Discussion Papers 2007.
Regionality and/or Locality 13-28. p.
THE DILEMMAS OF CREATING REGIONS
IN EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE
GYULA HORVÁTH
Introduction
Regionalism, the regional decentralisation of power and the distribution of labour
among the different forms of local government have found themselves in the cross-
fire of debate in the unitary states of Eastern and Central Europe. The change of the
political  system,  the  process  of  connecting  to  the  globalising  European  economy,
the  construction  of  a  local governmental  structure using  the  concepts  of civic  de-
mocracy, all shed new light on the mutual connections of central and regional local
power,  the  harmonisation  of  settlement  independence  and  meso-level  public  ad-
ministration  functions.  In  almost  all  of  the  former  socialist  countries  the  central
issue  became  that  of  the  economic,  political  and  functional  transformation  of  the
basic levels of local government.  The earlier sub-national levels disappeared (as in
the  successor  states  of  the  old  Czechoslovakia),  their  functions  to  a  large  extent
decreased (as in Hungary), changed (as in Poland), or, alternatively, new regional
meso-levels were created (as in Croatia) or are being created (as in Slovenia).
The construction of regions in the countries of Eastern and Central Europe be-
came one of the important debate topics for preparation for EU membership. How-
ever, the application of EU structural policy relates to appropriate size in terms of
the population potential of sub-national development units and their economic ca-
pacities, in view of the concepts of economies of scale, and so, during the prepara-
tion  of  the  EU  pre-accession  programmes,  planning-statistical  regions  had  to  be
created in all countries. From a formal point of view, solving this task did not cre-
ate  any  particular  problem.  The  government  of  each  country  listed  the  regional
public administration units as meso-level development regions, and, on the basis of
EU  recommendations,  the  formal  organisational  structures  (regional  development
councils, development directorates and agencies) were also created.
In parallel with the creation of the organisational framework of an EU-compati-
ble  development  policy,  there  started,  in  most  countries,  an  intensive  debate  on
issues  of  content.  In  these  debates,  numerous  issues  (which  had  earlier  received
less attention among the topics relating to the change of regime) were raised: What
functions should the development regions have? How can they become public ad-
ministration units serving the decentralisation of the centralised state system? What

Horváth, Gyula : The Dilemmas of Creating Regions in Eastern and Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 13-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special

14
GYULA HORVÁTH
resources  should  they  have  to  fulfil  the  development  programmes?  Which  city  in
the region should become the regional centre?
EU accession opened up a Pandora’s Box in the countries of Eastern and Cen-
tral Europe. The fundamental issue of how unitarily structured states can be set on
a decentralised path became the centre of debate. This present study searches for an
explanation  of  the  reasons  for  the  difficulties  of  Eastern  and  Central  Europe  in
regional  construction;  it  summarises  the  administrative  and  political  development
pre-requisites of the transition to a regional outline of the possible advantages of a
regional institutional system in the creation of the Cohesion Policy ensuring a de-
crease in regional differences.
The formal change in regional administration
The new nation-states in Eastern and Central Europe established in the aftermath of
World War I had to face – from the point of view of their future regional develop-
ment – two difficulties. One of the issues to be addressed was how to create a uni-
fied  structure  for  those  (new)  parts  of  the  country,  which  earlier  had  been  devel-
oped in different economic areas, in order to link their infra-structural systems. The
other  was  to  create  a  new  system  of  regional  organisation  of  central  government
power.  The  heavily  centralised  state  powers  created  their  own  regional  bodies
partly  on  their  former  administration  basis,  but  completing  those  tasks  needed  to
create  the  new,  unified  state  territory  was  most  effectively  assisted  by  the  low
number  of  administrative  units  involved.  Following  World  War  II  (WWII),  the
Soviet-style  regional  administration  was  organised  differently  –  now  based  upon
different  power  considerations.  The  Communist  states,  in  accordance  with  their
political interests, heavily changed the countries’ regional administration on several
occasions,  sometimes  organising  smaller  regional  units  and  sometimes  larger.
Hungary can be considered as an exception to this, in that, in the 20th century (apart
from some under-populated counties being combined) the number of sub-national
units in the country has not changed (Table 1)
In  Eastern  and  Central  Europe  a  hierarchical  planning  organisational  system  –
with a fairly powerful central planning office at the top in each country – had pre-
viously  been  the  decisive  organisational  form  of  regional  development.  Regional
development based on central large-scale investment and state social policy did not
require a multi-participant institutional system operating in horizontal co-operation,
and the state’s interest in re-distribution, together with the central will, were carried
out  most  effectively  by  vertically  subordinated  organisations.  This  philosophy  of
state organisation also defined the regional administration system.
Following  the  change  of  regime,  the  organisational  framework  of  Eastern  and
Central European states underwent important conceptual changes. A local govern-

