperation among the regions
6) Spatially integrated development priorities in rural areas
7) Regional priorities for sectoral policies
In terms of our topic, the first two of the points listed are the most significant,
and it gives us hope that the document relies on the creation of a smoothly running
agglomeration system, which assumes harmonious cooperation among the actors of
the Budapest agglomeration. Furthermore, it concentrates on consistent planning,
which serves the development of the capital and its suburban ring. However, it
raises doubts regarding the means of realisation, since it only specifies the coop-
eration of the actors of agglomerations and the creation of management establish-
ments, in addition to expressing the intention to make every effort in order to en-
54
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
sure cooperation among the institutions of all interested settlements able to adapt to
the agglomerational externalities (NSDC, Chapter 3., Article 1., Interim objective
10.). From this approach, however, it cannot be determined unequivocally who is
responsible for the creation of executive structures and, even less, what kind of role
the state will – or is intended to – undertake. We know, from experience gained
from cooperating urban institutions that, without some kind of participation or sup-
port from the state, such large-scale cooperation cannot be achieved.
The current NSDC scheme takes into account the role of the capital and its ag-
glomeration as an economy-organising centre, as well as its effect on the whole
country and its regional poles. The concept intends to resolve the Budapest-centred
regional structure, using the regional poles as its means, expecting them to gener-
ate the development of the surrounding regions, even across borders. This explains
the standpoint of those drafting, the plans in saying that the most significant role of
the poles will be to introduce and disseminate innovation.
The development of regional poles, therefore, involves two objectives. Firstly,
the development of the regional functions of towns (in terms of innovation, econ-
omy, culture, governance and commerce); secondly, the creation of adequate con-
ditions – accessibility, cooperative relationships, sub-centres – for the success of
their radiation effects. However, it is currently no more than a long-term require-
ment to have 3–10 towns able to act as growth-poles. Mid-term objectives imply a
narrower function: drafting plans in accordance with the NSDC, in order to estab-
lish the so-called regional innovation poles. Among others, the towns in our study
(Pécs, Gyır and Miskolc) started to work out their strategy to become growth-
poles, and they have already been heavily criticised by the Regional Development
Councils – specifically since it is not clarified in methodological terms as to what
kind of relationship will exist between the regional development strategy and the
strategy in preparation, based on the sample of French poles of competitiveness.
Also, the sphere of authority and territorial scale of centrally determined plans for
the creation of growth-poles are not yet known. The final solution will, in all prob-
ability, be given by the directives drawn up in the NSDC for the creation of coop-
erative regional urban networks, which depend on the development of a harmoni-
ous system of centres, sub-centres and axes, primarily through the pivotal motive
of accessibility.
In the National Development Policy Concept (NDPC), also currently in prepa-
ration, we can once more find the priorities of the NSDC – now under the title of
regional objectives, since balanced regional development was also added to the list
as an extra objective, in addition to the eight strategic ones (NFH, 2005). We can,
therefore, hope for resources in the next planning period of the Structural Funds,
for the establishment of the competitive metropolitan area of Budapest and the de-
velopment of the regional poles and axes of growth. There is no doubt about the
correctness of the intention: the only matter which troubles the author is that the
55
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
NDPC operates with many concepts, without specifying any kind of methodology
or technical interpretation. For example, it is not clearly specified what the central
function of growth poles really includes; what are considered as smaller, sectoral
sub-centres; or how the smaller, regional centres would fit into the system, these
also being proposed in the Concept. Here we only suggest that a huge task awaits
us in planning-methodology and regulation, as a comprehensive Planning Act has
not been introduced since the change of regime. The practice of social and eco-
nomic planning is only now being developed.
The government clearly recognised that Hungarian towns have only a poor eco-
nomic-organisational effect on their wider surroundings, and that this can only be
changed with the help of organic development, integrating the town into its sur-
roundings. This, however, requires a cooperative attitude from the urban-develop-
ers, as well as a central policy which reinforces various urban functions. This ap-
proach disassociates itself from the development policy of the last 15 years, which
lacked any kind of differentiating or concentration of resources. The change has
obviously much to do with our joining the EU, which emphasises the principle of
decentralisation among state-organisational principles. The devolution of the tradi-
tionally centralised, unitary state of Hungary will obviously be the result of a long
process, but perhaps the first steps have already been taken by approving the
NDPC.
