Discussion Papers 2009. No. 77.
Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System
CENTRE FOR REGIONAL STUDIES
OF HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
DISCUSSION PAPERS
No. 77
Territorial Planning, its Actors
and Instruments. The Portuguese
& Hungarian Planning System
by
Ana Margarida Martins CARDOSO
Series editor
Gábor LUX
Pécs
2009
1
Discussion Papers 2009. No. 77.
Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System
ISSN 0238–2008
ISBN 978 963 9899 23 0
© Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso
© Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
2009 by Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Technical editor: Ilona Csapó. Language editor: Zsuzsanna Márkusné Zsibók.
Printed in Hungary by Sümegi Nyomdaipari, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Ltd., Pécs.
2
Discussion Papers 2009. No. 77.
Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System
CONTENTS
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Defining of Territorial Planning and ‘Region’ ..................................................... 6
2 The
Portuguese
Territorial
Planning Background ........................................................ 7
2.1 The Portuguese Stakeholders of the Planning System .......................................... 8
2.2 The Portuguese Territorial Instruments and Regulation Documents .................. 16
2.2.1 The Influence of the European Union over the Portuguese Planning
System ...................................................................................................... 18
2.2.2 The Direct and More Influential Instruments in the Portuguese
Planning System ....................................................................................... 19
3 The
Hungarian
Planning System ................................................................................ 23
3.1 Hungarian Territorial Planning and Management – Layers and Layouts ........... 24
3.1.1 The Local Governments’ Importance in the Planning System ................. 25
3.1.2 The Stakeholders of Spatial Development ............................................... 27
3.2 Instruments of the Hungarian Territorial Planning and Management ................ 28
3.2.1 The Legal Influences ................................................................................ 30
3.2.2 The Territorial Planning Instruments ....................................................... 31
3.2.3 Embracing the European Influences ......................................................... 32
4 Portuguese and Hungarian Planning System: The Differences and Similarities ........ 34
5 Portuguese and Hungarian Planning System: Misses and Matches ............................ 38
6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 41
References ........................................................................................................................ 42
3
Discussion Papers 2009. No. 77.
Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System
List of figures
Figure 1 Portuguese Regions and CCDR’s .................................................................. 11
Figure 2 Portuguese Districts ....................................................................................... 12
Figure 3 Portuguese Municipals ................................................................................... 15
Figure 4 Portuguese Planning Organisation ................................................................. 22
Figure 5 Hungarian territorial division at the NUTS 2 level and the counties, 1998 ... 26
Figure 6 Hungarian Spatial Development administrative organisation. ....................... 29
List of tables
Table 1
Portuguese Local Self Government Organisation .......................................... 14
Table 2
Portugal and Hungary – Territorial Division ................................................. 34
Table 3
Portugal and Hungary – Connections between territorial levels .................... 35
Table 4
Portugal and Hungary – Institutional review ................................................. 36
Table 5
Portugal and Hungary – Instruments .............................................................. 37
4
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
1 Introduction
Territory as we know it is in constant change; distances shorten, new synergies
are established, and new challenges make mankind search for answers and ways
to develop in a sustainable and environment-friendly way. New contacts with
people having different experiences are important because they give the opportu-
nity to learn from others.
The European Union is a great example of what is described above. Borders
are open, people can freely move within the Schengen Area, territorial harmoni-
sation is an objective of this community in order to provide better living condi-
tions for all citizens, strengthen the economy and equilibrate disparities among
regions in each country and all European members.
The present study is a result of a European programme called Leonardo da
Vinci, which offers work experience for post-graduates. In this case the synergy is
between Universidade de Lisboa – Faculdade de Letras (Departamento de
Geografia) – Letters Faculty of Lisbon University – and Magyar Tudományos
Akadémia – Regionális Kutatások Központja (Dunántúli Tudományos Intézet) –
Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Transdanu-
bian Research Institute).
The objective of the report is to provide a comparative work on the Portuguese
and Hungarian territorial planning system. It is divided into three parts: first, the
explanation and comprehension of the Portuguese territorial management system,
its instruments and institutions are presented, which is followed by the discussion
of the same issues for the Hungarian territory – we identify instruments and in-
stitutions responsible for territorial organisation in connection with planning; and
finally, a comparison of the two systems is given.
Considered as a comparative work, one of its objectives is also to share infor-
mation, especially about the Portuguese planning system and, in addition, to pro-
vide new ideas and point gaps in both systems. By taking the first step towards a
future deeper research, this report articulates the need to the comprehension of
both systems.
After a preliminary research, it was clear that both countries have the same is-
sues, and for that, it became interesting for the author as a researcher to identify
the similarities, the problems within the planning system of both countries and the
European Union’s responsibilities on that matter. It was clear that both countries
deal with similar problems since there are big regional disparities and asymme-
tries and debates about the policies to be applied on them (regionalism?). Both
have similar history – change of the political systems in the past century –, cen-
tralised policies and a high dependency on European Union subsidies.
5
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
This work is partly descriptive and partly critical, and will provide sugges-
tions. Hopefully, it can be regarded as a benchmark report, realising the best of
both systems.
1.1 Defining of Territorial Planning and ‘Region’
A definition of territorial planning was given by ESPON: “territorial development
is an integrated and proactive approach to shaping the future of cities, regions and
larger geographies – to some degree it can also be referred to as spatial planning.
It goes beyond traditional regional policy as it brings together economic, social
and environment opportunities and concerns as well as other factors which influ-
ence where activities takes place, how different places function and are con-
nected, and what conditions are offered for living and doing business.”1
According to Faragó (2004, p. 19), “planning is a cyclical learning and ration-
alising process meant to shape the future and built on ‘experimenting’, a well-
structured instrumental mode of success-oriented social action and also a tool for
governance (management).” The author considers a plan as a “picture of intended
actions, fixed at a given moment, a medium of communication (…)”.
If we consider the concept of territorial planning, we can assume that this is
not a new issue; cities and territorial organisation as well as connections (roads,
for example) are only a few cases that can support that this approach has been
used since the Greek and Roman empires.
Territorial development strategies can help explore potentials for economic
growth and jobs and at the same time support an enhanced quality of life by
helping to meet the challenge of sustainable development. This principle was
used, for example, in the 1930s when the United Kingdom was in deep economic
crisis and it started to implement Keynesian theory in public policy.
What is a region? Throughout this work, the concept of the region will be of-
ten used, therefore it is important to define it.
According to the Porto Editora Dictionary online (Dicionários, 2008), a region
is a “portion of territory that can be distinguished from others by its morphologic
structure, clime, economic profile, products, costumes, etc.”.2
The term “region” originates in the ancient Rome and it refers to a portion of
territory under control of a legion. The truth is that the objective has not changed
that much since then, it is still to guarantee the own interests of the region and the
respective population, as a factor of national cohesion and promotion of develop-
ment.
1 ESPON: European Spatial Planning Observation Network (29th of May 2008) (ESPON, 2006).
2 www.portoeditora.pt/dol/ (March 11th 2008) – translation by the author.
6
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
In order to give a more geographical definition of the region (Portugal.veraki,
2007), we can describe it as a territorial collective person, endowed with admin-
istrative autonomy and financial as well as representative organs.3
It is also important and relevant to draw a difference between political region
and administrative region; otherwise, this situation can generate misunderstand-
ings over the regionalism issue.
Specifically, a political region is a higher level of autonomy, ample legislative
and regulation power that also has financial independence.
An administrative region has an objective to better adjust the solutions over
the issues of regional policy by creating an intermediary level of decision-making.
Since all territorial and regional policies need to consider the specific poten-
tials of a territory or place, in order to be successful, a deep exploratory work on
the ex-ante part providing a diagnosis of the studied area is very important. This
work will now present the diagnosis of Hungarian and Portuguese planning in-
struments and institutions, but it is important to emphasise that the Portuguese
part is slightly more developed than the Hungarian due to the difficulties in ac-
cessing the information in English.
2 The Portuguese Territorial Planning Background
The Portuguese national and regional planning and territorial divisions go back to
the Roman Empire, with a special empowerment between the 12th and the 15th
century. But it was in the 1970s (after the Revolution of April 25th 1974) that the
main legislation was passed and the real process of creating a national and re-
gional planning system was initiated.
Since then, the Portuguese system has taken a long way by evolving, devel-
oping new plans and programmes and starting new policies. From those days on,
territory is now seen as a whole which requires a common policy for its organisa-
tion, and demands the participation of multiple actors, multidisciplinary and mul-
tisectoral teams. Almost a decade’s time was needed to specify the meaning of
territorial planning. In the 80’s, Portugal defined it as an erudite process with
scientific and cultural bases with the purpose of organising the distribution of
different uses and functions in space and time, contributing to the development of
all human communities.
In order to explain the Portuguese national organisation in terms of plans and
entities that make and implement them, it is necessary to invoke the law 48/98 of
August 11th titled Urbanism and Territorial Planning Politics Base Law (Lei de
Bases da Política de Ordenamento do Território e Urbanismo – LBPOTU). It
3 From http://portugal.veraki.pt/regiões (March 11th 2008).
7
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
defines the policy and instruments for territory management and regulates several
levels of public administration, therefore it is the government, the administrative
regions and the local authorities, with the participation of all citizens and their
associations that are subjects of those regulations (DGOTDU, 2008).
As it was discussed, the Portuguese planning and management system goes
back to the Medieval Era. We can learn that the management of cities and their
surroundings was conducted by important and wise people at that time and spe-
cific areas where defined for different uses – the planning system has taken the
first steps in Portugal.
Time has changed and new opportunities and challenges have opened new
doors in planning and management affairs. The change from a dictatorial state to
a democratic system (1974), joining the European Union (EU) in 1986 (called the
European Economic Union) and other evolutions brought new challenges for the
years to come.
Consequently, the paradigm of territorial planning required some adjustments.
This report will now focus on the organisation of those subjects and explains the
meaning behind each one of the inherent issues of the system itself.
2.1 The Portuguese Stakeholders of the Planning System
According to LBPOTU article No. 4, the state, autonomous regions and local
authorities must promote the policies of territorial management and urbanism,
according to their competences, public interest and respect for the rights, liberties
and guaranties of the citizens. They are obliged to join efforts for the consolida-
tion of the Territorial Management System, considering the secondary effects that
those policies may have on sustainable territorial development.