Horváth, Gyula : The Dilemmas of Creating Regions in Eastern and Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 13-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special

16
GYULA HORVÁTH
regions established in the 15 member-states of the EU are very different from the
point of view of their public law and administration situation – and their physical
size  and  population  numbers.  Basically,  we  are  looking  at  units  nationally  deter-
mined,  in  which,  at  the same  time  as  the  NUTS  2  system  of each  country  should
meet  common  requirements,  they  operate  as  statistical  (calculating,  analysing,
planning,  programming,  coordinating)  and  developing  (support  policy,  decentral-
ising) units. In the 10 associated East European countries the number of meso-level
administration units at the end of 1999 was 357, and it was clear that the EU’s sup-
port  policy  could  not  supervise  such  a  high  number  of  regional  units.  In  conse-
quence,  it  became  essential  to  create  larger  regional  development  and  statistical
units.
Defining boundaries within the NUTS system is, from the EU’s point of view,
an  internal  affair  –  which  means  that,  apart  from  size,  there  are  no  absolute  EU
requirements  in  terms  of  the  creation  of  the  regions:  the  decision  lies  within  the
scope of national governments.  However, on the basis of experience with creating
regions, the various concepts and likely impacts can be expressed in a way, which
makes the definition of the region relatively straightforward:
−  a prehistory of regional cooperation and, hence, the chances of regional cohe-
sion,
−  relative size status from the point of view of the national regional structure,
−  relative spatial homogeneity in terms of the basic aims of regional policy
−  an  effective  internal  structure  (centre,  sub-centres,  skills  and  the  ability  to
cooperate  etc)  of  a  region  and  the  observance  of  public  administration  bor-
ders,
−  the existing (or demanded) “geo-political” similarity of the units united in a
region  and  the  degree  of  identity  of  the  definitive,  long-term,  international
orientations,
−  the costs of creating and operating the regions (decision-preparing, decision-
making  and  professional  administrative  background  institutions,  organising
the  information,  planning,  managing  and  monitoring  activities,  the  institu-
tional system of decentralised financing etc), the economies of scale from a
functional point of view,
−  the existence of a multi-functional, major urban regional centre.
The  NUTS  2  regions  are listed in  the  Regional  Development  Acts  or  Govern-
ment Decrees of each country.  However, the Regional Development Act adopted
in  Hungary  in  1996  was  quite  cautious,  indicating  merely  that  the  counties  could
create regions in order to carry out common tasks. It did not, however, define the
development regions of the country; and this imprecise regulation had, as a conse-
quence,  the  fact  that  counties  joined  together  widely  differing  regions  purely  for
fund-raising purposes – and there were counties which participated in three or four

Horváth, Gyula : The Dilemmas of Creating Regions in Eastern and Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 13-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
THE DILEMMAS OF CREATING REGIONS IN EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE
1
7
regional alliances However, the Amendment to the Act in 1999 defined seven de-
velopment  statistical  regions  and  separated  the  counties  into  regions.  In  fact,  a
Government Decree listing, in an itemised form, the theoretical concepts defining
development regions was created only in Bulgaria (Geshev, 2000). The Bulgarian
Government defined the aspects of the creation of the regions in 1999 as follows:
−  The number of regions should be relatively low and they should be defined
on  the  basis  of  their  size  and  natural  resource  potential; their economic  and
social capacities should be able to undertake large-scale programmes;
−  The  regions  should  not  be  too  large  to  be  manageable,  and  the  number  of
counties comprising a region should be optimal in order to be able to be or-
ganise their cooperation;
−  There should be a common development problem in the region which could
be felt in any point of the region and which motivates the regional develop-
ment actors to cooperate;
−  Natural  geographical  units  and  historical  traditions  should  be  taken  into
consideration;
−  The  region  should  have  a  relatively  developed  urban  network  and  several
growth-poles;
−  The planning region should comprise complete public administration units.
In  the  other  countries,  and  after  long  debate,  a  compromise  decision  was
reached  in  terms  of  the  creation  of  NUTS  2  regions,  and  these  (more  or  less)
matched  the  above  basic  concepts.  As  regards  size,  they  parallel  very  closely  the
average  of  the  older  EU  member-states  (Table  2).  Individual  countries,  however,
did not come to define their central regions in the same way. In Bulgaria, Poland,
Hungary  and  Romania,  for  example,  the  capitals,  together  with  their  surrounding
“Greater”  regions,  made  up  one  NUTS  2  unit,  whilst,  in  the  Czech  Republic  and
Slovakia, the capitals alone constitute one single region.  Since there is also visible
in Eastern and Central Europe that general pattern of spatial economy in which the
larger  region  surrounding  a  country’s  most  developed  growth  pole  can  show
weaker  performance  (a  consequence  of  the  “filtering-down”  effect),  this  solution
generated strong debate in Hungary. The overall performance of the Central Hun-
gary  Region  (due  to  Budapest’s  high  GDP  per  capita)  is  as  much  as  98%  of  the
average  of  the  EU–15  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  included  in  the  target  group  for
convergence.  Support,  therefore,  will  be  more  modest.    (Budapest  itself  produces
125% of the EU average, whilst the region’s remaining unit, Pest County, produced
just 53% in 2003). Similar problems can be noted in the other three countries also.

