Geographical aspects of the changes of Hungary's deconcentrated state administration system between 1990 and 2012

ISSN 1732–4254 qua e ly Bulle in o GeoG aphy. Socio–economic Se ieS jou nal homepages: h p://www.bulle ino geog aphy.umk.pl h p:// e si a.com/bgss Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio–economic Se ies No. 20 (2013): 59–69 Geog aphical aspec s o he changes o hunga y’s deconcen a ed s a e adminis a ion sys em be ween 1990 and 2012 Gábo Kozma1, CDFMR, a ila Ba a2, CDFMR Uni e si y o Deb ecen, 1Depa men o Social Geog aphy and Regional De elopmen Planning, Egye em é 1., 4032 Deb ecen, Hunga y; phone: +3652 518 667, e–mail: kozma.gabo @science.unideb.hu (co esponding au ho ); 2Depa men o Public Admi- nis a ion Law, Kassai ú 26, 4028 Deb ecen; phone: +3652 512 700, e–mail: ba a.a [email protected] Kozma, G. and Ba a, A., 2013: Geog aphical aspec s o he changes o Hunga y’s deconcen a ed s a e adminis a ion sys em be ween 1990 and 2012. In: Szymańska, D. and Chodkowska–Miszczuk, J. edi o s, Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio–economic Se ies, No. 20, To uń: Nicolaus Cope nicus Uni e si y P ess, pp. 59–69. DOI: 10.2478/bog–2013–0011 abs ac . One o he mos impo an segmen s o he pos –1990 ans o ma ion o e i o y-based adminis a ion in Hunga y was he changing o he geog aph- ical s uc u e o deconcen a ed s a e adminis a i e o ganisa ions. The s udy, on he one hand, p o ides a b ie o e iew o he his o y o deconcen a ed s a e ad- minis a i e o ganisa ions in Hunga y, and discusses he egional cha ac e is ics o he o ganisa ional ans o ma ions a e he poli ical changes, aking six mo- men s in ime ( he middle o 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2012 espec i ely) as he basis. On he o he hand, using he same six snapsho s in ime, i examines which se lemen s expe ienced a ou able o un a ou able changes, and wha ac- o s in luenced he selec ion o he sea s o hese ins i u ions. The esul s o he su ey indica ed ha he alignmen o e i o ial s uc u e o decon- cen a ed s a e adminis a i e o ganiza ions o he planning-s a is ical, NUTS 2 e- gions has al eady begun a he end o he 1990s. The go e nmen o med in 2006 ook signi ican s eps in he a ea o aligning he spa ial s uc u e o he o ganiza ions wi h he planning-s a is ical egions; howe e , in he pe iod a e 2010 he signi icance o he coun y le el inc eased again. In he pe iod examined, no signi ican changes ook place a he op and a he bo om o he lis acco ding o he numbe o sea s: he la ges se lemen s o he indi idual egions ein o ced hei leading posi ions. con en s: 1. In oduc ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Ma e ials and esea ch me hods.......................................................... 61 3. Resul s ................................................................................ 63 4. Conclusions ........................................................................... 67 Acknowledgemen s..................................................................... 68 Re e ences............................................................................. 68 © 2013 Nicolaus Cope nicus Uni e si y P ess. All igh s ese ed. a icle de ails: Recei ed: 26 No embe 2012 Re ised: 31 Decembe 2012 Accep ed: 23 Janua y 2013 Key wo ds: public adminis a ion, Hunga y, deconcen a ed s a e adminis a i e o ganisa ions, egions. Gábo Kozma, A ila Ba a / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 20 (2013): 59–69 60 1. in oduc ion One o he mos impo an ques ions o he p ocess o decen alizing public adminis a ion in Wes e n Eu ope, which s a ed in he 1960s, was he c ea ion o he in e media e le el o e i o ial uni s, mos commonly e e ed o as egions. On hese le els, bo h elemen s o public adminis a ion g adually es- ablished hei o ganiza ions: on he one hand, he sel -go e ning bodies elec ed by he local popula- ion and g adually acqui ing mo e and mo e