We must, however, point out that the initiation of urban development has to be
achieved by means of an innovation strategy, which assumes, under present condi-
tions, the mobilisation of internal resources and the acceptance of opinions from
the local population in creating the future picture of development. In this light, the
city of Gyır had very good experience in creating the Strategic Programme of
Gyır City in 2004. As a significant element in the planning process, the city au-
thorities used so-called “future workshops”, organised by districts, where the local
residents could give their opinion and make proposals on the development course
of their residential environment. This interactive development strategy aimed to
create a "Better, nicer, more liveable and better functioning Gyır". After residents’
opinions had been sounded, a second round commenced, with the participation of
chambers of commerce, economic organisations, interested parties, intellectuals
and students. The attitude of the inhabitants towards this pioneering initiative was
constructive, and the results of their cooperation were built into the programme,
greatly influencing the urban-planning scheme, which has now been completed.
Planners used the enhanced version of the “Future Search Conference” method,
and the information collected was subject to statistical analysis – and also used for
creating SWOT-analyses. The most important proposals concerned the particular
district (84%) and the city as a whole (14%), but they inevitably involved the role
of Gyır as a regional centre. The twenty-three “future workshops” only mapped
the city for the time being, and, unfortunately, the method was not applied beyond
56
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
its administrative boundaries, although it could be extended to the whole agglom-
eration in the future. For this, however, a supportive attitude from the state would
be needed, in addition to resurrecting (and reactivating) the Agglomeration Coun-
cil.
10 Factors in approaches to the future institutionalisation
of urban areas
We could talk of a new type of urban or town policy, if the state were to direct the
functional development of towns by a conceptually-based strategic approach. Ur-
ban policy must avoid the two extremes of direct intervention and the total delega-
tion of development to the local authority. The experience of more developed
countries on the continent shows that the state – in order to encourage urban de-
velopment – should offer administrative-structural models, ensure adequate regu-
lation, and provide the means for planning and support in advance, or at least in
time with the development. In addition, regional planning is a new and increasingly
important instrument of institutional handling of the urban problem.
EU-inspired development policy creates favourable conditions in every way for
Hungary to treat the urban network according to its real significance, and to feel
responsible for its development. The fifteen years which have passed since the
change of regime have proved that it cannot simply be treated as a local authority
issue. The false assumption, that the whole country would only be a mass of rural
districts, has to be eliminated. A town is made a town by its regional role, its effect
on its surroundings and the services performed in its name. Consequently, it is in
the central government’s own interest to concentrate on towns, whilst planning the
future of the local government system and continuing with administrative reform. It
is in the interest both of society and of residents living in the suburban areas. We
cannot ignore the classical principle that a central settlement has at least three
functions in connection with its suburban area (Voß, 1991), namely: provider; de-
veloper and mediator of development impulses; and retainer, that is, preventing the
desolation of rural areas.
The perspective which Hungarian urban policy has to consider should base its
approach on the following factors:
– Urban areas are necessarily the grounds for common activities of planning
and development – which is remunerated by governments in states with a
long history of cooperation in urban regions – and for reforming regional
planning competences. In most cases, agglomerations have the authorisation
for the whole planning process from conception through the coordination of
planning to the creation of plans on common territorial utilisation. Planning
57
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
in connection with urban areas and urban regions has to be perceived at all
time, as a tool of effective governance and coordination. Hence it is an urgent
task to grant authority on mutual planning to urban regions, in a way that the
state incorporates its development and strategic plans into the spatial plan-
ning system. It is also an important factor that the plans of urban regions
should accord with the plans accepted by the region under development, in
order to eliminate the detrimental effect of rivalry between the town, or, in a
specific case, the centre of the region, and the region itself. Every kind of de-
velopment has to be based on mutual planning, and has to be implemented in
a coordinated way. The Hungarian regulations currently in force cannot bring
these criteria into effect, although the Act on Spatial Development and Physi-
cal Planning was amended in 2004, and the new provisions seemingly further
the cooperation of urban areas. According to this, in micro-regions which
have a town of county rank as their seat, the microregional development
council draws up a separate concept and programme for development relating
to the town and the surrounding settlements, particularly for the development
of infrastructure and services sustaining the town and these surrounding set-
tlements. Nevertheless, in current conditions, a concept of the government
which relies on two separate development concepts in the same geographical
framework cannot exist, though what exactly the notion “surrounding settle-
ments” covers is not clarified.