In terms of organisations and stakeholders, Portugal has on the top of the hier-
archy, besides the government itself, the “Environment, Territorial Management
and Regional Development Ministry” (MAOTDR). This governmental depart-
ment (that normally changes its name each time the government changes) is re-
sponsible for defining, executing and coordinating environmental policies, territo-
rial and urban management and regional development, as well as coordinating the
national cohesion policy, with the perspective of sustainable development and
territorial unity. It is accountable for QREN coordination, with the perspective of
sustainable development, to promote the citizenship, welfare and quality of life,
as well as promote the balanced development of the country’s regions.4
Connected directly to this ministry, the General Directorate of Territorial
Management and Urban Development (Direcção-Geral do Ordenamento do Ter-
4 For more information about MAOTDR, see : www.maotdr.gov.pt
8
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
ritorio e Desenvolvimento Urbano – DGOTDU) is responsible for the execution
of territorial management and urban policies, and it promotes the integrated
evaluation of national territorial division. Its mission is to have an actualised vi-
sion of the government’s role, focusing on the normative and regulatory func-
tions, and also to define and evaluate national policies.
According to Regulation Decree number 54/2007; DGOTDU’s main activity is
to support the definition, accompaniment and evaluation of public policies in the
field of territorial management and urban development. Within this regulation
new competences emerged: regular monitoring and evaluation of territorial man-
agement system; normative and regulative functions providing orientation and
technical support on territorial transformations; benchmarking and workshops in
the fields of formation, information and disclosure; and the organisation also
represents the country internationally.
Earlier in this report QREN was mentioned, therefore it is relevant to explain
who is responsible for its coordination. Though it is not an instrument or actor of
planning, it is a pertinent issue for the planning management. According to De-
cree-law number 137/07, the Financial Institute for Regional Development
(IFDR) was created to replace the General Directorate for Regional Development
in May 2007. IFDR’s mission is to execute regional development policy through
the financial coordination of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund of the
European Union; to coordinate, manage and financially supervise the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF); and it is responsible for the payment and
control of those funds’ interventions.
The Portuguese Constitution considers the existence of Regional Administra-
tion, but those are not yet implemented (see footnote number 4). Because of that,
there is an “organised disorder” on the regional level coexisting with several or-
ganisms.
Either way, there is an organisation which is highly important in terms of re-
gional planning, because it is a peripheral service of MAOTDR. Coordination
Commissions for Regional Development (Comissão Coordenação para o Desen-
volvimento Regional – CCDR) is an organisation endowed with administrative
and financial autonomy, charged to execute, at the level of its geographic area of
intervention, the policies of regional and urban development, environment, terri-
torial management, nature and biodiversity conservation, sustainable use of natu-
ral resources, urban requalification, regional strategic planning and support to
local municipalities and its associations, pursuing an integrated development of
each region.
By participating in the strategic planning process, enhancing partnership be-
tween local agents and elaborating programmes aiming the cohesion and territo-
rial competitiveness, CCDRs make their contribution to Social and Economic
Development Policy in a regional level. The nuclear entities of the commissions
9
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
are Regional Development, Territory Management, Environment, Juridical and
Local Administration Support, Financial and Administrative Management and
General Surveillance Services.
For example, CCDRs are responsible for the elaboration and correct imple-
mentation of corresponding PROT and all the decisions from the municipal level
must be presented and approved by these commissions. There are five CCDRs,
one for each region, as illustrated in Figure 1 [Algarve, Alentejo, Lisboa and Vale
do Tejo, Centro (Center) and Norte (North)], equivalent to the NUTS II division
of the country.
As it was discussed, there is no regional administration in Portugal (excepting
Azores and Madeira Islands5), but there are districts that will be substituted by the
regions as soon as they are implemented, with administrative divisions established
on the 25th April 1835 according to Law 252/99 of 1999. Their mission is to rep-
resent the government at the district level, to be a link between administration and
citizens, and also to have competencies in public security and civil protection. In
terms of regional planning, districts are pertinent because they collaborate in the
dissemination of sectoral policies’ through workshops and formations, for exam-
ple. It is also their competence to develop the necessary conditions of a competent
cooperation between all decentralised public services at the district level.
In Portugal, there are eighteen districts with a civil government in each (see
Figure 2), each one has a deliberative assembly, composed of a delegate from
municipalities that constitute the district, and the governor is nominated by the
government at the Ministries’ Council after the proposal of the Minister of Inter-
nal Administration on whom the governors depend hierarchically and organisa-
tionally.
In order to have a better coordination and optimise the advantages, Portuguese
Laws number 10 and 11 of 13th May 2003 establish that municipalities can work
together as an association or community.
The Law 10/2003 defines Metropolitan Grand Areas (Grandes Areas
Metropolitanas – GAM) and Urban Communities (ComUrb). The differences
between them are only in the size; GAM is a cluster of minimum nine
municipalities with a population not lower than 350 000, the ComUrb must have
at least three municipalities with a population not lower than 150 000. Munici-
palities may choose not to be part of these organisations, but in this case they will
not benefit from the advantages: development and territorial management become
more harmonious, and the capacity to apply and promote larger projects revealed
5 The so-called Governos Regionais (Regional Governments) have several powers and demands to
the region: they are submitted; they execute laws and make efforts for regional development in all
areas. These governments are elected by the inhabitants of the islands, their mandate lasts four
years, but they have to submit to and execute the national laws.
10
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
to be easier, therefore the application to funds from EU or state financing is more
profitable.
Both of them have the same organisation constituted by the Assembly, the
Council and the Consultation Board.
Figure 1
Portuguese Regions and CCDR’s
Source: Author’s elaboration.
11
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
Figure 2
Portuguese Districts
Source: Author’s elaboration.
12
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
Having their own properties and finances, the objectives of GAM and ComUrb
are the alignment of municipal investments with the community interests, plan-
ning and strategic management in social and economic aspects, territorial man-
agement at the scale of municipals’ associations, and the coordination of activities
between municipals and the central administration in the following areas:
Sanitation and public provisions;
Infrastructure;
Health care;
Education;
Environment, nature conservation and natural resources;
Security and civil protection;
Accessibility and transport;
Public use equipments;
Support for tourism and culture, as well as sports, youth and leisure activi-
ties.
There are seven GAMs in Portugal (Viseu, Algarve, Coimbra, Minho, Porto,
Aveiro and Lisboa) and twelve ComUrbs (Beiras, Médio Tejo, Douro, Tâmega,
Centro Alentejo, Valimar, Trá-os-Montes, Baixo Alentejo, Lezíria do Tejo,
Leiria, Vale do Sousa and Oeste).
The legislation is the same for municipals’ associations or intermunicipal
communities according to law 11/03, only the scale changes. These associations
(42 in all) are useful to smaller municipals with less population, and in some cases
in rural areas. The organisation of intermuncipal communities is the same as that
of the ComUrb or GAM, but in the case of the muncicipals’ association there are
differences: their main organs are just the Intermuncipal Assembly and the
Council Board.
It is important to mention that the municipals can integrate two associations or
communities at the same time, although they can leave the association or
community, but only after a certain period – normally four or five years. These
associations can be dissolved if they reach an agreement, nevertheless, municipals
recognise the advantages that these types of associations bring, and for this reason
they are becoming more and more important, especially where municipal man-
agement and planning is concerned.
Referring to the Portuguese Constitution, Article 235, local authorities are
territorial collective persons endowed with representative organs, whose aim is to
pursue the respective population’s best and own interests. There are three types of
local authorities: administrative regions (not implemented), municipals and
parishes. The organisation is common to all local authorities: there is an assembly
elected by the population, endowed with deliberative power, and an executive
organ constituted by an adequate number of members (depending on the
13
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
inhabitants of the region, municipality or parish), with a designated president who
is the first canditate of the most voted list.
Table 1
Portuguese Local Self Government Organisation
Local Authority
Deliberative Organ
Executive Organ
Parish Parish
Assembly
“Junta de Freguesia”
Municipality
Municipal Assembly
City Hall
Administrative Region
Regional Assembly
“Junta Regional”
Source: Author’s elaboration.
Concerning municipal divisions, they are the oldest and more consistent form
of sub-division that Portugal have had throughout over 900 years of history. They
come from the “Foral” letters, which granted lands without an owner for collec-
tive use of the community, regulated taxes, fines and established protection rights
and military obligations of the royalty, to avoid being taken by aristocrats. Today,
we can count 308 municipals. According to Article 250 of the Portuguese Con-
stitution and decree-law 142/85, 48/99 and 169/99, the municipals are represented
by an Assembly and a Municipal Council. The first is the deliberative organ com-
prising elected members, and the Municipal Council is the executive organ. Mu-
nicipal Councils have their own tax incomes and also a budget assigned by the
government according to the number of citizens and assignments for the mandate,
among other issues and projects.
The smallest local authorities are the parishes, so called “Freguesias” in Por-
tuguese, which in many cases overlap the medieval ecclesiastic units. In Portugal,
there are 4259 parishes distributed within the 308 municipalities. Municipals are
constituted by at least one parish, and are the ones who are responsible for the
implementation of those, obeying several rules established by law. Concerning
territorial management, they participate in the elaboration process of the PMOT;
they basically help the co-ordination, elaboration and implementation of plans and
they consult with the interested parties; they also approve urban allotments and
urbanisation constructions on the parish private properties, in addition, execute
acts on the PMOT options with adequate financial endowment in the provisional
management instruments (approved by the deliberative organ).
We can consider three types of parishes:
Urban: with population density >500 inhabitants/km2, or that integrate a set-
tlement with resident population ≥5 000 inhabitants;
14
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
Semi-Urban: non-urban parishes with population density >100 inhabits/km2
and ≤500 inhabitants/km2, or that integrate a settlement with resident popu-
lation ≥2 000 and <5 000 inhabitants;
Rural: the remaining.
The majority of territorial development plans are constructed at a large scale
(national or regional scale), which present difficulties concerning the efficiency
and effectiveness on a smaller scale, especially on rural spaces.
Widely spread at the end of the ’80s and the beginning of the ’90s all over the
country, but particularly in rural areas, actually there are more than 70 local de-
velopment associations (Associações de Desenvolvimento Local – ADL) or local
action groups.