powe s we e o med, and on he o he hand, s a e adminis- a ion also c ea ed i s own deconcen a ed ins i u- ions in hese uni s. Geog aphical bounda ies o he in e media e le el adminis a i e uni s we e es ab- lished using di e en me hods. In some coun ies e.g. Aus ia, he e i o ial uni s al eady in exis - ence ea lie became his le el o public adminis a- ion (Newman, Tho nley, 1996); elsewhe e e.g. in F ance, his le el was c ea ed by way o he consol- ida ion o uni s (“dépa emen s”) ha had been in exis ence o a long ime (Wannop, 1995). F om he poin o iew o he decen aliza ion o public adminis a ion, an impo an ole was played by he changes in he egional policy o he Eu ope- an Union: a e 1989, he delimi ing o he lagging behind egions ook place on he le el o NUTS 2 egions. Ini ially, he sizes o he e i o ial uni s a ied g ea ly; howe e , Regula ion 1059/2003/EC o he Eu opean Pa liamen and he Council al eady s o e o educe hese di e ences. E en hough he Eu opean Union did no equi e coun ies o align hei uni s o public adminis a ion wi h NUTS 2 egions, in he d awing up and he implemen a ion o de elopmen p og ammes, such coincidences mean signi ican ad an ages (Balchin e al., 1999). As a esul , om he second hal o he 1990s on, in many Membe S a es o he Eu opean Union ha had p e iously no emb aced (e.g. Denma k, I eland), se e al de ini e s eps we e aken o ensu e ha NUTS 2 egions also be gi en ce ain admin- is a i e unc ions (V angbæk, 2010). F om he second hal o he 1990s, in he cou se o hei p epa a ion o accession o he Eu opean Union, mo e and mo e a en ion was paid also in Eas Cen al Eu opean coun ies o he idea o he o ma ion o egions. Resea che s who analysed his ans o ma ion undamen ally men ioned wo ea- sons: on he one hand, hey e e ed o he p ocess o Eu opeaniza ion, unde which he EU’s cohesion policy was d i ing ins i u ional changes in hese coun ies (e.g. Sche pepe eel, 2010). A he same ime, ano he g oup o esea che s (e.g. Ba chle , McMas e , 2008) exp esses hei doub s whe he cohesion policy would necessa ily suppo egion- aliza ion and belie ed ha he in e na ional ac o s (and, in pa icula , he poli ical eli e) played a much mo e impo an ole in his p ocess (B usis, 2006; O’Dwye , 2006). A he same ime, majo di e enc- es can be obse ed be ween indi idual Eas Cen- al Eu opean coun ies as a a he bo de s o he egions o med a e conce ned: Poland was he only one in which he in e media e le el o public ad- minis a ion coincided wi h NUTS 2 egions (Fe y, 2003; Yode , 2003). By con as , in he o he coun- ies, e en hough he decen aliza ion o public ad- minis a ion has s a ed, no such coincidence can be obse ed: o example, in he Czech Republic, he e a e 8 NUTS 2 egions, bu 14 e i o ial uni s on he in e media e le el o public adminis a ion (Yode , 2003; B usis, 2005), while in Slo akia he numbe o NUTS 2-le el egions is 4, as opposed o he 8 coun ies (“k aj”) comp ised in he in e me- dia e le el o public adminis a ion (B usis, 2005). In he 4–5 yea s a e he poli ical changes in Hunga y, simila ly o o he Cen al and Eas e n Eu opean coun ies, a dec ease o he impo ance o  he coun ies, he in e media e le el o public ad- minis a ion, could be obse ed, while in a pa allel way he ole o he local (municipal) and he cen al (go e nmen al) le el inc eased. In 1990, in acco d- ance wi h he ag eemen be ween he wo mos im- po an pa ies o he gi en pa liamen a y cycle ( he go e nmen pa y Hunga ian Democ a ic Fo um and he opposi ion pa y Alliance o  F ee Demo- c a s), Ac LXV o 1990 on local go e nmen s was a so-called 2/3 majo i y law. This mean ha any changing o he oles o he newly c ea ed coun- y go e nmen s and he c ea ion o egional go - e nmen s was only possible wi h he o es o 2/3 o he membe s o Pa liamen , which ac signi i- can ly cu ailed any such e o s o he go e ning pa ies in powe . As a consequence, he ac i i ies o he cen al go e nmen ela ed o egional pub- lic adminis