Territorial Governance Challenges in Hungary: A Regional Policy Perspective

1. Place-basedgovernance and regional policy Ilona Pálné Kovács IRS, CERS. HAS palne@rkk.hu

2. Theories of decentralisation (disciplinary separation) • State theory focus on structure: local governments as fourth branch of power or local states? • Public administration science focus on functioning: how much and what kind of decentralisation is „ideal”, • Institutional economics focuson economic and fiscal consequences (spill over, public choice, fiscal federalism, etc.) • Regional science and economic geographyfocus on territory: (economy of agglomeration, regional competitiveness etc.) How to measure? Few empirical evidences (Müller, 2009,Saito, 2011, lot of fiscal analysises) • Decentralisation is stillrather about democracy than performance (standards: European Charter of Local Governments)

3. Neoliberal „governance” likes decentralisation • Less public sector- enabling role of the state • New actors, stakeholders, political class (Oborne, 2007) • Social capital, cultural contexts • New (horizontal) mechanisms: policy networks, bargaining, grass-roots • Sensitive to thescale • Principles: subsidiarity, closeness to the citizens Decentralised governance is better : new regionalism, glocalism, MLG  territorial reforms

4. Complex assessments of decentralisation

6. Regional governance matters (Charron et al, 2011) • European quality of government index at national and regional levels (survey in 27 MS, in 172 regions, 34.000 residents) • Size of the region: no matter in general, and lower quality in larger cities! • Level of political decentralisation: no direct impact! Conclusions • The macro governance and socio-economic context and social trust have more impact on the quality of governance and performance, • but „Regional governance matters”: improving regional administrative capacities is one of the performance reserves.

7. Neo-Weberian turn Crisis and disappointment in neo-liberal, decentralised governance Renaissance of old public values • Strong (good) state instead of market • Traditional representative democracy and executive model instead of partnership • Hierarchy, centralization instead of fuzzy networks • Weakening regionalism (Keating, 2008), new secession movements (Spain, Italy, UK) Connecting neo-liberal and neo-weberian models: • NP Governance (Osborne,2011) • Place-based governance (Barca, 2009) • Emerging urban governance challenges • Territorial governance

8. Territorial governance: a new buzzword • Vague term and intention behind • Territorial governance for place-based development policy • Less about public power structure, more about soft, horizontal elements

9. ESPON TANGO Territorial governance is the formulation and implementation of public policies, and projects for the developmentof a place/territory by • 1) co-ordinating actions of actors and institutions, • 2) integrating policy sectors, • 3) mobilising stakeholder participation, • 4) being adaptive to changing contexts, • 5) realising place-based/territorial specificities and impacts. • Where is decentralisation?

10. How to govern the territory? The case of Hungary (and CEE) • History and cultural roots matter: never strong local governance in Hungary before • 1990: systemic change, dominance of political values, strong but fragmented bottom, weak meso: sand-glass shape • 1994-2010: rescaling experiments under the pressure of European cohesion policy

11. Municipal and terrritorial units in Hungary

12. Rescaling for the money, mapdrawing Law about regional development in 1996, overture of EU accession • Micro-regional associations (1993-2004) • Macro regions (for NUTS, development, self-governance, state governance), 1998, 2004 • Empty counties

13. Misfit of regionalisation and partnership : hidden centralisation Weak meso and lack of political will to decentralise led to • the jungle of geographical units („fuzzy/messy” regionalism) • shock of the joining to the EU in 2004- centralised management of Structural Funds • exclusive, closed networks in the management of SF, it is not a friendly match!

14. 2010 turning point: open centralisation Need (crisis, debt) and political chance (2/3)to do something: • New constitution, new act on local government • Crisis handling parallel with the paradigm change • Strong and expanding „Neo-Weberian”state • Regionalisation cancelled (empty map) • Nationalisation of many local services: local government system is almost empty bottle • As a compensation stronger involvement in development policy?

15. Boundaries in 2013 Készült: MTA KRTK, 2013

16. Hungary is not an exception. Common features in CEE • Top down rescaling (EU pressure): shifting power up (except Poland?)centralisation • EC ambivalent behaviour, lack of trust towards regionalism in CEE • Weak local governments and civic society (lack of social capital)  Imitating instead of learning and adaptation

17. Paradox of uniformised cohesion policy: Mind a gap! Asimmetrical European landscape of governance model and uniformmanagement system of SFs • Vertical paradox: Dominance of centralised governance systems in CEE and Southern Europe • Horizontal paradox: Weak non public actors (partners) in CEE and SE • MLG paradox: Three-level governance only for the Core of Europe with regions and places strong enough

18. Lessons for us:Place-based governance is more than decentralisation • Do not confuse managing SFs and development policy • Do not hurry, copy and imitate • Less structural shock, more functional adaptation by small steps • Empowerment needs enabling (responsibilty+instruments) • Building capacity, trust and knowledge (local leadership) Territorial (place- based) governance= making policy sectors territorially sensitive: integrating, coordinating, local fitting etc.

19. Regional studies matter • Without regional studies there is no regional policy • Without navigation (information, skills, analytical tools) regional policy is just blind flying with big risk and waste of money Thank you for your attention