Figure 3
Portuguese Municipals
Source: created by the author.
15
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
The vision and objectives are common to all of them, including the creation of
dynamism in backwards areas, the establishment of local partnerships between
different actors (such as cooperatives, cultural associations, local authorities,
schools, among others) in a balanced way, among several social-economic means
of the territory.
They were established to answer positively to an EU initiative called
LEADER. This programme allows the use of different intervention approaches in
rural space, promoting those that are integrated, conceived and implemented by
active partnerships working at the micro-level/local scale.
According to the Portuguese LEADER website, beneficiaries of these EU ini-
tiatives (the ADL) must elaborate development strategies for their local territories
and are responsible for the application of those strategies. The population served
by an ADL must not go beyond 100 000 inhabitants nor be below 10 000 inhabi-
tants, although exceptions can be made. Financial income comes mainly from
initiatives of the LEADER programme, an initiative from the EAGGF – G Fund
(further explained), and partnerships established between financial entities.
2.2 The Portuguese Territorial Instruments and Regulation
Documents
The Portuguese territory can be divided into a national or central level and a local
level.
The national or central level is represented by the government and it corre-
sponds to the strategic aspects of all national space, giving directions and orienta-
tions for the regional and municipal development. In order to achieve cohesion,
coordination is needed between the several sectoral development policies, apply-
ing, if needed, specific arrangements or some special schemes for planning.
The local level stands for the municipal level and other local public powers
and services that provide the strategic development for municipal space and land-
use (if it is agricultural, rural, for construction…).
Between those two levels, there are decentralised entities of central admini-
stration with the purpose of having better cooperation among central and local
authorities. The regional strategies have to be in complete agreement and coop-
eration with the national ones, and they are who give directions to the municipal
planning system. However, it is important to note that there aren’t any regional
authorities, since regionalisation was not implemented in Portugal6, and conse-
quently, there are no regional governments or autonomous powers in any form.
6 After a national referendum on 8th November 1998, with 51,7% abstention, the regionalisation had
a blackball of 63,51%, which means that only 36,49% voted “yes” to implement administrative
regions within the Portuguese territory.
16
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
These entities (which will be explained later in the report) only function as transi-
tions from national to local authorities, and vice-versa.
The coordination of the presented levels is only possible with an integrated
management and instrument capacity for the organisation of the relevant territo-
rial issues.
There are four large groups of instruments. The territorial development in-
struments have a strategic nature and provide extensive measures for the national
territory organisation. The two kinds of territorial planning instruments, namely,
the National Politics of Territorial Management Programme and Regional Plans
are considered as master plans, both are characterised by a regulative nature that
regulates territorial land use. The sectoral policy instruments come from govern-
mental ministries and provide the programming action and plan for fields like
energy, healthcare, education. Also important are the special instruments that are
used as links between the large-scale national instruments and the smaller plans
for areas that have very specific issues, challenges or demands.
In order to implement the instruments or to give expression to strategic orien-
tation provided by the instruments, plans are developed either by public or private
institutions. In both cases they have to be voted and approved by the local or na-
tional government depending on the scale and importance of the plan.
Although it is not quite a plan in its name, the National Policy for Planning
and Territorial Management (in Portuguese: Politica Nacional de Planeamento e
Ordenamento do Território – PNPOT) is a strategy concerning territorial devel-
opment instruments on the national level, which is superior to the remaining Ter-
ritorial Management Instruments (PNPOT, 2007). According to the law 380/99 of
22nd September 1999 which defines the coordination between several actors, the
PNPOT establishes the national options with special relevance for territory or-
ganisation, and becomes the reference instrument considering the elaboration of
the Territorial Planning Instruments like PROT. It establishes a reference guide
for the configuration of the urban system, networks, infrastructures and national
interest equipments, as well as maintenance and valorisation of areas of national
interest in environmental, patrimonial and countryside development fields. It is
also an instrument to enhance cooperation with EU member states in the field of
the European territory organisation matters. It is the DGOTDU’s task (explained
later) with the help of a project team. PNPOT is effective since 5th September
2007, and it is also the DGOTDU that is responsible for the correct implementa-
tion of this policy, asserting that the provided guiding is followed in the correct
way.
The Regional Management Plan (in Portuguese Plano Regional de Ordena-
mento do Território – PROT), according to the LBPOTU, is an instrument for
territorial development with a strategic nature. Together with PNPOT, it gives the
most relevant options for the territory organisation, by setting up general direc-
17
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
tives for the implementation. Because of this, they have to be considered as a
reference for the elaboration of territorial management instruments like PMOT –
Municipal Plans.
The main function of the PROT is to give directives for land use and territorial
transformations in a strategic decision frame established on the regional level; to
regionally promote the integration of sectoral and environmental policies in the
territory arrangement; to promote the efficiency of the interventions; and to orient
the elaboration of the municipal plans.
The main goals are to develop, in a regional framework, PNPOT’s and the
sectoral plans’ main figures; to translate spatially the major objectives of social
and economic sustainable development laid down in regional development plans;
to define measures and interventions to attenuate inter-regional development
asymmetries; to become a reference frame for the PIMOT and PMOT.
But PROTs are more than a frame to the policy of territorial development; they
are also the basic documents to determine the action programmes to be integrated
in the next period of interventions co-financed by the structural and cohesion
funds of the EU.
2.2.1 The Influence of the European Union over the Portuguese Planning
System
To take best advantage of EU funds, a strategy is delimited, and in Portugal it is
now called National Strategic Reference Framework for 2007 – 2013 (Quadro de
Referência Estratégico Nacional or QREN). With a strategic orientation and op-
erational feature regarding cohesion policies, this document has special focus on
structural development.
QREN’s core is to define objectives for development and organisation of the
use of Community funds. It establishes the framework for operational pro-
grammes, provides a financial background for those programmes and plans that
might be a result of them. In Portugal, there are three thematic programmes
(Competitiveness Factors, Manpower and Territory Valorisation), and nine re-
gional programmes (five for the continent and four for the islands) (QREN,
2008). In sum, it is an extremely essential financial instrument to boost economic
recovery in order to give strong foundations for a sustained evolution.
This financial support, correctly called Structural Funds and Cohesion Funds,
originates from the economic and social cohesion aim of the Treaty on the Euro-
pean Union.
According to information from the previous Community Support Framework
(2000–2006) all four structural funds were used, with a special emphasis on the
ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) which represented 65% of all
18
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
financial support. The remaining was divided between the ESF (European Social
Fund) with 23%, EAGGF-G (European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
Fund – Guidance) with 11% and finally FIFG (Financial Instruments for Fisheries
Guidance) representing 1% of the European Union grants.
ERDF is definitely the most important and relevant fund used by the Portu-
guese government because it corresponds to the country’s main difficulties: dif-
ferent stages of modernisation and infrastructure implementation; support for
small and medium-sized entrepreneurships, as well as I&D (Innovation and De-
velopment) promotion.
2.2.2 The Direct and More Influential Instruments in the Portuguese Planning
System
To preserve natural resources and other values, Portugal has Special Plans for
Territorial Management (Planos Especiais de Ordemanento do Território –
PEOT). These regulative instruments are elaborated by the central administration
and used by the government to uphold objectives of national interest with territo-
rial repercussions. PEOTs are liable for congeniality with PNPOT and PROTs
prevailing over PMOT and PIMOT, which will be explained later. There are five
types of PEOTs applied in regulation:
1) Public Water Lakes (POAAP – Plano de Ordemanento de Albufeiras de
Água Pública),
2) Archeological Parks (POPA – Plano de Ordemanento de Parque Ar-
queológico),
3) Coastline Border (POOC – Plano de Ordemanento das Orlas Costeiras),
4) Protected Areas (POAP – Plano de Ordenamento de Área Protegida)
5) Rivers (POE – Plano de Ordenamento de Estuário).
Sectoral plans (Planos Sectoriais or Progamas Operacionais in Portuguese) are
instruments for the programming or operationalisation of different sectoral poli-
cies, with territorial organisation respect used to reach the special objectives of
each sector. They include the territorial expression of sectoral policy from the
ministries, and different scenarios for each field of public administration (e.g.:
transportation, energy, tourism). Sectoral plans establish the sectoral options and
objectives to achieve the goals laid down in the national directive frames. It de-
fines actions for the operationalisation of those objectives and sets up the territo-
rial dimension of the sectoral policies and assures the conformity with the existing
instruments of territorial management. These plans are made by public or semi-
public authorities of central administration and are approved by the government.
19
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
For a better coordination of social-economic development strategies between
two or more contiguous municipal areas, the Inter-Municipal Management Plans
(in Portuguese: Planos Intermunicipais de Ordemanento do Território – PIMOT)
are developed. It is a territorial development instrument assuring the correct coor-
dination between PROTs and PMOT (explained later) in case of existing interde-
pendence issues which requires integrated coordination. PIMOT aims to harmo-
nise development strategies in the inter-municipal level generally, for protection
and environmental quality guarantee, to coordinate different types of network
plans (like equipment, infrastructure, the distribution of industrial activities, tour-
ism) existing in higher lever programmes and to clarify the goals for equipments’
accessibility and public services. They give directions for the integrated use of the
territory, and also define inter-municipal networks for infrastructures, equipments,
among other issues. The plan is composed of a report and maps (using GIS pro-
grammes) that illustrate the guiding. Although it is not explicit in Portuguese law,
the implementation of these kinds of plans became necessary for a better coordi-
nation after the municipal partnership initiatives appeared. It is essential to set a
guiding orientation and apply financial support in order to implement the projects
that came from the PIMOT.
The Portuguese planning system is completed with Municipal Plans of Terri-
torial Management (Planos Municipais de Ordemanento do Território – PMOT).