Horváth, Gyula : The Dilemmas of Creating Regions in Eastern and Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 13-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special

18
GYULA HORVÁTH
Table 2
The most significant data of NUTS 2 units in Eastern and Central Europe
Country
NUTS 2 Regions
Number
Average area
Average population
(‘000 km2)
(‘000s)
Bulgaria
6
18.5
1,407
Czech Republic
8
9.9
1,290
Hungary
7
13.3
1,463
Poland
16
19.5
2,411
Romania
8
29.8
2,851
Slovakia
4
12.2
1,319
ECE
49
14.7
1,910
EU15
206
15.3
1,830
Source: The author’s own calculations on the basis of  Regions. Statistical Yearbook 2004.
The dilemma of the regional centres
Those larger towns or cities can be called regional centres, which, on the basis of
their size and geographical location, fulfil the role of administrative, industrial and
transport  centre  of  a  large  area  which  is  home  to  between  one  and  three  million
inhabitants.  These stand out from their surroundings and enjoy a higher proportion
of the resources of their region than would be justified by their population.
Due  to  the  influence  of  urban  development  processes,  the  regional  centres  of
Western  Europe  built  up  their  position  over  centuries,  and  their  functional  accu-
mulation of wealth and growth of resources are closely connected with their region.
In  their  development,  the  restructuring  of  the  economy  and  the  quality  change  in
their transport and service sectors also played a major role. The settling and gradual
expansion of the leading positions of central and local government administration,
naturally, played their part also, in that more favourable conditions were created in
these  cities  to  enable  them  to  accept  the  new  economic  growth-driving  forces  –
although, in the development of their performance capacity, administrative factors
can only be seen as secondary resources. Their dynamism was basically generated
by  the  role  of  industry  and  services  affecting  both  their  regional  and  their  wider
markets. It is, therefore, no accident that, when the institutionalisation of regional-
ism  –  in  particular  countries  in  different  development  phases  –  led  to  changes  in
public administration, the choice of headquarters for a region seemed quite obvious
in each West European country: the largest city, the richest in functional terms, the
most outstanding in economic potential became the centre of public administration
for the region.