In contrast with the government’s approach, a better solution could be for ur-
ban regions to accept such a plan, created cooperatively by local authorities,
in accordance with their common interest in regional planning, and which
coordinates the functions of territorial usage, while considering their common
objectives. Another solution could be to replace regional planning with a co-
ordinated plan on urban areas. This specific regional approach could lead to a
distribution of functions between settlements, giving a unique quality to the
given region (Adam, 2001).
– Urban policy, at one and the same time, means the differentiated
institutionalisation of suburban areas and the relatively concentrated alloca-
tion of development instruments, which should primarily and practically de-
pend on the order of magnitude and functions. It cannot be done otherwise
than by ranking the elements of the urban network in the course of planning,
and then – accordingly – allocating functions to them – something which
necessarily sets the course of their future development also. The establish-
ment of a balanced urban network can only be expected from the clarification
of the relations of the network elements toward each other and their suburban
areas. Another criterion of success is to say goodbye to the casual spread of
development instruments – and, likewise, to the theory that any type of local
58
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
authority has the right to implement any kind of development financed from
public resources.
– Realisation-oriented planning or programming is a watchword of our age,
which led to the spread of flexible, private sector-originated methods in the
public sector. However, in order to realise the contents of the various plans,
some criteria have to be fulfilled. It can do no harm to draw up a future pic-
ture of development through an interactive planning process, with the coop-
eration of residents living in the town and its surroundings. Similarly, it is
worth taking into account – in good time – the expectations of the economic
actors. Consequently, the key issue is to create cooperative relations between
the activities of different sectors and actors.
– The problem of suburban areas is always an issue of the redistribution of in-
come, since, for its residents, the agglomeration means both the living and
working place at the same time. When citizens make use of services and
travel, they are indifferent to administrative boundaries. Therefore, either the
state itself should consider this issue of regional policy when financing local
authorities; or it should offer a structure of regulation for local authorities,
which can settle the financial compensation through horizontal cooperation.
This can be implemented in several ways: the state can authorise the cooper-
ating organisation to collect tax-type income, fees or charges for use; or for
example – following the French model – the state can oblige the cooperating
local authorities to centralise a given share of their local tax revenues, in or-
der to fulfill tasks of common interest or for financing developments (Du-
bois-Maury, 2001).
– According to experience, the government essentially has to support the func-
tioning, and, even more, the development of large-scale regions, by special
subventions. For the development of towns that are to become regional poles,
for example, it is necessary for the organisations embodying their regional
cooperation to have some kind of financial independence. In this respect, the
issue of planning and finance are closely linked, the new and modern method
of which is the creation of planning agreements between the state and the
towns, a method already applied in many member states of the EU. Its main
purpose is to support the development priorities of urban regions in addition
to the mobilisation of their own resources, if they fit into the development
concepts and programmes set centrally by the government.
– In the case of urban regions and metropolitan areas, as a result of an
evolutionary development process, we can expect a state administration
structure to be established, something which can cause legislative changes in
connection with the structural basis of local authorities. For example, bodies
selected directly by residents can be set up, or, in other words, an agglomera-
tion-management organisation will be established with strong legitimacy.
59
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
Such a structure could result in a new, two-tier system of power, in addition
to the autonomy of local authorities. In Hungary this course of development
will probably be realised with the Budapest region. Therefore, as we can see,
institutionalisation can, in some cases, be regional. Obviously, we have to be
cautious and prevent the creation of centralised supreme bodies as means of
cooperation; in order to avoid this, we have to separate local, regional and
territorial competences while forming the organisational structure (Priebs, A.
1999).