This instrument, approved by municipalities, has a regulative nature and estab-
lishes the land use, defines evolution models for human occupation, network or-
ganisation and urban systems, as well as a set of parameters for taking the best
advantages of the land and environmental quality guarantee. PMOTs set arrange-
ments for the translation of the guiding provided by national and regional strate-
gic instruments to a smaller scale, which expresses, territorially, a local develop-
ment approach. They must correctly coordinate the sectoral policies and create a
programmed management basis for the municipal territory. The definition of land
use is very important in these plans, consequently, they define municipal ecologi-
cal structure, establish regulations and guarantee rules for environmental quality
and preservation of cultural heritage, and also institute principles and underlying
criteria for infrastructure, equipment, services and location of the different sec-
tors. PMOTs can have a period of validity defined previously, but they are valid
until the approval of new modifications or a review. The effectiveness of this plan
can be conditioning to make programme-contracts, as well as to obtain funds and
special loans.
Within the PMOT, there are three small-scaled types of plans.
Municipal Main Plans (Plano Director Municipal – PDM) define the organisa-
tion of a municipal area, constitute a synthesis of local development and manage-
ment strategy, and locally integrate the options of the major national and regional
plans. A spatial structure model is implied on the land qualification and it devel-
20
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
ops from that same qualification, for example, it creates regimes of use and ac-
tivities, identifies several networks like transportation, equipment, communica-
tion, and so on.
These plans are constituted by a regulation report, a management map7 and a
conditioning plan8, followed by a descriptive study, a report introducing the op-
tions adopted and a programme containing information on predicted intervention
and executions as well as their financing.
Urbanisation Plans (Planos de Urbanização – PU) are developed in order to
organise a specific part of the territory within an urban perimeter which demands
exact intervention. The plan has similar structure and characteristics to the previ-
ous one.
The last group of these plans include the Detail Plans (Plano de Pormenor –
PP) which define and specify the special territory organisation proposals, in any
specific area of the municipality, define in details the conception form of occupa-
tion, and the plans are also used as a pillar for the execution of infrastructural
projects, buildings’ architecture and also exterior spaces, according to the PDM
and PU. Its structure is the same as those of the previous two.
It is important to note that both PU and PP plans change the PDM, because
they actualise and implement new territorial organisations or classifications.
According to the law 380/99, there are strict relations between the national and
regional plans, specified in six parameters:
1) PNPOT, PS, PEOT and PROT: Mutual compromise on respective action
coordination by sharing the same principles and objectives, which means
that the regulations are the same for these instruments;
2) PNPOT, PS and PROT: Establish regulations and guiding to be defined on
new PEOT;
3) PEOT is changed by PNPOT;
4) Sectoral plans are conditioned by PNPOT guiding and have to be in accor-
dance with the PROT;
5) PROT integrates the options of sectoral plans and PNPOT;
6) If more than one sectoral plan or PEOT has influence in one area, it is the
sectoral plan’s responsibility to indicate which rules to abrogate.
7 Management map: Represents the model of spatial structure according to the land use
classification, as well as the defined operative units of planning and management.
8 Conditioning Plan: Identifies the constraints and easements that might be limitations or encumbers
to any specific form of use.
21
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
We can also learn from that law that there are relationships between regional
plans and municipal plans:
1) PNPOT and PROT define the strategic board for PIMOT and PMOT;
2) PIMOT and PMOT are responsible for the programming and
operationalisation of politics on social, economic and environmental devel-
opment, promoted by sectoral plans;
3) PEOT prevails over the PIMOT and PMOT.
Briefly, we can say that PNPOT is the “big umbrella” of the Portuguese plan-
ning system. Being the top level plan, all others have to be coordinated in order to
respond to the PNPOT objectives. Due to the fact that the planning system is not
static, the society dynamics, economy and other fields engender new arrange-
ments. However, one thing has to be stated; normally, the objective remains the
same or has only a slight new nuance, what usually changes is the way to reach
the objective. Figure 4 represents, in a concise pattern, the way all plans are or-
ganised and all the connections they have with each other. Because of what has
just been exposed, arrows point in both directions on the first level. The connec-
tion between sectoral plans and PROT appears because they have to be compati-
ble with each other. The other connection not always exists in case a PIMOT (In-
ter-municipal Plan) does not exist, but if it exists, PMOT has to be also compati-
ble with the previous one.
Figure 4
Portuguese Planning Organisation
Source: Author’s elaboration.
22
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
3 The Hungarian Planning System
In the Hungarian case, the planning system is also not novel, but there had been
significant changes over the past twenty years. Not entirely, but in part this is due
to the European Union’s requests in terms of regional organisation and planning;
changes are now in course and new approaches to the planning system are being
pursued.
According to the Regional Operational Programme of the National Develop-
ment Plan (2004–2006), the late 1990s was the time of the fastest upswing in the
economic, social and development respect, when the country was living an un-
wavering period. Unfortunately, at same time regional disparities were increasing,
leading Hungarian regions and micro-regions to tremendous disparities in eco-
nomic and social development.
Centralisation has been the main feature of the Hungarian state throughout
1000 years of history; in fact we still can characterise the structural organisation
by centralisation. The country’s administrative units – municipals and counties –
have remained centralised until the change of the political system. However, it
has to be noted that the Hungarian system of councils gave more space and free-
dom to local actors than the systems prevailing in the neighbouring socialist
countries (especially after the reform of mechanisms in 1968 and modifications of
the ‘Council’ Act in 1971) (Pálné Kovács et al., 2004).
Regionalism emerged in the 1970s, embraced by a Soviet type of regionalisa-
tion and it was only used for the purposes of national planning, which is a reason
behind why they weren’t so relevant in the development issue. Before 1990, re-
gional policy as a governmental function was of secondary importance; the eco-
nomic system basically gave support to protected weaker regions at the expense
of strong ones. These tendencies hindered the dynamism of the economy while
led to the mitigation of regional imbalances (VÁTI, 2002).
But it was in the transition period – from socialist regime to EU – that regions
saw an upgrade of importance. Government took measures to perform regional
development tasks in order to compete with other eastern countries and to focus
on the crisis management of regional disparities by curbing spontaneous degrada-
tion processes in depressed areas. After the change of the political system new
requirements emerged for regions; a new institutional system was established, and
the decentralisation of decision-making and a better coordination of resources
took place. In order to join the EU, it was necessary to modernise the practice of
regional development and implement European Union principles on regional pol-
icy, in which field Act XXI of 1996 on Regional Development and Regional
Planning meant the first step.
But these changes were fragile; primarily the transition period was focused on
the management of crises (disparities), but then the situation deteriorated by the
23
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
predominance of targeted transfers from the centre as a policy tool, the lack of
coordination between policy sectors and the poor ability of territorial partnership
to enforce their interest. The result of this situation was territorial fragmentation,
the doubling of local government units (more than 3000 municipalities replaced
the former 1600 local councils) and the low level of efficiency (Pálné Kovács et
al., 2004).
The Hungarian Constitution defines in the 41st Article the country division of
administrative units, and the acts – like Act LXV of 1990 on Local Self-Govern-
ments or Act XXI of 1996 – give new territorial approaches and arrangements for
Hungarian Planning system and their stakeholders.
Efforts are now on track to attenuate issues; therefore the meaning of a good
planning system and coordinated actors are essential to avoid future problems in
crucial areas like environment, economic and social matters.
3.1 Hungarian Territorial Planning and Management – Layers and
Layouts
According to Chapter IX of the Hungarian Constitution (enacted in 1949 and en-
tirely amended in 1989) on Local Governments, the territory is constituted by
administrative units, including the capital, counties, cities, towns and villages.
The Hungarian territory can be divided into seven regions, nineteen counties,
about 3100 municipalities and 174 micro-regions and associations. It is now im-
portant to clarify the role of these divisions in territorial planning and manage-
ment.
The first level of public administration for the planning system is performed
by the central government itself, especially by the ministry responsible of local
government. It defines local governments, which can operate at two levels: mu-
nicipality and county.
Local government means “autonomous and democratic management of local
affairs by the communities concerned and exercise of local public authority in the
interest of the population”. According to the Constitution referred above, the
representative bodies of the local governments “regulate and administer matters
that belong to the competence of local authority; exercises ownership rights in
regard to local-authority property, independently budgets the incomes of the local
government and may start ventures on their own responsibility; authorises, within
the limits of the law, local taxes, their type and measures; and may freely form
associations with other local representative bodies.”
In 1990, a decentralisation of the local governments took place, for which the
legal support was provided by Act LXV of 1990 on Local Governments. This
process took place in two major stages:
24
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
1) Act LXV of 1990 itself created a new system of local democracy through
establishing general rules, rights, powers and obligations for local authori-
ties;
2) Act LXIII of 1994 amended the Local Government Act and introduced the
direct election of mayors in all settlements and county assemblies and
guarantees of publicity and forms of citizen participation. The same act
regulated or modified obligations of local representatives (through which
they became clearer), the rules for local governments became better elabo-
rated, and the act increased the role of the county as an institution of territo-
rial local government.
Local governments do not have hierarchical relations between them, therefore
county governments aren’t superior to municipal governments nor have superior
authority over them. The difference between them lies in the administrative tasks
that had been delegated to each one.
According to Act LXV of 1990, all local self-governments have the same
characteristics and status, but undertake different competences, depending on the
size of the settlement, its population and other criteria. From Section 1 of the
above mentioned act we can learn that local self-governments perform independ-
ently in local public affairs (public utilities or their organisation, personnel and
financial conditions), manage the public’s affairs freely within the jurisdiction.
Concerning local governments’ finances, the Parliament designates the resources,
they have an own budget, although they can freely dispose of their municipal
property and revenues. They have independence to set their organisational struc-
ture and operational procedures, and may freely form associations with other local
self-governments, regional or national associations.
3.1.1 The Local Governments’ Importance in the Planning System
Local authorities are responsible for local development and local planning, pro-
tecting the environment, whether it is built or natural. Within other responsibili-
ties, they are in charge of housing management, water resources planning and
drainage, sewer system, maintenance of public roads and areas as well as traffic,
public sanitation and ensuring cleanliness of the localities, provision of education,
health and other social services, promoting conditions to provide the community a
healthy way of life.
With the actual powers and obligations, the nineteen counties are local gov-
ernments with a mainly subsidiary role in the provision of local services. They
perform tasks that the municipalities are not obliged to perform, maintain the
institutions that provide public services such as hospitals, museums, libraries,
theatres, secondary schools, among others.
25
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
Municipalities as self-governments are the basic units of the overall system.