Horváth, Gyula : The Dilemmas of Creating Regions in Eastern and Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 13-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
THE DILEMMAS OF CREATING REGIONS IN EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE
1
9
In  many  countries  the  decentralising  trends  of  national  regional  policies,  and
especially the growth-pole concepts, played an important role in the development
of the regional centres. The essence of the use of the growth-pole strategy was that
those innovations given regional development support were directed only to a lim-
ited  number  of  locations  (mainly  as  a  part  of  the  planned  concept  targeting  the
modification  of  the  regional  spatial  structure),  attempting  to  support  economic
activity to raise the level of welfare within the region. The creation of the growth-
pole was, first of all, motivated by complex industrial development, by the domi-
nant  new  (or  modernised)  economic  sectors  and  developed  services.    Using  the
principles of the French spatial economics school in economic policy resulted in an
essential  strengthening  of  connections  in  the  economic  space  among  companies
and sectors.
Paralleling the clear results achieved in the development of those major urban
centres, which are treated as poles, the consequences in terms of the effect as ex-
perienced on regional transformation are less favourable. It is not in every country
that  growth-poles  have  been  developed as  the  driving  forces  of  regional  develop-
ment,  and  especially  in  those  countries  where  the  spatial-political,  politico-eco-
nomic  and  the  political  strategies  involved  in  public  administration  could  not  be
framed within a unified system, the results of the use of this paradigm are spoken
of with some scepticism. The elaboration and fulfilment of their (incomplete) poli-
cies were not embedded in a unified decentralised concept, but appeared as sepa-
rate, disjointed steps or attempts to reform, and they were ineffective – especially
since the under-performance of the synergies produced some undesired results.
As  a  consequence  of  the  multi-coloured  administrative  structure  of  European
countries, we can speak of regional centres in a variety of ways. In countries with a
federalised and regionalised system, the public administration centres work at the
meso-level as real regional centres, whereas, in decentralised, unitary countries the
centres  of  the  NUTS  2  units  have  more  limited  (planning  and  organising)  func-
tions.
In the development of regional centres in each country many identical and nu-
merous  specific  factors  played  a  role.  However,  the  general  trend  seems  clear,  in
that, in the great majority of European regions, the largest town or city is the centre
of  the  region.  However,  as  a  result  of  European  urbanisation  development  proc-
esses, the density of the large cities in the countries across the continent differs, and
the proportion  of  the  population living  in  towns  or  cities  with  more than  100,000
inhabitants  varies  from  country  to  country.  From  8–34%  of  the  population  of  the
EU–15  member  states  live  in  cities  with  populations  above  100,000.  (In  defining
the population proportions we did not take the population of capital cities into ac-
count) In terms of the number of towns or cities, Germany heads the ranking list.
Germany, in fact, has 83 towns exceeding this 100,000 figure; then comes the UK
with 65, Spain (55), Italy (49) and France (35). Regarding the proportion of the na-

Horváth, Gyula : The Dilemmas of Creating Regions in Eastern and Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 13-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special

20
GYULA HORVÁTH
tional population, which this represents, the order is: Spain, Germany, Italy, Swe-
den and the Netherlands (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Number of towns or cities with over 100,000 inhabitants in selected European
countries (excluding the capital) and their proportion of the national population,
2004

Source: Author’s own construction based on data from National Statistical Yearbooks
The big city network in Eastern and Central Europe – except for Romania and
Poland – is thin (Figure 2). In the whole area, 97 towns or cities are above 100,000
in population terms, and two-thirds of these are found in Poland and Romania.
Slovakia has, apart from the capital, a total of one major city. In these two coun-
tries the number of regions is much lower than the number of cities but the largest
of the latter are evenly distributed over the whole area and can be become potential
regional centres. For this reason, therefore, designating a regional centre could be
much more convenient. In most of the Eastern and Central European countries the
debates over the designation of regional centres became more intensive as the EU
Accession process progressed. In Poland, after the introduction of the new
“voivod-ship” public administration, the leading major cities became the centres of
the new regions. The only exception is the Kujawsko-Pomorske voivod-ship where
the regional centre is not Bydgoszcz, the industrial centre with 368,000 inhabitants,

Horváth, Gyula : The Dilemmas of Creating Regions in Eastern and Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 13-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special