a ion we e decidedly concen a ed on he ans o ma ion o he minis ies and he decon- cen a ed o he s a e adminis a i e o ganisa ions, as well as he modi ica ion o he e i o ial compe- Gábo Kozma, A ila Ba a / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 20 (2013): 59–69 61 ences o he same, since his could also be done by way o ac s o Pa liamen passed wi h simple ma- jo i y and go e nmen dec ees. Wi h a iew o he abo e, his s udy a emp s o gi e answe s o he ques ions below: — How has he go e nmen al app oach owa ds he deconcen a ed s a e adminis a i e o gani- sa ions changed since 1990, wha we e he ea- sons behind he changes and how has his ac in luenced hei e i o ial s uc u e? — Which owns in Hunga y can be ega ded as winne s o his p ocess and o wha ac o s can he success o hese owns be aced back o? The impo ance o he esea ch p ojec can ex- plain he ac ha ci izens a e in a e y close con- ac wi h his le el o s a e adminis a ion, as one o he ac o s o he execu i e powe , and acco dingly, i s e icien ope a ion, in which he mos app op i- a e e i o ial s uc u e is also inhe en , is a basic condi ion o he sa is ac ion o he ci izens. 2. ma e ials and esea ch me hods In he esea ch o his pape , we elied on he p o- isions o law (ac s o Pa liamen , go e nmen de- c ees, go e nmen decisions) pe aining o he in e media e le el o he indi idual e i o ial ad- minis a i e o ganisa ions, and only ook in o con- side a ion ci ilian o ganisa ions i.e. he s udy does no co e law en o cemen agencies, such as he po- lice, bo de pa ol). As a esul , a o al o 47 o gani- za ions cons i u ed he subjec o ou inqui y. Conce ning he e i o ial s uc u e o he deconcen a ed s a e adminis a i e o ganiza ions in Hunga y, wo main ypes can be basically iden i ied, wi h he u he subdi ision o he second ype in o h ee subca ego ies: — o ganiza ions ope a ing a he coun y le el ( he NUTS 3 le el in he nomencla u e o e i o ial uni s o he Eu opean Union – Fig. 1) — o ganiza ions ope a ing a he egional le el — o ganiza ions wi h e i o ial compe ences aligned wi h he planning-s a is ical, NUTS 2 egions ( he e a e 7 planning-s a is ical egions in Hunga y p esen ly – Fig. 2) — o ganiza ions along he coun y bo de s bu aligned wi h he planning-s a is ical egions (Fig.3) — o ganiza ions wi h e i o ial compe ences no aligning wi h he coun y bo de s (bo de s a e mainly e ec ed by na u al geog aphical condi- ions – Fig. 4). ig. 1. Coun y sea s o Hunga y Explana ion: 1 – Budapes ; 2 – Pécs; 3 – Kecskemé ; 4 – Békéscsaba; 5 – Miskolc; 6–Szeged; 7 – Székes ehé á ; 8 – Győ ; 9 – Deb ecen; 10 – Ege ; 11 – Ta abán- ya; 12 – Salgó a ján; 13 – Kapos á ; 14 – Nyí egyháza; 15 – Szolnok; 16 – Szekszá d; 17– Szomba hely; 18 – Veszp ém; 19 – Zalaege szeg Sou ce: www.n u.hu (Homepage o Na ional De elopmen Agency), DoA: 9 Janua y 2013 Gábo Kozma, A ila Ba a / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 20 (2013): 59–69 62 ig. 2. Bo de s o Hunga ian planning-s a is ical egions Explana ion: 1 – Wes e n T ansdanubian egion; 2 – Cen al T ansdanubian egion; 3 – Sou he n T ansdanubian egion; 4 – Cen al Hunga ian egion; 5 – No he n Hunga ian egion; 6 – No he n G ea Plain egion; 7 – Sou he n G ea Plain egion Sou ce: www.n u.hu (Homepage o Na ional De elopmen Agency), DoA: 9 Janua y 2013 ig. 3. Bo de s o Mining Dis ic Au ho i ies o Mining and Geology Bu eau o Hun- ga y Sou ce: www.mb h.hu (Homepage o Mining and Geology Bu eau o Hunga y), DoA: 9 Janua y 2013 Gábo Kozma, A ila Ba a / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 20 (2013): 59–69 63 3. esul s The ole o he deconcen a ed s a e adminis a- i e o ganiza ions in Hunga y’s public adminis a- ion has inc eased a e he egime change o 1990, when a signi ican majo i y o he minis ies ied o exploi he space e ol ed a he in e media e le - el due o he dec easing ole o he coun ies. Thus, hey ied o ob ain posi ions a his le el, due o which he ole