In summary, we can state that a change of quality in Hungarian regional de-
velopment cannot be postponed any longer. Considering that one important solu-
tion to the problem of suburban areas is still horizontal cooperation between local
authorities; legislation and central government also play a significant role. They
have to follow the changes in basic social relations, and promote the balanced
development of various elements of the urban network, by regulating constitutional
structures. The potential is that, through mutual efforts, the significant elements of
the urban network will, on the one hand, ensure the same quality of living
standards for residents and, on the other hand, hold their position in the European
city competition, to the point of being regarded as important urban centres of the
Central and Eastern European area. For this reason the most significant urban
regions have to be prepared for action and development on a regional scale.
The historical inheritance of Hungarian public administration has also be taken
into account; since the suburban areas, as units of planning, development and gov-
ernance, have not yet been fitted into the system of public administration. Also,
during the 19th and 20th centuries, many legislators drew up remarkable structural
models as solutions to the problem, although they have never been put into prac-
tice. The task, therefore, seems to be quite new from a national point of view, al-
though, in order to resolve the problem, there is available an ample supply of pub-
lic administration research records, as well as of international experience.
60
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
References
ADAM, B. 2001: Raumplanung heute – Merkmale und Wirkungen. – Raumforschung und
Raumordnung. 4. pp. 312–318.
ARL 1998: Regionale Verwaltungs- und Planungsstrukturen in Großstadtregionen.
Forschungs- und Sitzungsberichte Band 204. Hannover.
BALÁZS, I. 1988: Az agglomerációigazgatás szervezeti és mőködési rendszerei (Nemzetközi
kitekintés).
[The
organisational
and
operational
system
of
agglomeration
administration]. Budapest, MTA Államtudományi Kutatások Programirodája.
BÁLINT, L. 2004: Kistérségek egyenlıtlensége a Dél-Dunántúlon. [The disparity of micro-
regions in South Transdanubia]. – Területi Statisztika. 5. pp. 476–494.
BAJMÓCI, P. 1999: A szuburbanizáció sajátosságai Pécs környékén [Characteristics of
suburbanisation in the surroundings of Pécs, Hungary]. – Földrajzi Értesítı. 1–2. pp.
127–138.
BELUSZKY, P. 1987: A középszintő igazgatás és hazánk térszerkezete [Meso-level
administration and our national spatial structure]. Pécs, MTA Regionális Kutatások
Központja. (MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja Kutatási Eredményei 8.)
BELUSZKY, P. 2003: Magyarország településföldrajza. Általános rész. [Hungary’s urban
geography. General section]. Budapest–Pécs, Dialóg Campus Kiadó. (2. javított és bı-
vített kiadás).
BELUSZKY, P. – GYİRI, R. 2003: A magyarországi városok általános áttekintése. [General
overview of Hungarian towns]. MTA RKK Budapesti Osztály (Kézirat).
DUBOIS-MAURY, J. 2001: A francia területpolitika aspektusai [Aspects of French regional
policy]. – Falu város régió. Különszám. pp. 49–61. (Város, lakás, közlekedés – Francia-
országi tapasztalatok.)
ENYEDI, GY. 2004: A magyar településfejlıdés integrációs kihívásai az ezredfordulón.
[Integrational challenges of Hungarian urban development at the millennium]. In:
CSIZMADY A. – HUSZ I. (szerk.) Település- és városszociológia. Gondolat Kiadó, Buda-
pest. pp. 90–100.
ESPON 2003: ESPON in progress. Preliminary results at autumn 2003. European Spatial
Planning Observation Network.
European Comission 2000: The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies.
Italy. Luxemburg: Office for Official for Publications of the europoean Communities
(Regional Development Studies 28/I).
European Commission: A new partnership for cohesion, convergence, competitiveness,
cooperation. Third report on economic and social cohesion. February 2004.
FÜRST, D. 1991: Stadt und Region in Verdichtungsäumen. Hrsg. Blanke, B. – Benzler, S.:
Staat und Stadt. (Politische Vierteljahresschrift. Sonderheft 22.) Westdeutscher Verlag,
Opladen. 93–112. o.
FÜRST, D. VON – RITTER, E.-H. 1993: Landesentwicklungsplanung und Regionalplanung
(Ein verwaltungswissenschaftlicher Grundriß). Werner-Verlag, Düsseldorf.