22
GYULA HORVÁTH
Is Eastern and Central Europe unitary or de-centralised?
Should  it  be  thought  desirable  to  give  an  important  future  role  to  the  meso-level
units in regional policy in Eastern and Central Europe, this would clearly bring the
current  meso-level  system  into  sharp focus.  Both  the size  and economic  potential
of  the  counties  in  their  current  form  are  too  small  for  them  to  become  the  basic
units  of  decentralised  regional  policy,  and  it  is  to  be  expected  that,  in  the  future,
regionalism  will  become  stronger  in  more  and  more  countries,  and  that  this  will
lend  weight  to  the  re-defining  of  the  distribution  of  labour  between  centre  and
provinces.  There will be a serious opportunity to establish inter-regional coopera-
tion  operating  on  the  basis  of  economic  conformity  and  to  increase  cohesion  in
Eastern and Central Europe – but, even then, only if the tasks now accumulating (a
genuine regional decentralisation of power and the creation of a regional develop-
ment strategy conforming to the market economy) could be carried out, would it be
possible that regionalism in its West European meaning could take root in this area.
Today the driving forces of growth are concentrated in the core areas of individual
countries,  something  which  indicates,  over  the  long  term,  the  maintenance  of  the
differences between the national regional units – or even their increase (Table 3).
Table 3
The weight of capital cities in Eastern and Central Europe, 2004,
as percentage of national total
Areas
Sofia2002
Prague
Budapest
Warsaw  Bratislava  Bucharest2002
GDP
24.6
24.5
35.0
n.a.
24.2
16.5
Industrial output
15.9
13.0
17.6
11.8
37.3
17.0
Foreign capital investment
49.9
25.7
56.5
33.0
71.2
46.7
University student numbers
43.3
31.4
49.2
16.7
83.0
32.4
R&D employees
72.7
48.0
55.8
30.0
40.2
39.0
Source: Author’s own construction based on National Statistical Yearbooks
The changes occurring during the last decade indicate that the political scope of
activity  within  regional  policy  at  the  beginning  of  the  new  century  –  over  and
above the self-determination of economic development – are defined by two major
factors:  the  first  of  these  is  the  EU’s  organisational,  operational  and  financial  re-
form together with Eastern enlargement, whilst the second (to no small extent in-
fluenced  by  the  first)  is  the  establishment  of  a  new  distribution  of  labour  within
government in the nation states – in other words, decentralisation.
Decentralisation – as proved most clearly by the processes of previous decades
– is now regarded in Europe as a perfectly normal phenomenon. In 1950 a quarter

Horváth, Gyula : The Dilemmas of Creating Regions in Eastern and Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 13-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
THE DILEMMAS OF CREATING REGIONS IN EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE
2
3
of the population of the continent lived in federalised or regionalised states, a fig-
ure which, by the mid–90s had risen to 60%. By the end of the first decade of the
following century – without taking into account the successor states of the former
Soviet  Union  –  more  than  three-quarters  of  the  population  of  Europe  will  live  in
countries where influencing the factors of economic growth, it will not be the state
but rather, the  sub-national  level  which  will  play  the defining  role. This  quantita-
tive change – according to our current knowledge – will be the result of the crea-
tion of new regional administration in two countries with a high population – the
United Kingdom and Poland.
The basic interest of the nation-state in the future will be to try to use its power
to  determine  economic  policy  within  its  borders  to  counter-balance  the  effects  of
external  pressure from  globalisation  and integration –  by  increasing  the  ability  of
the regions to defend their interests in a regulated fashion. It is already the case that
the traditional regional development practice of Keynesian economic policy cannot
be  used  successfully  in  the  new  paradigm,  and  the  state’s  regional  policy  will  be
substituted by the region’s own policy. This paradigm exchange, however, cannot
occur automatically, the interests of the regions being developed to different levels.
In the institutionalisation of regionalism important differences are to be seen. The
poorest  regions  can  hope  for  improvement  through  outside  (national  and  interna-
tional) help, as in the past, their motivations depending more on traditional support
systems than on what might be gained through the autonomy (in its wider sense) of
a  “Europe  of  the  Regions”.  The  devoted  fans  of  regional  decentralisation  come
from the group of developed regions, which will clearly be the beneficiaries of the
Single Market and of the Economic and Monetary Union. It is not by chance that,
today,  Europe’s  most  efficient  regional  cooperation  network  (not  even  connected
territorially)  comprises:  Baden-Württemberg,  Lombardy,  Rhône-Alpes,  and  Cata-
lonia, who created a co-operation under the name “Europe’s Four Engines” (Amin-
Tomaney, 1995; Spath, 1991).
The  general  spread  of  regionalism,  however,  still  faces  large  barriers,  and  na-
tional governments will continue in the future to play an important role in the con-
nections  between  the  regions  and  the  EU  Commission.  The  poorest  regions  of
Europe can realise their interests least of all in the integration decisions, as the poor
countries  anyway  have  fewer  representatives  in  the  EU  bodies.  The  competition
policy  of  the  EU  also  reinforces  the  effects  of  centralisation,  and  community  re-
gional  policy  is  less  capable  of  counterbalancing  the  differences  emanating  from
varying competitive abilities. Federal Germany is the best example of this; the re-
gional  regionalism  and  the  decrease  of  spatial  differences  can  also  be  matched  at
central government level.
In parallel with the irreversible deepening of European integration, the key po-
sitions of the national government are still retained, at least in three areas. One of
the most important tasks of the state is to regulate capitalism in public companies,