There are about 3200 municipals that are set up by settlements (villages, cities
and cities with county rights), and they must provide public services to the settle-
ments according to the duties laid down in Act LXV of 1990.
It is important to focus on the state of the capital city, Budapest. It has two
government systems, the capital government as a whole and the district govern-
ments (twenty-three, in total). The government of the capital performs those man-
datory and voluntary municipal government functions and powers that affect the
whole city or more than one district. The district governments independently exe-
cute functions and powers of the municipal government. From an outsider’s eyes,
they look like municipals within the municipal.
In between counties and municipalities, there have been 174 micro-regions
since 2004. Although they do not have any directly elected governments or any
kind of own power, they combine a group of municipalities as associations and
work for a coordinated development of those places. Presently, the tendency is to
empower them in terms of the coordination of the communities’ development.
The main positive features are the development of the micro-regions’ relations
and cooperation based on the free municipal cooperation of local governments.
Figure 5
Hungarian territorial division at the NUTS 2 level and the counties, 1998
Key: 1 – Central Hungary; 2 – North Hungary; 3 – North Great Plain; 4 – South Great Plain; 5 –
South Transdanubia; 6 – West Transdanubia; 7 – Central Transdanubia.
Source: Pálné Kovács, 2005.
26
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
In between counties and municipalities, there have been 174 micro-regions
since 2004. Although they do not have any directly elected governments or any
kind of own power, they combine a group of municipalities as associations and
work for a coordinated development of those places. Presently, the tendency is to
empower them in terms of the coordination of the communities’ development.
The main positive features are the development of the micro-regions’ relations
and cooperation based on the free municipal cooperation of local governments.
3.1.2 The Stakeholders of Spatial Development
When we arrive at the question of integrating the highly fragmented network of
municipals, it becomes quite clear that the system is not that simple. With an
abiding research it is easy to comprehend that other divisions exist and they also
have powers in the decision-making concerning territorial management and de-
velopment. They make arrangements and are considered as spatial development
institutions, have a defined scale and duties that give them a good position in the
planning system according to Act XXI of 1996 on Regional Development and
Regional Planning.
Four major levels can be defined concerning these spatial development insti-
tutions: national, regional, county and micro-region level (according to a docu-
ment from the National Agency for Regional Development – 2002).
The national level is represented by the government and the ministries. Oper-
ating as a government advisory and coordinating body, the National Regional
Development Council’s main duties are the harmonisation of the National Re-
gional Development Concept, the expression of its opinion over government is-
sues, and the creation of a consensus in the implementation of the regional policy.
The council is also responsible for planning and coordination of national and
transboundary infrastructure.
On the regional level there are seven regional development councils, one for
each region. Their tasks are the promotion of the regional economic and infra-
structural development, preparation and coordination of the execution of the Re-
gional Development Concept and other programmes, helping the counties (that
constitute the region) to identify development priorities, respecting the interest of
both. They take part in the fulfillment of governmental duties related to regional
development and planning, and make decisions in the cases defined in Act XXI of
1996.
Regional development agencies established by the regional development coun-
cils participate in the execution and control of the implementation both of council
and central governmental duties related to regional development and planning,
and also have the task of providing professional assistance and information.
27
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
Immediately below that level, county development councils work at the county
level. Their focal task is, or, rather, recently was, to allocate most of the central
financial instruments, promote spatial development and coordination within the
settlements’ activities, governments and regional administrative agencies and
other public and professional organisations, as well as planning (physical organi-
sation) and territorial development. The role of the county development councils
is declining due to a power shift towards the regions.
The importance of micro-regions’ associations is more and more emphasised,
because, as we have mentioned, they establish cooperation between local gov-
ernments. The document cited above highlights that this level has the ability to di-
rectly encourage local governments, through offering partnerships of municipali-
ties to participate in allocation of county-level fund decisions. Micro regions have
nowadays more and more public service competences, too.
According to the National Spatial Development Concept of 2005, the micro-
regional level is considered as the most important form of “auto-organisation”;
therefore, micro-regions’ empowerment is justified in order to have a pro-active
role in the planning and implementation of the concepts. It is important to empha-
sise that several of these associations do not have sufficient management and pro-
fessional capacities which adversely affects, for that reason, the quality and effi-
ciency of their work.
The following figure presents the Hungarian organisation in what spatial de-
velopment is concerned. It is adapted by several sources, mainly Act XXI of 1996
on Regional Development and Regional Planning, and we can see that most of the
decisions are top-down. Regional and micro-regional levels are weak, although
new synergies are now arising. Either way, it is possible to identify the way that
the “machine” works, in terms of stakeholders and relationships between them.
3.2 Instruments of Hungarian Territorial Planning and Management
The importance of a written document expressing the will, tendencies, pro-
grammes and actions for spatial development is immeasurable. These written
documents assert that, at least for the period they are conceived, policy lines are
followed and objectives are accomplished. For this reason, we shall now learn on
what base the Hungarian system is organised, also in terms of the specific plans.
Regulatory legal documents constitute an essential piece of spatial develop-
ment instruments. They intend to regulate all spatial development activities, de-
fine frameworks for the different actors’ operations to implement spatial devel-
opment policies, identify tasks that facilitate the accomplishment of strategic ob-
jectives of those policies, control the efficient operation of other components of
the network (institutions and other spatial instruments) (Pálné Kovács et al.
2004).
28
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
Figure 6
Hungarian Spatial Development administrative organisation.
Source: Adapted by the author.
29
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
However, these regulatory documents have experienced a long journey, for
this reason we shall now expound some of the main legislation that gave birth to
the concepts and plans.
3.2.1 The Legal Influences
In the early 90s, Act LXXXIII of 1992 on Certain Separated State Funds was the
highest legal document for government decisions, because it identified, for the
first time, the major future directions in spatial policies.
Nevertheless, Act XXI of 1996 on Regional Development and Regional
Planning is one of the most important regulations in connection with the subject
discussed here. The purpose of this act is the establishment of fundamental objec-
tives and rules of regional development and the planning and setting up of the
institutional system. It also defines goals, objectives and duties related to the
subject, as well as providing basic definitions.
Either way, before the enactment of Act XXI of 1996, the legal sources were
provided by parliamentary resolutions and government decrees. The conjugation
of those resolutions and decrees resulted in the Spatial Development and Or-
ganisation Fund. The necessity of this act stemmed from the pre-accession proc-
ess and the new challenges of European Union accession. With this act, which
was a general framework law, related laws emerged, and a consistent im-
plementation of the National Regional Development Concept was promoted. Un-
fortunately, this special fund no longer exists, making unsure the proportion of
allocation for regional policy targets among other governmental branches.
Act XXXVI of 1998 on the Enumeration of the Ministries of the Republic of
Hungary is also important because it establishes among the competences of each
ministry, that spatial development concepts, programmes, substantive criteria of
spatial plans and registration of rules of the plans themselves had to be regulated
by the minister responsible for regional policy. This act, once more, was created
to harmonise with European Union general organisation.
Act XCII of 1999, which amended Act XXI of 1996, gave a clear and
unambiguous regulatory framework for spatial development by implementing
substantial changes in three main areas: the composition of councils was changed;
the supervision over councils was clarified; regional development councils were
distinguished from the development councils of special regions.
The act was also amended in 2004, further detailing the procedures of fund
allocation and planning, and establishing special fora for civil interest reconcilia-
tion.
Considering these acts, it is also important to emphasise that the process of
pre-accession for European Union forced Hungary to elaborate, create and im-
plement legal documents in order to be able to correctly apply for the funds. For
30
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
that reason, two major tasks were identified: the first was to create legal and in-
stitutional conditions of spatial policy (to coordinate the utilisation of funds) and
the second was to implement a different financial plan to have better access to
international financial resources. On this basis, it can be affirmed that spatial
planning and development structure is new, the implementation of new reforms
have started since the beginning of the 1990s due to the European Union’s
requests.
3.2.2 The Territorial Planning Instruments
The planning instruments for Hungary are identified by three types of spatial de-
velopment works, with a hierarchical structure between them.
The Spatial Development Concept is the piece du resistance of spatial plan-
ning. It defines, within the represented area, development objectives and estab-
lishes priorities for the elaboration of development programmes. Considered as
the first in the hierarchy, the Spatial Development Concept sets the directions for
the decision-maker, providing information necessary for spatial planning and
spatial development. Every level or unit must have a development concept and
from that instrument elaborate the following.
Spatial Development Programmes follow the concept plan because they are
the strategic and operative part of the previous instrument, and they are divided
into sub-programmes and partial programmes. The objective is to identify short
and medium-term tasks, identify parts involved in the implementation of those
tasks, specify methods of execution as well as scheduling and financial
organisation.
Physical Plans are important because they define the long-term physical-tech-
nical structure of a given region. These plans provide information for the
utilisation and protection of regional features, resources and the environment.
They also coordinate the location of infrastructure networks, land use system and
offer means of regulation for those issues.
The document that sets fundamental policy guidelines and objectives on spa-
tial development policy in Hungary is the National Regional Development Con-
cept, adopted by the Parliament with Resolution number 35/1998 (March 20).
Although it cannot be deemed as a legal document, it has a strategic significance
in shaping and harmonising national and regional development. This concept
determines the most important sectoral development priorities and tasks related to
the government’s spatial development policy. This document-plan basically es-
tablishes and influences the comprehensive long-term development of the coun-
try, determines the long-term, overall development objectives and principles nec-
essary for the preparation of development programmes, and further ensures in-
formation for the connected sectors and regional planning and regional develop-
31
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
ment stakeholders. According to the National Regional Development Concept, the
main objectives of the concept are to determine the basic long-term regional
development principles, policies and goals which are to be followed by the
government in its own regional development activity; give details on those spatial
goals by specifying which to be supported by the government in the sectoral
development policies; and promote the task fulfillment of the new institutional
system introduced by the act and create harmony among county and regional
development plans. Generally, it provides orientation for decentralised regional
development activities without their restriction or determination.
As it was mentioned before, Act XXI of 1996 sets three important instruments
to use: the Regional Development Concept, Regional Development Programme
and Physical Plan. These three instruments shall serve as the basis of regional
planning (but it has to be mentioned that these types of plans exist at county level
as well).