FÜRST, D. 1994: Regionalkonferenzen zwischen offenen Netzwerken und fester Institutio-
nalisierung. – Raumforschung und Raumordnung 3. 184–192. o.
GAWRON, T. – JÄHNKE, P. 2000: Kooperation in der Region – Einführung und Problem-
stellung. In: GAWRON, T. – JÄHNKE, P. (Hg.) Regionale Kooperation – Notwendigkeit
61
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
und Herausforderung kommunaler Politik. IRS/Institut für Regionalentwicklung und
Strukturplanung, Erkner bei Berlin. 11–34. o.
G. FEKETE, É. 1995: Együtt! – de hogyan? Kistérségi szervezetek megjelenése a területfej-
lesztésben [Together! – but how? The emergence of micro-regional organisations in
regional developent]. Miskolc, MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja – Phare.
GREIVING, S. 2003: Der raumordnerische Vertrag als Instrument zur Absicherung von
Kooperationen im zentralörtlichen System. Raumforschung und Raumordnung 5. 371–
378. o.
HARDI, T. 2002: Az agglomeráció létezı és lehetséges együttmőködési rendszerének fel-
tárása. [The exploration of actual and potential cooperation systems of agglomerations].
Nyugat-magyarországi Tudományos Intézet Közleményei 141. sz. Készült: Gyır Me-
gyei Jogú város Önkormányzata megbízásából. Gyır (Témavezetı: Hardi T.).
HEINZ, W. 1997: Anzätze interkommunale Kooperation: Frankfurt und die Rhein-Main-
Region. Archiv für Kommunalwissenschaften. DIFU I. Halbjahresband. pp. 73–97.
HÜBLER, K.-H. 2005: Die Schaffung gleichwertiger Lebensbedingungen in allen
Teilräumen. – Raumforschung und Raumordnung 1. pp. 55–62.
KLEINE, W. – SELLNOW, L. – SELLNOW, R. 1999: Die Regionalreform der Region Hannover
aus Sicht der Bürger. Ein Experiment der Bürgerbeteiligung. – Raumforschung und
Raumordnung, 5–6. pp. 437–441.
KOVÁCS T. (2003: Magyarország kistérségi szerkezete.[The micro-regional structure of
Hungary]. In: ÁGH, A. – NÉMETH, J. (eds.): Kistérségi közigazgatás. Szakértık tanulmá-
nyok. Budapest, Magyar Közigazgatási Intézet. pp. 71–87. (Belügyminisztérium IDEA
Program.)
KOVÁCS T.–TÓTH G. 2003: Agglomerációk, településegyüttesek a magyar településrend-
szerben [Agglomerations and functional settlement groups in the Hungarian urban
system]. – Területi Statisztika 7. pp. 387–391.
KRIEGEL, J. 2000: Gemeindeübergreifende Zusammenarbeit im Kommunalverband
Großraum Hannover. In: JÄHNKE, P. – GAWRON, T. (Hrsg.): Regionale Kooperation –
Notwendigkeit und Herausforderung kommunaler Politik. Institut für Regionalentwick-
lung und Strukturplanung, Erkner bei Berlin. 77–88. o.
KÜHN, M. 2001: Regionalisierung der Städte. – Raumforschung und Raumordnung 5–6. pp.
402–411.
KRAU, I. 2005: Stadtregion als kooperatives Netzwerk. – Raumordnung und Raumfor-
schung. 1. pp. 47–54.
LÉNÁRT, P. 2004: A leromlott állapotban lévı urbanizált és rurális térségekben élık életesé-
lyei [The expectations of inhabitants of urban and rural areas in decline]. Háttérelemzés
a Fejlesztéspolitikai Koncepció részére. Nemzeti Fejlesztési Hivatal.
A Magyar Köztársaság Helységnévkönye 2004. január 1. [Gazetteer of the Republic of
Hungary 1st January, 2004]. Budapest, Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.
