Centres and peripheries reflected in distribution patterns of EU cohesion policy funding on the example of the Baranya county, Hungary

Zoltán Pámer

doi:10.18778/1231-1952.30.1.02

Authors

Zoltán Pámer Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Institute of Regional Studies, Papnövelde u. 22., 7621 Pécs, Hungary https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5046-9590

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.30.1.02

Crossmark check for up

Keywords:

multi-level governance, cohesion policy, place-based policy, peripheral areas

Abstract

The cohesion policy of the EU plays a key role in overcoming territorial disparities. The emergence of the policy was accompanied by a debate on a place-neutral or place-based approach. In the case of Hungary, the first fully implemented programming period of 2007−2013 and the still ongoing 2014−2020 period provide a good tool for comparison. Overall, the aim of the research was to provide an in-depth look into the change of territorial patterns of EU-funding distribution, on the example of the Baranya county, being part of one of the 20 least developed regions of the EU; how territorial patterns of EU funding changed between the two periods and how the county-level territorial objectives were reflected in the funding patters.

The introduction of the paper provides a review of relevant literature on EU cohesion policy, then the selection of the Baranya county as a case study is justified. The following part shortly presents the framework of regional development in Hungary, highlighting the relevant documents for the case study county. The presentation of the empirical study is divided into two parts. First, as qualitative research perceptions of the stakeholders of the key levels of regional policy decision-making are analysed. Second, a quantitative analysis of the territorial funding patterns of the two periods is presented, in light of established territorial objectives.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

BACHTLER, J. and GORZELAK, G. (2007), ‘Reforming EU Cohesion Policy’, Policy Studies, 28 (4), pp. 309−326. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442870701640682
Google Scholar

Baranya (2014), Baranya Megyei Területfejlesztési Koncepció. Javaslattételi fázis [Baranya County Regional Development Concept. Proposal-making phase], https://docplayer.hu/11934816-Baranya-megyei-teruletfejlesztesi-koncepcio.html [accessed on: 07.09.2020].
Google Scholar

BARCA, F. (2009), An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy – A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations, independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/policy/future/pdf/report_barca_v0306.pdf [accessed on: 05.07.2018].
Google Scholar

BARCA, F., MCCANN, P. and RODRÍGUEZ-POSE, A. (2012), ‘The case for regional development intervention: place-based versus place-neutral approaches’, Journal of Regional Science, 52 (1), pp. 134−152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.2011.00756.x
Google Scholar

BUTKUS, M. and MATUZEVIČIŪTĖ, K. (2016), ‘Evaluation of EU Cohesion Policy Impact on Regional Convergence: Do Culture Differences Matter?’, Economics and Culture, 13 (01). https://doi.org/10.1515/jec-2016-0005
Google Scholar

EC (2010), Communication from the Commission – Europe 2020 – A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, European Commission, Brussels 3.3.2010, https://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf [accessed on: 23.01.2023].
Google Scholar

EC (2022), Cohesion in Europe towards 2050 – Eighth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, Publications Office of the European Union, https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/cohesion-report/ [accessed on: 16.03.2022].
Google Scholar

Ecorys (2006), Strategic Evaluation on Transport Investment Priorities under Structural and Cohesion Funds for the Programming Period 2007-13, Synthesis Report to the European Commission.ECORYS Nederland NV, Rotterdam. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/strategic_trans.pdf [accessed on: 28.04.2022].
Google Scholar

FARAGÓ, L. and HORVÁTH, Gy. (1995), ‘A Dél-Dunántúl területfejlesztési koncepciójának alapelemei’ [Elements of the South Transdanubian regional development concept], Tér és Társadalom, 9 (3–4), pp. 47–77. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.9.3-4.336
Google Scholar

FAZEKAS, M. and CZIBIK, Á.(2021), ‘Measuring regional quality of government: the public spending quality index based on government contracting data’, Regional Studies, 55 (8), pp. 1459−1472. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1902975
Google Scholar

FINTA, I. (2022), ‘Az Európai Unió átfogó fejlesztéspolitikai alapelveinek fejlődési trendjei és azok érvényesülése Magyarországon’ [Development trends of EU regional policy principles and their realisation in Hungary], Új Magyar Közigazgatás, 2, pp. 1–19.
Google Scholar