The Regional Development Concept is a document plan used for “establishing
and influencing the comprehensive and long-term development of the county or
region, it defines the long-term and comprehensive development goals of a
region, sets further guidelines required for the elaboration of development
programmes, and provides information for participants in the sectoral and related
regional planning and regional development”.
The Regional Development Programme is a “medium-term action plan worked
out on the basis of the previous which is built on strategic and operative
programmes”.
The Physical Plan, established only at county level, defines the land use forms
applicable to the county in harmony with the goals established within the devel-
opment concept.
3.2.3 Embracing the European Influences
Like in the Portuguese case, Structural Funds from the European Union are also
the basis of the agenda concerning territorial planning and management. In the
Hungarian case, pre-accession funds have been very important, and because
accession is recent, they still have an influence on the territory.
Started in 1992, the PHARE programme (Poland–Hungary Assistance for
Reconstruction of the Economy) was one of the most important programmes of
the European Union in the pre-accession period. The main objectives in territorial
management were to develop a network of decentralised institutions for spatial
development. From that point on, regional and county councils along with their
agencies are expected to play an important role in PHARE implementation and
other plans by giving preference to projects which, in line with the development
32
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
strategies of the given county or region, offer a feasible solution of the needs of
the target area.
The first plan that emerged after accession, in order to apply to funds, was the
first National Development Plan which aimed the designation of the development
policy and objectives for the period between 2004 and 2006. Although this period
has already expired, it was a relevant plan because of operational programmes
connected to it that set goals and objectives to reach in that period. It is important
to note that in the first National Development Plan, the whole country was consid-
ered as only one region; therefore, only one single Regional Operational
Programme was implemented.
Again, the Second Hungarian Development Plan for 2007-2013 (the second
which was elaborated) is one of the most important reports where territorial de-
velopment is concerned. It came from the need to better integrate European Union
space and policy, and to develop capacity in order to better apply for structural
funds. The objective of the plan is to expand employment, creating conditions for
long-term growth. To achieve this, the plan launches a coordinated state and
European Union development in six priority areas: economy, transport, renewal
of the society, environment, energy, regional development and state reform. Both
plans have the same purpose – applying for structural funds –, but they have a
settled period of action.
Not like the first, the second generation of Development Plans considered all
of the seven regions, the NUTS 2 level as we now know it and previously shown
in Figure 5, which means that seven regional operative programmes were
elaborated. An additional important operational programme is the Regional
Development Operational Programme, in which the target is the regional
development and the support of spatial structural transformation of Hungary, and
the adjustment to the regional policy of the European Union. It provides funding
within the framework of nine measures in three areas of intervention (tourism,
infrastructure and human resources) for implementing projects that target regional
development.
It is relevant to mention that these “regional” plans also, like the remaining
European plans are elaborated and accepted centrally by the central government
and the National Development Agency (NDA).
33
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
4 Portuguese and Hungarian Planning System:
The Differences and Similarities
After describing the two systems, it is now interesting to compare them, creating a
relation chain that will prove the differences or similarities.
One of the biggest differences is the fact that in spite of lot of similarities con-
cerning the scales and levels both are organised differently. Portugal and Hungary
have common divisions like the municipals, inter-municipal organisms (although
they are not so relevant yet in Hungary) and regions.
Table 2
Portugal and Hungary – Territorial Division
Parishes
Municipals
Inter-
Counties Regions
Municipal or
Micro-Regions
Portugal X
X
X
X
(4257)
(308)
(62)
(7)
Hungary
X
X
X
X
(3200)
(174)
(19)
(7)
Source: Author’s elaboration.
The maps presented in the description prove this fact, therefore the countries’
organisation, like institutions and instruments, have some differences. As it is
shown in Table 2, both countries use four main levels of division, although Portu-
gal has an additional “lower” division (parishes) when compared with Hungary.
This situation has the result of better communication between inhabitants, entities
and, consequently, instruments. On the other side, we can see that the Hungarian
territory has a level that Portugal doesn’t use where territorial planning is con-
cerned, which is the county level (comparable with Portuguese districts but hav-
ing different purposes).
However, the list of contrasts can be extended if we analyse this situation from
a different perspective. If we considered numbers, we could assert that what is
called municipal in Hungary is considered to be parish in Portugal. As we can see
in Table 1 and the description in the previous chapters, both Portuguese parishes
and Hungarian municipals have the same rights and obligations, and if we pay
attention to the numbers we have a better proof of this situation.
On the other hand, the Portuguese municipals are comparable to the Hungarian
micro-regions. Although micro-regions have different obligations and ways of
functioning, they still can be linked to the second Portuguese territorial division.
Continuing the analysis of the micro-regions, we can also compare them to the
34
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
Portuguese municipals’ associations. We can roughly affirm that Portuguese mu-
nicipals and municipals’ associations are comparable to the Hungarian micro-
regions, even if those do not have elected self-governments like the Portuguese
municipals, but according to the numbers we can establish a connection, espe-
cially if we consider that the relevance of the micro-regions is growing in Hun-
gary.
The Hungarian county level is very important, while this level does not exist in
the Portuguese case. However, if we consider the numbers and parameters ac-
cording to which these territorial divisions are established, they are comparable to
Portuguese districts. It is true that districts do not have deliberative duties in ter-
ritorial planning and management, but the remaining responsibilities are similar.
They both have self-governments (in the Hungarian case they are elected by the
inhabitants, while Portuguese districts are nominated by the Minister of Internal
Administration with the approval of the Ministers Council) and responsibilities
regarding the municipals in providing them help to perform several tasks.
As Table 3 indicates, the regional level is equivalent in both countries, al-
though they have some singularities in the constitutional legal status. Both are
trying to implement regional governance, but the regions are mainly statistical
units and their major role is to apply for European Union funds as well as to per-
form some territorial planning and management tasks.
Table 3
Portugal and Hungary – Connections between territorial levels
Portugal Hungary
Parishes Municipals
Municipals & Municipals’ Associations
Micro-regions
Districts Counties
Regions Regions
Source: Author’s elaboration.
Continuing with the investigation of relations between the two countries, on
the basis of what was described in the previous chapters we will now present a
comparison among the institutions responsible for territorial planning.
It is important to remark that the institutions have some differences in the work
they perform, but again, on the basis of their territorial influences and basic func-
tioning as well as their duties, it is possible to outline this relation.
As presented in Table 4, in terms of institutions (though simplifying, yet con-
sidering those who are more relevant), we can see that the differences are not that
expressive. Divided by levels again, we can see that the Portuguese local level has
two institutions to implement the rules of territorial planning – one (the parish)
35
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
only helps in the implementation and municipals elaborate and stipulate rules and
practices. In the Hungarian case, on the same level, the municipals combine both
of these characteristics, as it has already been discussed.
Table 4
Portugal and Hungary – Institutional review
Portugal
Hungary
Local Parishes
Municipals
Municipals
Multi-purpose Micro-regional Associations
“Middle” Municipals’
Associations
County Councils
Regional CCDR
Regional Development Councils
DGDTU
National Regional Development Council
National
Ministry
Ministry
Source: Author’s elaboration.
In the middle level, flanked by the municipals and regions, Hungary has two
major kinds of organisations –county councils and the multi-purpose associations
working on the micro-regional level. As it was told before, the Portuguese mu-
nicipals’ associations and counties can be easily compared and, in this approach,
the same can be done since they provide services for municipals and respect or-
ders from the superior level – the regions.
Above this, on the regional level, differences are not that expressive. Neither
country has found its way to regionalisation, having, instead of governments,
councils and commissions that provide plans and regulatory parameters for the
lowest levels.
The next and final step of this compilation of parallels between the countries is
the documents and instruments used for territorial planning and management.
This task is more difficult because both countries present different types of plans
and regulatory instruments; but still, a comparison can be made if we just con-
sider the more effective and used programmes/instruments.
Table 5 intends to show similarities of instruments for territorial planning, es-
tablishing parallels between the cases of study. After systematisation, it becomes
clear that, again, the two countries have a similar organisation concerning the
instruments. In both cases, if we consider all the concepts, there are too many
regulatory and implementation programmes, plans or concepts.
The connections on the first level can be found between the Hungarian Physi-
cal Plan and the Portuguese version which is the PDM (obligatory plan for all the
municipals, respecting PMOT norms). On the other levels, the connections are
36
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
quite simple and understandable if we consider the descriptions in the previous
chapters.
One interesting connection between the two countries could also be the level
of Europeanisation, which can be “associated with democratisation and moderni-
sation processes”, which in the regional policy “has led to substantial administra-
tive restructuring, involving devolution, institution building and network creation
at the national and, more importantly, at the sub-national level of governance”
(Paraskevolpoulos et al., 2004).
Table 5
Portugal and Hungary – Instruments
Portugal
Hungary
Local
PMOT (PDM)
Physical Plan
County Physical Plan, Concept and Programme
“Middle” PIMOT
Micro-regional Plans
Regional Operative Programmes
Regional PROT
Regional Conception, Plan and Programme
PNPOT
National Regional Development Concept
National
(EU: QREN)
(EU: National Development Plan 2007–2013)
Source: Author’s elaboration.
In the Portuguese case, the same authors point to colonialism, the strong tradi-
tion of the corporatist state, and relative isolation from Europe as the main areas
that generated strong “adaptation pressures”.9 These pressures are linked to
significant institutional changes, primarily at central state level, and especially in
the areas of planning and regional development, also affecting the position of both
autonomous island regions and municipalities within the governance structures
and their role in policy planning and implementation.
Hungarian regional policy has also been an area of high adaptation pressure.
Periphery relation, decentralisation and regional development constitute, accord-
ing to the authors cited above, the key areas affected by the conditionality princi-
ple and need for compliance with Copenhagen criteria10, as well as the challenge
of transforming a highly centralised system of governance since the year of the so
called “systemic” change in 1989.
9 These “adaptional pressures” are used to classify the main fields of change in order to achieve the
Europeanisation.
10 To join the EU, new member states must meet three criteria: political criteria, economic criteria
and the acceptance of the Community acquis (source: http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/accession
_criteria_copenhague_en.htm [23th June 2008].
37
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
The reports from the Commission underline the Hungarian “weakness of sub-
national institutional structures with emphasis on the predominant role of political
parties in policy-making, corruption and problematic cooperation among public
sector actors” (Paraskevolpoulos et al., 2004).