MTRFH 2005: Országos Területfejlesztési Koncepció. Munkaverzió [National spatial
development concept. Working version]. 2005. június 6. Magyar Terület és Regionális
Fejlesztési Hivatal, VÁTI Kht. Stratégiai Tervezési Igazgatóság közremőködésével=
www.oth.gov.hu/u/documents/OTK_HO_05j_ni09_s_rgan_lk_l _3.doc
NFH 2005: Országos Fejlesztéspolitikai Koncepció. [National development policy
concept]. 2005. június 29-i állapot szerinti munkaverzió. Nemzeti Fejlesztési Hivatal.
62
Somlyódyné Pfeil, Edit :
Changes in The Organisational Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 63. p. Discussion Papers, No. 48.
Célok és eszközök a sikeres Magyarországért. www.nfh.gov.hu/doc/ Partnerseg/ OFK
celok0629.pdf; A jövıépítés alapjai. www.nfh.hu/doc/Partnerseg/ OFKjovoepites0629.
pdf.
PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, I. 2001: Regional Development and Governance in Hungary. Pécs, Centre
for Regional Studies. (Discussion Papers 35.)
PARKINSON, M. 2005: Local Strategies in a Global Economy: Lessons from Competitive
Cities. Local Development and Governance in Central, East and South-East Europe.
OECD LEED Centre for Local Development, Trento (International Conference, 6–8.
June 2005.
PERGER, É. 1999: Közigazgatási dilemmák.[Public administration dilemmas]. In: BARTA,
GY. – BELUSZKY, P. (szerk.): Társadalmi-gazdasági átalakulás a budapesti agglomerá-
cióban I. Budapest, Regionális Kutatási Alapítvány. pp. 181–224.
PRIEBS, A. 1999: Die Region ist die Stadt! Ein Plädoyer für dauerhafte und verbindliche
Organisationsstrukturen für die Stadtregion. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 9–10.
pp. 617–628.
POWELL, W. P. 1996: Weder Markt noch Hierarchie: Netzwerkartige Organisationsformen.
In: KENIS, P.–SCHNEIDER, V. (Hrsg.): Organisation und Netzwerk. Institutionelle
Steuerung in Wirtschaft und Politik. Campus, Frankfurt/Main–New York. pp. 213–271.
RECHNITZER, J. 2005: Budaörs, a fıvárosi agglomeráció dinamikus centruma.[Budaörs as
the dynamic centre of the metropolitan agglomeration]. MTA Regionális Kutatások
Központja Nyugat-magyarországi Tudományos Intézet Közleményei. 166. sz. Témave-
zetı: RECHNITZER, J. Készült Budaörs Város Önkormányzata megbízásából. Gyır.
SOMLYÓDYNÉ PFEIL, E. 2003a: Önkormányzati integráció és helyi közigazgatás. [Local
government integration and public administration at the local level]. Budapest–Pécs,
Dialóg-Campus.
SOMLYÓDYNÉ PFEIL, E. 2003b: A városok helye és szerepe a kistérségi közigazgatási rend-
szer kialakulásában [The place and role of towns in the development of the micro-
regional public administration system]. In: ÁGH, A.–NÉMETH, J. (eds.) Kistérségi köz-
igazgatás. Szakértıi tanulmányok. Magyar Közigazgatási Intézet, Budapest. pp. 167–
188. (Belügyminisztérium IDEA programja).
SOMLYÓDYNÉ PFEIL, E. 2005: A városok az átalakuló közigazgatási rendszerekben és a
területi politikában. [Towns in changing public administration systems and regional
policy]. – Magyar Közigazgatás. 4. pp. 193–203.
SZIGETI, E. 2002: Község, város, jogállás [Community, town, legal status]. Magyar Köz-
igazgatási Intézet, Budapest.
MEH 2004: Helyzetelemzés a közigazgatás elérhetıségérıl és a közigazgatási ügymenetrıl
(Kézirat). [Situation report on the accessibilty of public services and the proceedings of
public administration].
TIMÁR, J.–VÁRADI, M. M. 2001: The Uneven Development of Suburbanization during
Transition in Hungary. – European Urban and Regional Studies. 8. (4) pp. 349–360.
VOß, W. 1991: Nutzenspillover-Effekte als Problem des kommunalen Finanzausgleichs.
Europäische Hochschulschriften, 1185 Band. Peter Lang, Frankfurt.
