Zoltán Bajmócy (p)

Zoltán Pámer

According to Maier’s (2001) hypothesis, the democratization process in the post-socialist countries would lead to the increased importance of stakeholder and citizen participation in urban planning. Increasing circles of stakeholders would be able to join, and become empowered. The objective of the present paper is to revisit Maier’s hypothesis in the Hungarian context. While having knowledge on how participation in urban planning looks like in various post-socialist countries, we mostly lack analyses on why participation occurs in certain ways (alongside certain process designs) and to what extent is it a post-socialist legacy?
In the present paper, we attempt to shed light on the main factors that shape the framework conditions of participation in urban planning; we ask whether the three decades of transition can be described as an approximation to the Western standards in urban planning, as Maier suggested.
The results are based on the qualitative content analysis (through inductive coding approach) of 49 semi-structured interviews. We conducted the interviews during 2015 and 2016 in three Hungarian middle-sized cities with various stakeholders of urban planning. We identified six underlying factors, which shape the framework conditions of participation. These are factors that have mostly accumulated since the fall of the socialist era, the post-socialist legacy may only have indirect effects on them. These six factors add up to a halt in the democratization of planning and the serious limits to consensus building. We argue that these two processes diverted Hungary from the path Maier envisioned, and make the Hungarian context for participation and participatory techniques fundamentally different from the Western-European contexts.
The results are confined to a single country and are based on data collected approximately five years ago. Nevertheless, the analysed mechanisms seem to be still in work or have even intensified. Besides, the results also have clear implications for other (both post-socialist and Western-European) countries.

Zoltán Pámer (p)

Sára Gibárti

Cohesion policy of the EU plays a key role in balancing territorial disparities, particularly in least-developed countries. Hungary has been a positive example of newly setup regional development institutional systems in Eastern Central Europe since the end of the 1990s (Pálné Kovács, 2021): EU accession brought establishment of regional institutions, however decentralisation and centralisation have been observed as parallel processes. The institutional and financial framework for the 2014-2020 programming period provides considerable funding for catching up of peripheral counties, with rather centralised decision making: county administrations and the responsible ministry-hosted managing authority shall make joint decisions, however the county has room for manoeuvre to promote their preferences (Pámer, 2021). As the programming period is approaching its end, it is possible to provide a territorial and quantitative analysis of territorial distribution of this funding instrument.

First part of the papers aims at providing a brief overview of the policy framework for EU funding management in the 2014-2020 period in Hungary, highlighting competences allocated to subnational levels. The paper is methodologically divided into two parts. First, on basis of online questionnaire and semi-structured interviews it will be presented how key levels of decision-making on funding is perceived by key stakeholders in peripheral areas of Baranya county. In the second part a quantitative territorial analysis will be provided, how funding is distributed territorially and thematically in central and peripheral areas within Baranya, as part of one of the EU twenty most undeveloped NUTS 2 regions. The analysis will be based on primary data on funding decisions within the Regional and Settlement Development Operational Programme funded by the European Regional Development Fund.

References: Pálné Kovács I. (2021): A centralizáció és a perifériák fejlődési esélyei [Centralization and the development potential of peripheral areas]. Tér és Társadalom, 35. évf., 4. szám, 2021. http://doi.org/10.17649/TET.35.4.3372
Pámer Z. (2021): Pámer Z. (2021): A területi kormányzás és a területi integráció vizsgálata Baranya megye fejlesztési dokumentumaiban az uniós csatlakozástól napjainkig [Overview of territorial governance and territorial integration in development documents of Baranya county, since the EU accession to date]. Tér és Társadalom 35. évf., 3. szám, 2021 https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.35.3.3337

Sára Gibárti (p)

Réka Horeczki

Cities and their urbanization processes play a central role in the development and modernization of nation states. Pécs is the fifth largest city in Hungary, traditionally was a mining and industrial centre of the region of Southern Transdanubia. Due to economic transformations after the regime change in 1989 and the demise of mining activities in the 1990s, the city had to reposition its regional role and create new strategies for urban development concepts. These efforts have not only been hindered by economic marginalisation, but the region's peripherical situation has also been exacerbated by the Yugoslavian war and its socioeconomic consequences. Based on the city’s existing assets and resources, local governments of the following decades concentrated on development of the service sector with a special emphasis on education, health, and cultural services. At the same time Pécs has attempted to attract national and foreign industrial investors to overcome economic adversities. The presentation will provide detailed overview of urban development plans of Pécs for the period between 1999 and 2019. The analysis highlights achievements, obstacles, or even failures, while taking the changing political environments, and governance challenges into consideration. Moreover, the research focuses on how the city of Pécs positioned itself for its region in these documents.

Réka Horeczki (p), Péter Póla

Zoltán Bajmócy

In everyday life, many people are concerned about the unlivability of the periphery, negative demographic trends and the challenges of globalisation, in which the uniqueness of locality is disappearing. The beauty of rural life, the lack of development opportunities and the persistent disadvantage of our more remote settlements, rather than the 'romance of the countryside', are becoming increasingly worrying. In this study, we seek to answer the question: which of the municipalities in Baranya County, one of the most depressed areas in Hungary, can be considered successful? What do the leaders of the municipalities think success means, what aspects does it have?
The study compares the results of two primary data surveys with the concept of success as used in the national literature. The primary surveys were conducted in Baranya County in the second half of 2020 and the second half of 2021. The questionnaire survey investigates 220 respondents from 63 municipalities and 50 in-depth interviews were conducted to nuance the questionnaire responses and our preliminary assumptions.
Researchers working on the theory of success and its spatiality (Enyedi, 1996; Enyedi, 1997; Horváth, 2013; Csatári, 2002; Lengyel, 2000; Rechnitzer, 1993; Tímár-Velkey, 2003; Lukács, 2008, etc.) divide success into subjective and objective factors that determine the territorial unit and relationships they study. Defining success in rural areas is also a priority (Lukács, 2008; Rechnitzer, 2000; Szörényiné 2016; Bódi-Bőhm, 2000; Mezei, 2006).
Based on our previous knowledge, we assume that success is a complex, multi-factor phenomenon, which includes the importance of infrastructure and supply factors, the existence and exploitation of local assets, the activity of the population, and the mayor. In order to "survive", small villages and dwarf settlements in disadvantaged situations are forced to go beyond their previous activities and, by taking into account their local assets and by bringing together the local population, increase the economic prosperity of the settlement and thus improve the quality of life of the local inhabitants. This can (also) prevent a continuing population decline.