The comparison could go on in other fields, not only regional or territorial
policies. Both countries share interesting similarities, and different kinds of ap-
proaches could be made, but since this is mainly a descriptive report of territorial
planning, supplementary information will not be added.
5 Portuguese and Hungarian Planning System:
Misses and Matches
After this analysis it is easy to learn that both countries have a lot of similarities in
territorial planning instruments and institutions. Some of them are more signifi-
cant than others, but still, parallels can be found.
After revealing these similarities, now it becomes relevant to articulate a criti-
cism.
Perfection is something that is sometimes just impossible to reach, especially
when so many stakeholders and instruments have to work together in a harmo-
nised method and system. But in the case that is approached in the report, a long
path must be completed in both countries in order to fetch a simpler and more
functional planning system.
In this part of the work, an effort will be made to, on one hand, identify the
weaknesses of the systems and, on the other hand, present some alternatives to
reinforce the system in both countries. It is now relevant to assert that this part of
the report mainly expresses my points of view, shared indeed with some authors,
but still they are a set of personal thoughts supported by some bibliographic
sources.
The first observation must be in connection with the institutions; the
plans/instruments do not work without a coordinated and well prepared institu-
tion/organisation which elaborates and implements them.
The existence of solid institutions with qualified personnel, endowed with
flexibility and a budget adjusted to the real necessities is essential for stronger and
better plan elaboration and implementation. Social capital combined with social
networks is, probably, the most important and relevant issue, because without
them the entire process does not work.
In some cases, there are too many plans without a proper hierarchy between
them. In other cases there are “large-scale” plans (like the Portuguese PNPOT or
the Hungarian National Regional Development Concept) that are posterior to
38
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
plans of “smaller scale” (for example the Portuguese PDM or the Hungarian
Physical Plan) (Quental, 2007).
Those situations must be fought by the complete implementation of the “large-
scale” plans and the revision of the “smaller scale” plans, in order to integrate the
options of the first level plans. It is not logical or rational to have a national level
plan recently loaded with new guidance, and have, at the same time, physical
plans dated ten years ago. It is incoherent and leads to misunderstandings and
overlaps of information.
Another critical situation that occurs in both countries is the lack of coordina-
tion between plans. This situation leads to a hindrance regarding the real percep-
tion of the priorities from the decision-makers and territorial managers. This is
visible in the case of the Forest Management Plans; there is a specific plan, but in
the PROT, PMOT, PIMOT (all Portuguese examples) the information is repeated,
and in some cases it presents different strategies for the same area (Quental,
2007).
Even the ex-ante evaluation of QREN – the Portuguese National Strategic
Reference Framework for 2008–2013 – points out the lack of coordination as a
weakness of the territorial and management system.
In order to avoid this situation, it would be prudent to abridge in the regional
plans (for example) the options, settings and objectives, and submit the remaining
information necessary and adequate to the specific plans.
With so many plans, so many categories (strategic, management, regulatory,
and so on) it is sometimes hard to identify the real character of the plan in the
analysis.
To prevent that situation, it is convenient to establish rules and “formulations”
of what should be included in every plan, not falling in the temptation of includ-
ing e.g. implementation options in the strategic plans. Because these plans are not
the same; “implementation” is not the same as “strategic” – (the strategic plans
should be endowed with action plans, management with the correct agenda). In
the Hungarian case, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences represented by the Cen-
tre for Regional Studies proposed the acceptation of a general law about the plan-
ning as a whole, identifying all the differences, like the Portuguese LBPOTU.
The final critic for the plans/instruments is in connection with the “perfection”
(Quental, 2007) that they describe. There are plans that offer one perspective of
the reality quite different from what it really is, embellishing the truth. Adjoining
this, there are times when the timetable for the implementation of those
plans/instruments is too short, compromising their success.
To fight this situation, two simple options are proposed: increasing the realism
of the description or ex-ante evaluation of the plans, increasing at the same time
the pragmatism of the objectives of the instrument; and, the other option is to
extend the calendar of the plan implementation.
39
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
In order to have better results from the instruments, it is needed to invest in the
cycles of planning as well as in the cycles of action. There are times when the
plan is elaborated but is not completely considered as a cluster of measures that
must be accomplished.
A good database, accessible to all stakeholders, including the population, using
for example the Internet, where all the plans/instruments of “superior” order (like
the national plans), and from those connections to the “inferior” strategic plans
were found in an easy and costless way, working as a cooperation and better un-
derstanding measure. Everyone who might be interested in the information could
have access to it, checking timetables of the projects, responsible entities, budg-
ets, financial sources and progression indicators, involving the population in a
process that normally is not contemplated, using the principles of public partici-
pation in the decision-making processes.
Another gap that must be showcased is the fact that the majority of relations
with the institutions are slow, very bureaucratic and unregulated. This issue al-
lows to hold back some processes as well as access to information; delays proc-
esses, and even sometimes makes it impossible to use the information. As a result,
it is also possible that this difficulty in the disposal of the information creates
barriers to actualise studies and monitor policies.
The European Union is, in both countries, partly responsible for the inco-
herency of the planning system. In some cases, the uncertainty on planning and
territorial management leads to a coordinated chaos, arranged by all the member
states. An example of this disarray is the possibility to change the regions forma-
tion and allow the elaboration of plans that only aim for the structural funds’ ob-
tainment, having no long-time strategy for the projects. It is true that the EU can-
not change the member states’ constitution, and for that reason, it can not assume
all the blame, since each member states’ government and parliament should leg-
islate and regulate the planning system. An example of this situation is the case of
the Hungarian Regional Development Associations that existed and operated be-
fore EU accession, while afterwards, they lost their power even if they are still
considered in the Hungarian Act XXI of 1996, one of the main acts on regional
planning.
As explained previously, the Europeanisation of the member states leads to
disarrangement, and management changes that in most cases are not properly
adapted to the new dilemmas. The importance of the EU is unquestionable in both
countries, especially in terms of financial help, but if we consider the territorial
planning system, it became fragmented with the new organisation overlapping the
old.
According to Mafra et al. (2004), there are authors who argue that Portugal
should only have three regions (mainland, Açores and Madeira). They sustain this
thesis by saying that there are regions of the same size as Portugal mainland and
40
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
Hungary – like Lombardia or Ile du France – that present an equal or even higher
GDP (Gross Domestic Product). This is not a new idea and it has been proven
already by Ireland in 1987, when the country was considered one large region.
This reality showed its results, and now they have “normal” regional authorities
for planning and territorial coordination. According to the author, Portugal could
be considered as a “big region instead of a little member state”.
If we consider this option, it is an opportunity for both countries – Hungary
and Portugal – since they have approximately the same size and regional distribu-
tion as well as similar regional problems (only the regions that include the capi-
tals, Budapest and Lisbon, have a GDP superior to the EU average). The country
would be considered as a whole unit, all policies would be the same, and better
harmonisation could be accomplished. The most developed regions could behold
a progress delay, but the more important profit of this option is the parallel evolu-
tion of all countries, at the same time, with the same objectives, foreswearing the
individualism and specification/specialisation of the regions.
6 Conclusion
Internally, each country must go through a process of restructuring, which is in
the Portuguese case in a slightly more advanced stage than in the Hungarian. This
restructuring should contemplate the EU requirements in order to avoid possible
overlapping or abrogation of powers.
It is a long and lingering process, which involves hundreds of stakeholders, but
is a necessary path in order to promote a balanced and sustainable development
allowing, therefore, each region to grow according to their characteristics pro-
moting the best of them – this is the great purpose of territorial planning.
The next step should be promoted by local territorial actors and the govern-
ments themselves to establish better and more organised rules for the planning
process according to the European level. We can never forget that governance
should be reinforced in both countries, and a participative way of planning should
be promoted.
In this initial phase of a deeper project, in my personal belief and as a response
to the challenge of the Leonardo da Vinci Programme, the objectives were ac-
complished in spite of all the hurdles and limitations from the bibliographic point
of view.
As it was said in the introduction, the description of the planning system, the
actors, instruments, the comparison and judgments is done. This report has
opened doors leading to a more profound report and research based on the same
main subject – territorial planning.
41
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
References
ANMP – Associação Nacional de Municípios Portugueses. 26 March 2008.
http://www.anmp.pt.
Davey, K. 2003: Investing in Regional Development – Policies and Pratices in EU Candidate
Countries; Local Goverment and Public Services Reform Initiative. EU: DIFD-LGI.
CCDRA – Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Alentejo. 25 February 2008.
http://www.ccdr-a.gov.pt/default.asp?eixo=2&id=59.
DGOTDU – PNPOT." DGOTDU – Portal do Ordenamento do Território e do Urbanismo. 19
February 2008. http://www.territorioportugal.pt/pnopot/default.html.
DGOTDU – Portal do Ordenamento do Território e do Urbanismo. 10 April 2008.
http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/1998/08/184A00/38693875.PDF
Direcção-Geral do Desenvolvimento Regional. 26 April 2008. http://www.dgdr.pt
European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON). European Spatial Planning Observation
Network (ESPON). 5 May 2008. http://www.espon.eu;
http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/website/content/press/941/file_1691/espon.pdf
Faragó, L. 2003: Integrated „territorial” planning system (in the European Union). In: Sustainable
Spatial Development: Strengthening Intersectoral Relations. Proceedings Budapest (Hungary),
26–27 March 2003. European regional planning 69. Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing.
pp. 31–35.
Faragó, L. 2003: System and principles of land use. In: Hajdú, Z. – Pálné Kovács, I. (eds.): Portrait
of South Transdanubia: A Region in Transition. Pécs, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre
for Regional Studies. pp. 67–69.
Faragó, L. 2004: The General Theory of Public (Spatial) Planning. The Social Technique for
Creating the Future. Discussion papers 43. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies.
Instituto Geográfico Português. Instituto Geográfico Português. 15 March 2008.
http://panda.igeo.pt/beot/html/portugal.pdf.
Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative. 27 April 2008. http://lgi.osi.hu/ountry_
atasheet.php?id=75.
