Tracing the (hidden) spatialities of digital agendas: the case of ‘Digital Hungary’

Krisztina Varró

doi:10.18778/1231-1952.26.2.07

Authors

Krisztina Varró Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Princetonlaan 8A, 3584 CB Utrecht, the Netherlands

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.26.2.07

Keywords:

digitalisation, spatial development, discourse, discourse analysis, Hungary

Abstract

Policies that aim at bringing about a digital transformation (seek to) create the conditions for particular spatial development trajectories. Yet, the understandings, explicit and implicit, of space advanced by digital agendas have remained rather underexposed to date. This paper addresses this gap by developing a Foucauldian-inspired discourse-analytical framework and applies it to the programme of ‘Digital Hungary’. It is argued that policies of digitalisation in Hungary only to a minor extent consider the spatial dimension, and their impact potentially undermines the declared aims of spatial development at different scales.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

ALLEN, J., MASSEY, D. and COCHRANE, A. (1998), Rethinking the Region. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar

BAJMÓCY, Z., GÉBERT, J., ELEKES, Z. and PÁLI-DOMBI, J. (2016), ‘Beszélünk a részvételről… Megyei jogú városok fejlesztési dokumentumainak elemzése az érintettek részvételének aspektusából’, Tér és Társadalom, 30, pp. 45–62.
Google Scholar

BÖRÖCZ, J. (2001), ‘Introduction: Empire and coloniality in the «Eastern Enlargement» of the European Union’, [in:] BÖRÖCZ, J. and KOVÁCS, M. (eds), Empire’s New Clothes: Unveiling EU Enlargement. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, pp. 4–50.
Google Scholar

CASTELLS, M. (1996), The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, vol. 1, The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar

CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2010), A Digital Agenda for Europe. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0245R(01) [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

CEC (2014), Digital agenda for Europe: Rebooting Europe’s economy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Google Scholar

CEC (2017), Europe’s Digital Progress Report (EDPR) 2017 Country Profile Hungary. file:///C:/Users/vista/Downloads/HungaryEDPRcountryprofile.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

CHINI, I. (2008), ‘ICT policy as a governable domain: The case of Greece and the European Commission’, [in:] AVGEROU, C., SMITH, M.L. and BESSELAAR VAN DEN, P. (eds.), Social Dimensions of Information and Communication Technology Policy, IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, 282, pp. 45–62.
Google Scholar

CZÉKMANN, Z. (2016), Információs társadalom és elektronikus kormányzat Magyarországon (Doctoral dissertation, Miskolc University). http://www.uni-iskolc.hu/~wwwdeak/czekmann_zsolt_ert.pdf [accessed on: 4.06.2019].
Google Scholar

DĄBROWSKI, M. (2014), ‘Towards place-based regional and local development strategies in Central and Eastern Europe? EU cohesion policy and strategic planning capacity at the sub-national level’, Local Economy, 29, pp. 378–393.
Google Scholar

DEUTSCH, T. (2017), Keynote at the Infotér Conference on smart cities [video] http://okosvaros.infoter.eu/?p=home [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

DIE BUNDESREGIERUNG (n.d.) Grundsätze unserer Digitalpolitik. https://www.digitale-agenda.de/Webs/DA/DE/Grundsaetze/Grundsaetze_Digitalpolitik/grundsaetze-digitalpolitik_node.html [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

ESPON (2017), (European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion) Transforming territorial thinking through digitalisation. Synthesis report. https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/Synthesis%20report%20Tallinn%202017_1.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

GÁSPÁR, M. (2016), ‘Csipkerózsika, ébredj! – avagy új kihívások előtta közösségi hozzáférés’, Információs Társadalom, 16, pp. 113–133.
Google Scholar

GIFFINGER, R., FERTNER, C., KRAMAR, H., KALASEK, R., PICHLER-MILANOVIĆ, N. and MEIJER, S.E. (2017), Smart cities ranking of European medium-sized cities. Vienna: Vienna University of Technology.
Google Scholar