ZEHETNER, F. (ed.) 1982: Reformen der Kommunen und Regionen in Europa. Linz, Institut
für Kommunalwissenschaften und Umweltschutz.
63
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 48.
Changes in The Organisational Framework of
Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
The Discussion Papers series of the Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences was launched in 1986 to publish summaries of research findings on
regional and urban development.
The series has 5 or 6 issues a year. It will be of interest to geographers, economists, so-
ciologists, experts of law and political sciences, historians and everybody else who is, in
one way or another, engaged in the research of spatial aspects of socio-economic develop-
ment and planning.
The series is published by the Centre for Regional Studies.
Individual copies are available on request at the Centre.
Postal address
Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
P.O. Box 199, 7601 PÉCS, HUNGARY
Phone: (36–72) 523 800
Fax: (36–72) 523 803
www.dti.rkk.hu
www.rkk.hu
Director general
Gyula HORVÁTH
Editor
Zoltán GÁL
galz@.rkk.hu
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 48.
Changes in The Organisational Framework of
Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
Papers published in the Discussion Papers series
Discussion Papers /Specials
BENKİNÉ LODNER, Dorottya (ed.) (1988): Environmental Control and Policy: Pro-
ceedings of the Hungarian–Polish Seminar in the Theoretical Problems of Envi-
ronmental Control and Policy
OROSZ, Éva (ed.) (1988): Spatial Organisation and Regional Development Papers of the
6th Polish–Hungarian geographical Seminar
DURÓ, Annamária (ed.) (1993): Spatial Research and the Social–Political Changes: Papers
of the 7th Polish–Hungarian Seminar
DURÓ, Annamária (ed.) (1999): Spatial Research in Support of the European Integration.
Proceedings of the 11th Polish–Hungarian Geographical Seminar (Mátraháza,
Hungary 17–22 September, 1998)
GÁL, Zoltán (ed.) (2001): Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union
HORVÁTH, Gyula (ed.) (2002): Regional Challenges of the Transition in Bulgaria and
Hungary
KOVÁCS, András Donát (ed.) (2004): New Aspects of Regional Transformation and the
Urban-Rural Relationship
BARANYI Béla (ed.) (2005: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian border regions as areas
of co-operation along the external borders of Europe
Discussion Papers
No. 1
OROSZ, Éva (1986): Critical Issues in the Development of Hungarian Public
Health with Special Regard to Spatial Differences
No. 2
ENYEDI, György – ZENTAI, Viola (1986): Environmental Policy in Hungary
No. 3
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1987): Administrative Division and Administrative Geography
in Hungary
No. 4
SIKOS T., Tamás (1987): Investigations of Social Infrastructure in Rural Settle-
ments of Borsod County
No. 5
HORVÁTH, Gyula (1987): Development of the Regional Management of the
Economy in East-Central Europe
No. 6
PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, Ilona (1988): Chance of Local Independence in Hungary
No. 7
FARAGÓ, László – HRUBI, László (1988): Development Possibilities of Back-
ward Areas in Hungary
No. 8
SZÖRÉNYINÉ KUKORELLI, Irén (1990): Role of the Accessibility in De-
velopment and Functioning of Settlements
65
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 48.
