1. Region-building in Hungary – the case of South-Transdanubia Ilona Pálné Kovács Centre for Regional Studies, HAS palne@rkk.hu

2. The structure of the paper ► The process of region-building ► Regional institutions-setting in South- Transdanubia ► The agenda of Hungarian regionalism ► Conclusions

3. Historical background ► 1000- years tradition of centralisation, dominance of external patterns ► 1990 systemic change:  Dominance of political values  European requirements

4. New territorial power structure ► Fragmented municipalities (1600 →3200 units) ► Weak county self-governments (19+Capital city) ► State sector at county and regional level (40 types of deconcentrated organs)

5. Regional policy without regions ► 1996 Act on regional policy – chance of correction  Three territorial levels instead of strong NUTS 2 regions  Decentralised institutions contra centralised redistribution

6. The key organisations of regional development in Hungary

7. Starting the region-building ► 1998 – decision about NUTS 2 regions ► 1999 – amendment of the composition of regional development councils ► 2002 – government programme of elected regional self-governments (postponed) ► 2004 − amendment again (stronger agencies, more limits)

8. After the accession ► Changing behaviour of the EU (2004 – centralised management of Structural Funds) ► Preparing the Second National Development Plan (how many ROPs, how managed?)

9. South-Transdanubia on the map Micro-regions, counties in South Transdanubia region

10. Shaping the region in South Transdanubia I.  1992 first bottom-up regional cooperation ► 1996 institutionalised regional policy  First regional council yet voluntarily (covering 4 counties)  Partnership in the composition of the council  Establishment of the development agency

11. Shaping the region in South Transdanubia II. ► 1999 − compulsory council (covering 3 counties) ► Amendment of the „partnership” (chambers, employees excluded, less actors from the bottom, more actors from the top) ► Dependence of the agency on the council ► Fragmentation of the agency-organisation

12. The regional development agency  Non-profit company  Unstable financing (commissioned by central organs, expertise, grants etc)  Increasing tasks (preparation of council meetings, allocation of subsidies, own projects, intermediary body of ROP)  Increasing independence

13. Recent events, setting the agenda ► 2005 − pilot programme in South- Transdanubia ► 2006 − „new” government, „old” programmes → regional self-governments (rejected by the Parliament) ► Regionalised state (?) ► Nationalised (Europeanised) regional development?

14. Conclusions ► External challenges alone are not enough ► Decentralisation is not identical with region- building ► Regional policy does not need self- governments (rather professional, decentralised management under the control of partnership organisations) ► Top-down or bottom-up region-building are completely different