GOODWIN, I. and SPITTLE, S. (2002), ‘The European Union and the information society: Discourse, power and policy’, New Media and Society, 4, pp. 225–249.
Google Scholar

GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY (2013), H/13094. számú Országgyűlési Határozati Javaslat a Nemzeti Fejlesztés 2030 – Országos Fejlesztési és Területfejlesztési Koncepcióról [National Development and Territorial Development Concept]. http://www.terport.hu/webfm_send/4204 [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY (2014), National Infocommunication Strategy 2014–2020. http://www.kormany.hu/download/5/ff/70000/NIS_EN_clear.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY (2016a), Digital Education Strategy. http://www.kormany.hu/download/0/4b/21000/The%20Digital%20Education%20Strategy%20of%20Hungary.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY (2016b), Digital Export Development Strategy of Hungary. http://www.kormany.hu/download/1/4b/21000/The%20Digital%20Export%20Development%20Strategy%20of%20Hungary.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY (2016c), Digital Startup Strategy of Hungary. http://www.kormany.hu/download/2/4b/21000/The%20Digital%20Startup%20Strategy%20of%20Hungary.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY (2017a), Digital Commerce Development Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.kormany.hu/download/c/88/f0000/Stratégia.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY (2017b), Digital Welfare Programme 2.0. http://www.kormany.hu/download/6/6d/21000/DJP20%20Stratégiai%20Tanulmány.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

GRABBE, H. (2001), ‘How does Europeanization affect CEE governance? Conditionality, diffusion and Diversity’, Journal of European Public Policy, 8, pp. 1013−1031.
Google Scholar

GRAHAM, M. (2011), ‘Time machines and virtual portals: the spatialities of the digital divide’, Progress in Development Studies, 11, pp. 211–227.
Google Scholar

GRAHAM, S. (1998), ‘The end of geography or the explosion of place? Conceptualizing space, place and information technology’, Progress in Human Geography, no. 22, pp. 165–185.
Google Scholar

GRAHAM, S. (2002), ‘Bridging urban digital divides? Urban polarisation and information and communications technologies (ICTs)’, Urban Studies, 39, pp. 33–56.
Google Scholar

HAJER, M. (2000), ‘Transnational networks as transnational policy discourse; some observations on the politics of spatial development in Europe’, [in:] SALET, W. and FALUDI, A. (eds.), The revival of strategic spatial planning. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, pp. 135–142.
Google Scholar

HARVEY, D. (1996), Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar

HEALEY, P. (2004) ‘The Treatment of Space and Place in the New Strategic Spatial Planning in Europe’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28, pp. 45–67.
Google Scholar

HVG (2018), A hálón kívül. 15 March, pp. 19–20.
Google Scholar

JENSEN, O.B. and RICHARDSON, T. (2001), ‘Nested visions: New rationalities of space in European spatial planning’, Regional Studies, 35, pp. 703–717.
Google Scholar

JENSEN, O.B. and RICHARDSON, T. (2004), Making European space: mobility, power and territorial identity. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar

KISS, M. (2007), ‘A digitális esélyegyenlőség helyzete Magyarországon’, Információs Társadalom, 3, pp. 83–101.
Google Scholar

KOMÁROMI, L. (2015), ‘Participatory democracy: International and European tendencies, constitutional framework in Visegrad countries, Hungarian instruments and experiences’, Iustum Aequum Salutare, 11, pp. 31–66.
Google Scholar

KOVÁCS, G. (2001), ‘Telecottages in Hungary’, Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 2, pp. 153–160.
Google Scholar

KOVÁCS, M. and KABACHNIK, P. (2001), ‘Shedding light on the quantitative other: The EU’s discourse in the Commission Opinions of 1997’, [in:] BÖRÖCZ, J. and KOVÁCS, M. (eds), Empire’s New Clothes: Unveiling EU Enlargement. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, pp. 4–50.
Google Scholar