Horváth, Gyula : The Dilemmas of Creating Regions in Eastern and Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 13-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special

24
GYULA HORVÁTH
and industrial development, even in the future, cannot be imagined without effec-
tive national financial systems, as the safest starting  point for corporate strategies
will be the domestic market and the regulation environment also. The other impor-
tant  central  government  task  remains  the  coordination  of  national  innovation  and
technical development programmes. Finally, as the third national level priority can
be  considered  to  be  the  labour  market  and  industry-political  tasks,  success in ful-
filling these two latter national functions, however, depends on how effective a part
can  sub-national  public  administration  play  in  fulfilling  numerous  partial  tasks.
Consequently, regionalisation is at the same time a prerequisite for the successful
operation of the nation-state, since macro-political aims cannot be fulfilled without
thoughtful human resources, educational training and enterprise development; nor
can well-balanced market competition be imagined without the cooperation of the
social partners. The solution of these, however, is the most optimal at the level of
the regions (Keating-Loughlin, 1997).
In Eastern and Central Europe today the future of the division of power between
state and region still seems uncertain. The prospects for decentralisation depend on
the success of economic efficiency and the results of the “top-to-bottom” managed
change of regime, but the pre-conditions at regional level for setting up power are
unfavourable. In the former planned economies, the organisational framework de-
riving  from  strong  centralisation  has  remained,  even  if  the  substance  of  central
power has changed a great deal. Even in the most favourable cases, the process of
decentralisation can be expected to be a long one.
Three possible ways of decentralisation can be envisaged in Eastern and Cen-
tral  Europe,  and  each  of  these  differs  from  the  others  in  terms  of  the  extent  and
quality of the division of power. The choice of way, naturally not an arbitrary one,
the historical traditions of an individual country, the nature of the economic trans-
formation, the establishment of institutions of the market economy, political power
relations  and  the  degree  of  sophistication  of  the  spatial  structure  all  influence  the
decline  of  power  concentration.  The  pressure  to  decentralise  which  falls  on  the
central state administration is obviously stronger in those countries where the dy-
namic, regional major urban centres (for example, in Poland) wish to initiate their
autonomous  development, their structuring  into  the  European regional division of
labour, with the help of the (possibly, most liberalised) utilisation of their internal
resources and post-industrial development factors. On the other hand, the legitimi-
sation of bottom-up  initiatives  meets  greater  resistance  in  those  countries (for  ex-
ample, in Hungary) where the central regions have a dominant, even a strengthen-
ing, position in the factors of production increasing competitiveness. Although the
example of these two countries is a good one in demonstrating that the existence of
regional  centres  capable  of  being  made  effective  is  no  more  than  a  potential  ad-
vantage, the “suction effect” towards decentralisation originating from the political
legitimacy  of  Hungarian  regional  local  authorities  and  the  legal  regulation  of  re-

Horváth, Gyula : The Dilemmas of Creating Regions in Eastern and Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 13-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
THE DILEMMAS OF CREATING REGIONS IN EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE
2
5
gional development can somehow counterbalance the lack of strong regional cen-
tres of appropriate European size.
In the first possible decentralisation model, the division of labour between cen-
tral  and  regional  bodies  is  organised  under  clear,  precise  rules,  and  the  develop-
ment tasks for which the two types of body are responsible differ simply in respect
of  which  regional  unit  these  tasks  affect.  To  solve  these  problems,  regional  au-
thorities  even  have  their  own  income  resources  and  have  wide-ranging  rights  in
respect  of  planning,  and  the  developments  of  local  authorities  which  are  part  of
their  own  circle  can  be  subsidised  from  these  (regional) funds.  Depending  on  the
economic  development  level  of  the  region,  “own”  and  “shared”  income  can  be
supplemented  by  transfers  from  central  government  funds.  This  strategy  provides
the most comprehensive form of decentralisation, and, in the long-term, this is the
most  effective  solution.  However,  to  create  this,  numerous  –  political,  constitu-
tional,  public  administrational  and  economic  –  pre-conditions  are  necessary,  and,
even today, the progress of regional self-government in Eastern and Central Europe
does  not  seem  a  realistic  prospect.  Further  differentiation  in  the  region  will  also
derive from the fact that Poland and, hopefully, Hungary will take steps along the
road to regionalism.
The gist of the second decentralisation strategy model is that only certain func-
tions and (planning, development, executive, authorisation and financing) is trans-
ferred  from  the  centre  to  the  regions,  with  the  remaining  regional,  political  tasks
continuing within the competency of the central government. The expansion of the
redistribution  of  power  depends  on  the  tasks,  which  are  to  be  decentralized,  the
institutional system, which is to take them over and the tools, which will be at the
disposal of the regions. This version is the best in the short-term for those countries
with a unitary system, since the preparations for transferring power need less effort,
since  there  is  no  need  for  a  complete  transformation  of  the  public  administration
system, since the actual influence of the central bodies does not change (which is
the  most  important  consideration),  and,  as  the  management  of  regional  develop-
ment  through  de-concentrated  state  organisation  will  be  more  complex,  perhaps
their efficiency will increase.
In  the  third  option,  the  new  division  of  responsibility  between  central  and  re-
gional organs is based upon their handling of specific, occasional tasks. They cre-
ate a common  managing body for developing the peripheral, lagging regions, and
the  state  provides  part  of  its  financial  resources  to  this  decision-making  forum,
whilst  the  execution  of  the  development  programmes  is  delegated  to  the  spatial
units.  This  version  represents  the  weakest  version  of  decentralisation,  but,  since
there is no need to change the established power structure, it is not surprising that
most Eastern and Central European countries have started to elaborate their spatial
development programmes on this basis. Central governments consider this solution