Changes in The Organisational Framework of
Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
No. 9
ENYEDI, György (1990): New Basis for Regional and Urban Policies in East-
Central Europe
No. 10
RECHNITZER, János (1990): Regional Spread of Computer Technology in
Hungary
No. 11
SIKOS T., Tamás (1992): Types of Social Infrastructure in Hungary (to be not
published)
No. 12
HORVÁTH, Gyula – HRUBI, László (1992): Restructuring and Regional Policy
in Hungary
No. 13
ERDİSI, Ferenc (1992): Transportation Effects on Spatial Structure of Hungary
No. 14
PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, Ilona (1992): The Basic Political and Structural Problems in
the Workings of Local Governments in Hungary
No. 15
PFEIL, Edit (1992): Local Governments and System Change. The Case of a Re-
gional Centre
No. 16
HORVÁTH, Gyula (1992): Culture and Urban Development (The Case of Pécs)
No. 17
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1993): Settlement Network Development Policy in Hungary in
the Period of State Socialism (1949–1985)
No. 18
KOVÁCS, Teréz (1993): Borderland Situation as It Is Seen by a Sociologist
No. 19
HRUBI, L. – KRAFTNÉ SOMOGYI, Gabriella (eds.) (1994): Small and me-
dium-sized firms and the role of private industry in Hungary
No. 20
BENKİNÉ Lodner, Dorottya (1995): The Legal-Administrative Questions of
Environmental Protection in the Republic of Hungary
No. 21
ENYEDI, György (1998): Transformation in Central European Postsocialist Cit-
ies
No. 22
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1998): Changes in the Politico-Geographical Position of Hun-
gary in the 20th Century
No. 23
HORVÁTH, Gyula (1998): Regional and Cohesion Policy in Hungary
No. 24
BUDAY-SÁNTHA, Attila (1998): Sustainable Agricultural Development in the
Region of the Lake Balaton
No. 25
LADOS, Mihály (1998): Future Perspective for Local Government Finance in
Hungary
No. 26
NAGY, Erika (1999): Fall and Revival of City Centre Retailing: Planning an
Urban Function in Leicester, Britain
No. 27
BELUSZKY, Pál (1999): The Hungarian Urban Network at the End of the Sec-
ond Millennium
No. 28
RÁCZ, Lajos (1999): Climate History of Hungary Since the 16th Century: Past,
Present and Future
No. 29
RAVE, Simone (1999): Regional Development in Hungary and Its Preparation
for the Structural Funds
No. 30
BARTA, Györgyi (1999): Industrial Restructuring in the Budapest Agglomera-
tion
66
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 48.
Changes in The Organisational Framework of
Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
No. 31
BARANYI, Béla–BALCSÓK, István–DANCS, László–MEZİ, Barna (1999):
Borderland Situation and Peripherality in the North-Eastern Part of the Great
Hungarian Plain
No. 32
RECHNITZER, János (2000): The Features of the Transition of Hungary’s Re-
gional System
No. 33
MURÁNYI, István–PÉTER, Judit–SZARVÁK, Tibor–SZOBOSZLAI, Zsolt
(2000): Civil Organisations and Regional Identity in the South Hungarian Great
Plain
No. 34
KOVÁCS, Teréz (2001): Rural Development in Hungary
No. 35
PÁLNÉ, Kovács Ilona (2001): Regional Development and Governance in Hun-
gary
No. 36
NAGY, Imre (2001): Cross-Border Co-operation in the Border Region of the
Southern Great Plain of Hungary
No. 37
BELUSZKY, Pál (2002): The Spatial Differences of Modernisation in Hungary
at the Beginning of the 20th Century
No. 38
BARANYI, Béla (2002): Before Schengen – Ready for Schengen. Euroregional
Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hun-
gary
No. 39
KERESZTÉLY, Krisztina (2002): The Role of the State in the Urban Develop-
ment of Budapest
No. 40
HORVÁTH, Gyula (2002): Report on the Research Results of the Centre for
Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
No. 41
SZIRMAI, Viktoria – A. GERGELY, András – BARÁTH, Gabriella–
MOLNÁR, Balázs – SZÉPVÖLGYI, Ákos (2003): The City and its Environ-
ment: Competition and/or Co-operation? (A Hungarian Case Study)
No. 42
CSATÁRI, Bálint–KANALAS, Imre–NAGY, Gábor –SZARVÁK, Tibor
(2004): Regions in Information Society – a Hungarian Case-Study
No. 43
FARAGÓ, László (2004): The General Theory of Public (Spatial) Planning (The
Social Technique for Creating the Future)
No. 44
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (2004): Carpathian Basin and the Development of the Hungarian
Landscape Theory Until 1948
No. 45
GÁL, Zoltán (2004): Spatial Development and the Expanding European Integra-
tion of the Hungarian Banking System
No. 46
BELUSZKY, PÁL – GYİRI, Róbert (2005): The Hungarian Urban Network in
the Beginning of the 20th Century
No. 47
G. FEKETE, Éva (2005): Long-term Unemployment and Its Alleviation in Rural
Areas
67