LEFEBVRE, H. (1991), The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar

MADANIPOUR, A. (2018), ‘Temporary use of space: Urban processes between flexibility, opportunity and precarity’, Urban Studies, 55, pp. 1093–1110.
Google Scholar

MAGYAR, B. and KARVALICS, L.Z. (2001), ‘«Information society» in Eastern Europe? Chances, possibilities, tasks and programs’, East European Quarterly, 34, pp. 509–522.
Google Scholar

MATKÓ, M. (2016), ‘Városfejlesztés az Eu-ban az EU2020 célok mentén’, Falu Város Régió, 2, pp. 16–25.
Google Scholar

MINISTERIE VOOR ECONOMISCHE ZAKEN (2016), Digitale agenda – Vernieuwen, vertrouwen, versnellen. Den Haag: Ministerie voor Economische Zaken.
Google Scholar

MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (2010), Digital Renewal Action Plan. http://www.terport.hu/webfm_send/2709 [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (2014) Green Paper on the Development of the Infocommunications Sector in 2014–2020. http://www.kormany.hu/download/9/2c/70000/ZK%20angol_javított_nokorr.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

OECD (2015), OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-digital-economy-outlook-2015_9789264232440-en#page4 [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
Google Scholar

PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, I. (2019), ‘A Magyar önkormányzatok korlátai a helyi gazdaságfejlesztésben’, Tér és Társadalom, 33, pp. 3–19.
Google Scholar

PICK, J.B. and SARKAR, A. (2009), The global digital divides. Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Google Scholar

PILE, S. (1994), ‘Cybergeography: 50 years of Environment and Planning A’, Environment and Planning A, 26, pp. 1815–1823.
Google Scholar

PINTÉR, R. (2004), A magyar információs társadalom fejlődése és fejlettsége a fejlesztők szempontjából (Doctoral dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest), http://mek.oszk.hu/02300/02336/02336.pdf [accessed on: 4.06.2019].
Google Scholar

RANDALL, L., BERLINA, A., TERÄS, J. and RINNE, T. (2018), Digitalisation as a tool for sustainable Nordic regional development: Preliminary literature and policy review. Discussion paper prepared for Nordic thematic group for innovative and resilient regions. January 2018, Stockholm. http://www.nordregio.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Digitalisation_Discussion-Paper_Jan-31.pdf [accessed on: 17.01.2019].
Google Scholar

RICHARDSON, T. (2006), ‘The thin simplification of European space: dangerous calculations?’, Comparative European Politics, 4, pp. 203–217.
Google Scholar

RICHARDSON, T. and JENSEN, O.B. (2000), ‘Discourses of mobility and polycentric development: a contested view of European spatial planning’, European Planning Studies, 8, pp. 503–520.
Google Scholar

RICHARDSON, T. and JENSEN, O.B. (2003), ‘Linking discourse and space: towards a cultural sociology of space in analysing spatial policy discourses’, Urban Studies, 40, pp. 7–22.
Google Scholar

SCHULZ, S. (2017), ‘The discursive construction of innovation policy in peripheralizing Estonia’, European Spatial Research and Policy, 24, pp. 77–91.
Google Scholar

SHARP, E. and RICHARDSON, T. (2001), ‘Reflections on Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental policy research’, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 3, pp. 193–209.
Google Scholar

STARRS, P.F. and ANDERSON, J. (1997), ‘The Words of Cyberspace’, Geographical Review, 87, pp. 146–154.
Google Scholar

VARRÓ, K. and FARAGÓ, L. (2016), ‘The politics of spatial policy and governance in post-1990 Hungary: The interplay between European and national discourses of space’, European Planning Studies, 24, pp. 39–60.
Google Scholar

WARF, B. (2001), ‘Segueways into cyberspace: Multiple geographies of the digital divide’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28, pp. 3–19.
Google Scholar

ZOOK, M. (2003), ‘Underground globalization: mapping the space of flows of the Internet adult Industry’, Environment and Planning A, 35, pp. 1261–1286.
Google Scholar