Horváth, Gyula : The Dilemmas of Creating Regions in Eastern and Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 13-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special

26
GYULA HORVÁTH
as the easiest way to solve the problem: they do not need to put their hands into a
hornet’s nest and the vertical and horizontal power relations remain untouched.
Conclusions
The region is considered to be a spatial unit serving the sustainable growth of the
economy and the modernisation of the spatial structure, with independent financial
resources, fulfilling autonomous development policy and equipped with local gov-
ernment rights. On the basis of this term – whose factors naturally developed dif-
ferently in the different periods of European development – regions have not so far
existed in Eastern and Central Europe, despite the fact that some geographers (on
the  basis  of  the  indisputable  results  obtained  by  geographic  science  in  regional
research) assert that we do possess some well-defined, natural regions. Such “form
without  content”  –  as  in  previous  decades  –  cannot,  in  itself,  steer  the  spatial
structure  of  the  country  in  a  favourable  direction,  decentralise  the  new  space-
forming  forces  and  create  the  pre-requisites  for  multi-polar  development.  The  re-
gion, if defined as a framework for regional research, is not capable of organising
the  space-forming  powers  of  the  21st.  century  without  the  competencies,  institu-
tions and tools.
Regions  in  the  new  member-states  are  necessary,  since  European  regional  de-
velopment  clearly  proves  that  a  sub-national  level  comprising  approximately  1–2
million inhabitants regulated on the basis of self-government concepts (as a result
of the region’s economic capacity and structural abilities) is considered to be:
−  the  optimal  spatial  framework  for  the  realisation  of  regional  development
policy, oriented towards economic development,
−  the appropriate field for the operation of post-industrial spatial organisation
forces, and the development of their interrelationships,
−  the important area in which to enforce regional and social interests,
−  the most appropriate size of spatial unit to build a modern infra-structure and
the professional organising-planning-executing institution of regional policy,
−  the main factor in the decision-making system of the European Union’s Re-
gional and Cohesion policy.