Mafra, F. – Silva, J. Amado 2004: Planeamento e gestão do Território. Colecção Inovação e
Governação nas Autarquias 1. 26 May 2008.http://www.spi.pt/?publications&id=2
Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Território e do Desenvolvimento Regional. April
2008. http://www.maotdr.gov.pt.
National Development Agency. [Nemzeti Fejlesztési Ügynökség]. 27 March 2008.
http://www.nfu.hu/?lang=en.
Niveis de Poder e Administração Local. Panda.Igeo. 13 March 2008. http://panda.igeo.pt-beot-html-
portugal.
Önkormányzati Minisztérium. Önkormányzati Minisztérium. 4 April 2008. http://www.
otm.gov.hu/teszat/eng/letoltesekeng.html.
Pálné Kovács, I. 2005: Europeanization and two phases of regionalism in Hungary. Aalborg, RSA
International Conference, 2005. http://www.regional-studies-assoc.ac.uk/events/alborg05/
kovacs.pdf
Pálné Kovács, I. – Paraskevopoulos, Christos J. – Horváth, Gy. 2004: Institutional ‘Lega-
cies’ and the Shaping of Regional Governance in Hungary. – Regional & Federal
Studies. 3. pp. 430–460.
Paraskevopoulos, Christos J. – Leonardi, Robert 2004: Introduction: Adaptational
pressures and social learning. – Regional & Federal Studies. 3. pp. 315–354.
42
Ana Margarida Martins Cardoso : Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 43. p. Discussion Papers, No. 77.
Pires da Fonseca, M. 2004: A política regional da União Europeia: uma utopia viável? E-topia:
Revista. 17 Apr. 2004. 20 June 2008. http://www.letras.up.pt/upi/ utopiasportuguesas/e-
topia/revista.htm.
Porto Editora. 11 March 2008. http://www.portoeditora.pt.
Portugal . Veraki. 11 March 2008. http://portugal.veraki.pt/regiões.
QREN 2007 – 2013. 1 June 2008. http://www.qren.pt.
Quental, N. 2007: Ordem Nos Planos! Propostas Para Um Sistema De Planeamento Mais Coerente.
Forum Do Urbanismo. 31 January 2008. www.forumdourbanismo. info/imagens/
stories/documentos_referencia/ordem_nos_planos.pdf.
VATI. Regional Development Tasks for the Coming Years. VATI. National Agency for Regional
Development. 10 April 2008. http://www.vati.hu/main.php?folderID=3105.
Quadro Comunitário de Apoio III. 16 June 2008. http://www.qca.pt/fundos/estrutura.asp;
http://www.qca.pt/iniciativas/leader.asp.
Rede Portuguesa Leader +. 18 May 2008. http://www.leader.pt.
Consulted legislation
Laws
Act LXV of 1990 on Local Self-Governments.
Act XXI of 1996 on Regional Development and Regional Planning.
Act XXXVI of 1998 on Spatial Development Concepts, Programmes and Substantive
criteria of spatial plans.
48/98, 11 of August 1998 – Lei de Base da Política de Ordenamento do Território e Ur-
banismo (LBPOTU).
380/99, 22 of September 1999 – Definição do regime aplicável aos intrumentos de gestão
territorial criados ou reconduzidos pela LBPOTU – Diário da República 222 (22-9-
1999), 1ª Serie.
169/99, 18 of September 1999 – Estabelece o quadro de competências, assim como o
regime juridico de funcionamento dos orgãos dos Municipios e Freguesias – Diário da
República 219 (18-9-1999), 1ª Serie.
252/99, 19 of November 1999 – Competências dos Governos Civis.
11/03, 13 of May 2003 – Estabelece o regime de criação, quadro de atribuições e com-
petências das comunidades intermunicipais de direito público e funcionamento dos
seus orgãos – Diário da República 110 (13-5-03), 1ª Serie;
10/03, 13 of May 2003 – Estabelece o regime de criação, quadro de atribuições e com-
petências das áreas metropolitanas e funcionamento dos seus orgãos – Diário da
República 110 (13-5-03), 1ª Serie;
134/07, 27 of April 2007 – Definição das atribuições, competências e recursos das CCDR
– Diário da República 82 (27-4-07), 1ª Serie;
Constitution
Constituição da República Portuguesa, revisão de 2005.
Republic of Hungary Constitution.
43
Discussion Papers 2009. No. 77.
Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System
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.rkk.hu
http://www.dti.rkk.hu/kiadv/discussion.html
Director general
Gyula HORVÁTH
Editor
Gábor LUX
lux@rkk.hu
44
Discussion Papers 2009. No. 77.
Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System
Papers published in the Discussion Papers series
Discussion Papers / Specials
BENKŐNÉ LODNER, Dorottya (ed.) (1988): Environmental Control and Policy: Proceedings of
the Hungarian–Polish Seminar in the Theoretical Problems of Environmental 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
ENYEDI, György – KOVÁCS, Zoltán (eds.) (2006): Social Changes and Social Sustainability in
Historical Urban Centres. The Case of Central Europe
KOVÁCS, András Donát (ed.) (2007): Regionality and/or locality
SZIRMAI, Viktória (ed.) (2007): Social Inequalities in Urban Areas and Globalization. The Case of
Central Europe
ILLÉS, Iván (2008): Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
GÁL, Zoltán – RÁCZ, Szilárd (eds.) (2008): Socio-Economic Analysis of the Carpathian Area
KOVÁCS, András Donát (ed.) (2009): Old and new borderlines/frontiers/nmargins
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 Settlements 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 Backward
Areas in Hungary
No. 8
SZÖRÉNYINÉ KUKORELLI, Irén (1990): Role of the Accessibility in Development and
Functioning of Settlements
45
Discussion Papers 2009. No. 77.
Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System
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
ERDŐSI, 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 Regional
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 medium-sized
firms and the role of private industry in Hungary
No. 20
BENKŐNÉ 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 Cities
No. 22 HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1998): Changes in the Politico-Geographical Position of Hungary 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 Second
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 Agglomeration
No. 31
BARANYI, Béla–BALCSÓK, István–DANCS, László–MEZŐ, 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 Regional
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 Hungary
46
Discussion Papers 2009. No. 77.
Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System
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 Hungary
No. 39
KERESZTÉLY, Krisztina (2002): The Role of the State in the Urban Development 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 Environment: 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 Integration of the
Hungarian Banking System
No. 46
BELUSZKY, Pál – GYŐRI, 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
No. 48
SOMLYÓDYNÉ PFEIL, Edit (2006): Changes in The Organisational Framework of
Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
No. 49
MEZEI, István (2006): Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations
No. 50 RECHNITZER, János – SMAHÓ, Melinda (2006): Regional Characteristics of Human
Resources in Hungary During the Transition
No. 51
BARTA, Györgyi – BELUSZKY, Pál – CZIRFUSZ, Márton – GYŐRI, Róbert –
KUKELY, György (2006): Rehabilitating the Brownfield Zones of Budapest
No. 52
GROSZ, András (2006): Clusterisation Processes in the Hungarian Automotive Industry
No. 53
FEKETE, G. Éva – HARGITAI, Judit – JÁSZ, Krisztina – SZARVÁK, Tibor –
SZOBOSZLAI, Zsolt (2006): Idealistic Vision or Reality? Life-long learning among
Romany ethnic groups
No. 54
BARTA, Györgyi (ed.) (2006): Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
No. 55
GÁL, Zoltán (2006): Banking Functions of the Hungarian Urban Network in the Early
20th Century.
No. 56
SZÖRÉNYINÉ, Kukorelli Irén (2006): Relation Analysis in Rural Space – A Research
Method for Exploring the Spatial Structure in Hungary
No. 57
MAUREL, Marie-Claude – PÓLA, Péter (2007): Local System and Spatial Change – The
Case of Bóly in South Transdanubia
No. 58
SZIRMAI, Viktória (2007): The Social Characteristics of Hungarian Historic City Centres
No. 59
ERDŐSI, Ferenc – GÁL, Zoltán – GIPP, Christoph – VARJÚ, Viktor (2007): Path
Dependency or Route Flexibility in Demand Responsive Transport? The Case Study of
TWIST project
47
Discussion Papers 2009. No. 77.
Territorial Planning, its Actors and Instruments.
The Portuguese & Hungarian Planning System
No. 60
PÓLA, Péter (2007): The Economic Chambers and the Enforcement of Local Economic
Interests
No. 61
BUDAY-SÁNTHA, Attila (2007): Development Issues of the Balaton Region
No. 62
LUX, Gábor (2008): Industrial Development, Public Policy and Spatial Differentiation in
Central Europe: Continuities and Change
No. 63
MEZEI, Cecília (2008): The Role of Hungarian Local Governments in Local Economic
Development
No. 64
NAGY, Gábor (2008): The State of the Info-communication Markets in Dél-Alföld
Region – Hungary
No. 65
HORVÁTH, Gyula (2008): Regional Transformation in Russia
No. 66
BELUSZKY, Pál – SIKOS T., Tamás (2008): Changing Village-Typology of Rural
Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium
No. 67
CSIZMADIA, Zoltán – GROSZ, András (2008): Regional Innovation System in West
Transdanubia
No. 68
HARDI, Tamás (ed.) (2008): Transborder Movements and Relations in the Slovakian–
Hungarian Border Regions
No. 69
ERDŐSI, Ferenc (2008): Global and Regional Roles of the Russian Transport
Infrastructures
No. 70
CSIZMADIA, Zoltán (2009): Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of
the Regional System of Innovation
No. 71
HAJDÚ, Zoltán – LUX, Gábor – PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, Ilona – SOMLYÓDYNÉ PFEIL,
Edit (2009): Local Dimensions of a Wider European Neighbourhood: Crossborder
Relations and Civil Society in the Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Arean
No. 72
HORVÁTH, Gyula (2009): Cohesion deficiencies in Eastern and Central Europe.
Inequalities of regional research area
No. 73
PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, Ilona –VARJÚ, Viktor (eds.) (2009): Governance for Sustainability –
Two Case Studies from Hungary
No. 74
SZÉPVÖLGYI, Ákos (2009): The Effects of the Information Society on Spatial
Development – Hungarian Case Study
No. 75
BARÁTH, Gabriella (2009): The Relation Systems of Metropolitan Areas
No. 76
MEZEI, István (2009): The Development of the Urban Network in Slovakia
48