HAGEMANN, C. (2019), ‘How politics matters for EU funds’ absorption problems – a fuzzy-set analysis’, Journal of European Public Policy, 26 (2), pp. 188−206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1398774
Google Scholar

JÓZSA, V. (2018), ‘Quo vadis regionalizmus? Egy eszme- és értékrendszer tovább élése a szakemberek közvetítésével’ [Quo vadis regionalism? The subsistence of a conceptual and value systemthrough the professionals], Tér és Társadalom, 3, pp. 96−112. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.32.3.3064
Google Scholar

MANZELLA, G.P.and MENDEZ, C.(2009), The turning points of EU Cohesion policy, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/policy/future/pdf/8_manzella_final-formatted.pdf [accessed on: 02.07.2018].
Google Scholar

MENDEZ, C. (2011), ‘The Lisbonization of EU Cohesion Policy: A Successful Case of Experimentalist Governance’, European Planning Studies, 19 (3), pp. 519−537. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.548368
Google Scholar

MÁRTON, Gy. (2004), ‘Az Első Magyar Nemzeti Fejlesztési Terv tervezési folyamatának tapasztalatai regionális szemszögből’ [Experiences of the first Hungarian National Development Plan from regional point of view], Falu Város Régió, 9, pp. 32−45.
Google Scholar

MÁRTON, Gy. (2009), ‘Gondolatok a hazai decentralizált fejlesztési források felhasználásának megújításáról’ [Thoughts about the renewal of absorption of domestic decentralised development funds], Falu Város Régió, 3, pp. 23−27.
Google Scholar

MENDEZ, C. and BACHTLER, J. (2022), ‘The quality of government and administrative performance: explaining Cohesion Policy compliance, absorption and achievements across EU regions’, Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2083593
Google Scholar

NAGY, G. (1995), ‘A külföldi tőke szerepe és térbeli terjedése Magyarországon’ [The role and spatial spreading of foreign capital in Hungary], Tér és Társadalom, 9 (1–2), pp. 55–82. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.9.1-2.327
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, I. and MEZEI, C. (2016), ‘Regionális politikai és területi kormányzási ciklusok Közép- és Kelet-Európában’ [Cycles of regional policy and territorial governance in Central and Eastern Europe], Tér és Társadalom, 4, pp. 54−70. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.30.4.2810
Google Scholar

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 (3). https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.35.3.3337
Google Scholar

PÁMER, Z. (2022), ‘Az egyes területi szintek jelentőségének változása a magyar területfejlesztési politikában, Baranya megye példáján’ [Change of significance of the single territorial levels in Hungarian regional development policy on the example of Baranya county], Comitatus, 2022.különszám, pp. 69−81.
Google Scholar

RODRÍGUEZ-POSE, A. and FRATESI, U. (2004), ‘Between Development and Social Policies: The Impact of European Structural Funds in Objective 1 Regions’, Regional Studies, 38 (1), pp. 97−113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400310001632226
Google Scholar

SCHWERTNER, J. (1994), ‘Parázsló munkaerőpiac’ [A Changing Labour Market], Tér és Társadalom, 8 (1-2), pp. 59−82. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.8.1-2.296
Google Scholar

STREITENBERGER, W. (2013), ‘The new EU regional policy: fostering research and innovation in Europe’, [in:] PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, I., SCOTT, J. and GÁL, Z. (eds.), Territorial Cohesion in Europe – For the 70th anniversary of the Transdanubian Research Institute, Institute for Regional Studies, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Pécs, pp. 36−45.
Google Scholar

VARGA, A. (2016), Regionális fejlesztéspolitikai hatáselemzés [Impact assessment of regional development policy], Akadémiai Kiadó. https://doi.org/10.1556/9789634540151
Google Scholar

VARGA, J. and in’t VELD, J. (2010), The Potential Impact of EU Cohesion Policy Spending in the 2007–2013 Programming Period: A Model-Based Analysis, European Commission, Economic and Financial Affairs.
Google Scholar