Horváth, Gyula : The Dilemmas of Creating Regions in Eastern and Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 13-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special
THE DILEMMAS OF CREATING REGIONS IN EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE
2
7
References
Benedek,  J.  2004:  Amenajarea  teritorului  şi  dezvoltarea  regională.  Cluj-Napoca,  Editura  Presa
Universitară Clujaeană.
Blažek, J.–Boeckhout, S. 2000: Regional policy in the Czech Republic and EU accession. – Bachtler,
J.–Downes, R.–Gorzelak, G. (Eds.): 301–318. p.
Boev,  J.  2002:  Bulgaria:  decentralization  and  modernization  of  public  administration.  In  Péteri,  G.
(Ed.):  Mastering  Decentralization  and  Public  Administration  Reforms  in  Central  and  Eastern
Europe.  Budapest,  Open  Society  Institute,  Local  Government  and  Public  Service  Reform
Initiative. 93–120. p.
Dostál,  P.  2000:  Reintegrating  Central  European  region:  challenges  of  trans-border  spatial
development. – Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Geographica. 1. 21–38. p.
Geografija na Balgarija. Fizicheska geografija, socialno-ikonomicheska geografija. Sofia, Izdatelstvo
ForKom. 2003.
Geshev, G. (Ed.) 1997: The Geographical Space – an Investment for the 21th Century. Sofia, Institute
of Geography, BAS.
Geshev,  G.  2001:  The  role  of  regions  of  South-Eastern  space  in  the  enlarging  European  Union.  In
Gál,  Z.  (Ed.):  Role  of  the  Regions  in  the  Enlarging  European  Union. Pécs,  Centre  for  Regional
Studies, HAS. Discussion Papers, Special Issue. 81–100. p.
Gorzelak,  G. 1998: Regional and Local Potential for Transformation in Poland. Warsaw, University
of Warsaw.
Green  Paper.  Regional  Development Policy  in  Romania.  Bucharest,  Romanian  Government  and  the
European Commission. 1997.
Horváth,  Gy.  1996:  Transition  and  regionalism  in  East-Central  Europe.  Tübingen,  Europäischen
Zentrum für Föderalismus-Forschung. Occasional Papers, 7.
Horváth,  Gy.  (Ed.)  2002:  Regional  Challenges  of  the  Transition  in  Bulgaria  and  Hungary.  Pécs,
Centre for Regional Studies, HAS.
Ianoş, I. 2000b: Romania. In Bachtler, J.–Downes, R.–Gorzelak, G. (Eds.): Transition, Cohesion and
Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe. Aldershot, Ashgate. 167–176. p.
Ilieva,  M.  2002:  Transformations  in  the  territorial  structure  of  Bulgarian  economy  in  the  1990s.  In
Horváth, Gy.(Ed.): 49–61. p.
Illner, M. 2000: Issues of decentralization. Reforms in  former communist countries. – Infomationen
zur Raumforschung. 7–8. 391–401. p.
Keating, M.–Loughlin, J. (Eds.) 1997: The Political Economy of Regionalism. London, Frank Cass.
Kolev, B. 2002: Legal framework of regional development in Bulgaria. In Horváth, Gy. (Ed.): 78–85.
p.
Michalski,  A.–Saraceno,  A.  2000:  Regions  in  Enlarged  European  Union.  Brussels,  EC,  Forward
Studies Unit.
A  new  partnership  for  cohesion.  Convergence,  competitiveness,  cooperation.  Third  report  on
economic and social cohesion. Brussels, European Commission. February 2004.
Potentials  for  polycentric  development  in  Europe.  Annex  Report  A.  Critical  dictionary  of
polycentricity  European  urban  networking.  Stockholm,  Norfic  Centre  for  Spatial  Development.
August 2004.
Potentials  for  polycentric  development  in  Europe.  Annex  Report  B.  Stockholm,  Norfic  Centre  for
Spatial Development. August 2004.
Sekeresová,  E.  2004:  Institutions  of  regional  policy  at  the  regional  level  in  the  Slovak  Republic.  In
Enyedi,  Gy.–Tózsa,  I.  (Eds.):  Region.  Regional  Development  Policy,  Administration  and  E-
government. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó. 342–370. p.

Horváth, Gyula : The Dilemmas of Creating Regions in Eastern and Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 13-28. p. Discussion Papers, Special

28
GYULA HORVÁTH
Spiridonova,  J.–Grigorov,  N.  2000:  Bulgaria.  In  Bachtler,  J.–Downes,  R.–Gorzelak,  G.  (Eds.):
Transition, Cohesion and Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe. Aldershot, Ashgate. 71–
83. p.
Stasiak,  A.  1999:  The  new  administrative  division  of  Poland.  –  Duró,  A.  (ed.):  Spatial  Research  in
Support of the European Integration. Pécs, Centre for Regional Studies HAS. 31–42. p.
Szreniawski,  P.  2004:  Regions  in  Poland.  In  Enyedi,  Gy.–Tózsa,  I.  (Eds.):  Region.  Regional
Development  Policy,  Administration  and  E-government.  Budapest,  Akadémiai  Kiadó.  277–292.
p.
Tariska,  M.  2004:  Regional  administration  in  the  Slovak  Republic.  In  Enyedi,  Gy.–Tózsa,  I.  (Eds.):
Region. Regional Development Policy, Administration and E-government. Budapest, Akadémiai
Kiadó. 310–341. p.