and in luence o he go e nmen has signi ican ly inc eased in he e i o ial s a e admin- is a ion. A he beginning o he 1990s mo e han 30 deconcen a ed s a e adminis a i e o ganiza- ions ope a ed in Hunga y. In o de o cease he pa allelism and o s op he o e g owing o ganiza- ions, he Hunga ian Socialis Pa y – Alliance o F ee Democ a s coali ion go e nmen ha en e ed in o powe in 1994 aimed o e iew and e o m he si ua ion o hese o ganiza ions. Al hough he e- o m implemen ed as a esul o he Go e nmen Decisions no. 1105/1995 (XI.1.) and 1027/1996 (IV.3.) led o he a ionalisa ion o he sys em a ace ain a e, nei he he con en , no he e i o ial s uc u e was basically changed (Szige i, 2000). The e i o ial de elopmen o deconcen a ed s a e ad- minis a i e o ganiza ions was conside ably e ec ed by he 35/1998 (III.20.) Decision o he Pa liamen on he Na ional Spa ial De elopmen Concep con- aining he sys em o planning-s a is ical egions o he i s ime ha is also in o ce oday. The igh -wing O bán go e nmen ha came in o powe in 1998 also conside ed he egional ans o ma ion o he e i o ially based s a e ad- minis a ion (and ini ially also he sel go e ning adminis a ion) as an impo an ask, in he back- g ound o which was p ima ily he e ec o he Eu- opean Union (accession nego ia ions wi h Hunga y s a ed in 1998). I was in his spi i ha Go e n- men Decision no. 1052/1999 (V. 21) on he plan o go e nmen al asks conce ning he con inued de- elopmen o he public adminis a ion sys em in 1999–2000 was adop ed. I p o ided ha , on he one hand “ he possibili ies o he o ma ion o sel - go e ning egions wi h elec ed bodies should be ex- amined,” and on he o he hand, “ he possibili ies o placing he e i o ially based s a e adminis a- ion on egional ounda ions should be examined,” and in he amewo k o he la e , he se en plan- ning-s a is ical egions should be gi en a p io i y. The ole o he se en planning-s a is ical egions was u he s eng hened by he Ac XCII o 1999 on amendmen o Ac XXI o 1996 on Regional De- elopmen and Regional Planning, which decla ed ha egional de elopmen councils ope a e in plan- ning-s a is ical egions. A he same ime, Go e n- ig. 4. Bo de s o Na ional Ins i u e o En i onmen Sou ce: www.neki.go .hu (Homepage o Na ional Ins i u e o En i onmen ), DoA: 9 Janua y 2013 Gábo Kozma, A ila Ba a / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 20 (2013): 59–69 64 men Decision no. 1057/2001. (VI. 21.) on he plan o go e nmen al asks conce ning he con inued de- elopmen o he public adminis a ion sys em in 2001–2002 can be ega ded as a s ep back, since om among he wo asks ou lined abo e, i only con ained he second one, which signalled he ac ha he O bán go e nmen abandoned he plan o o ming he sel -go e ning egions (Wiene , 2003). The nex la ge-scale go e nmen al in e en- ion in e i o ial sys em o deconcen a ed s a e adminis a i e o ganiza ions was implemen ed in 2003/2004, his ime al eady unde he leade ship o he le -wing/libe al go e nmen and his p ocess can be p ima ily explained by he accession o Hun- ga y o he Eu opean Union in 2004. On he one hand se e al egula ions, e.g. 2198/2003, 1113/2003, 1075/2004 Go e nmen al Decisions accen ua ed he necessi y o ha monising he e i o ial s uc u e o he deconcen a ed o ganiza ions and he planning- s a is ical egions (I ancsics, 2006), on he o he hand conc e e s eps we e o be aken e.g. ans- o ming he e i o ial o ganiza ions o he Cen- al S a is ical O ice. The o ma ion o he egional ie o he in e media e le el public adminis a ion was a e y impo an elemen o he p og amme o he le -wing/libe al Gyu csány go e nmen , elec ed in 2006 (NUTS 2-le el egions we e mean by e- gions); howe e , in he absence o a su icien pa lia- men a y majo i y, only he ans o ma ion o s a e adminis a ion could be accomplished by hem. The legal backg ound o he p ocess was c ea ed by Ac CIX o 2006 on he amendmen o ce ain s a u es in connec ion wi h changes in he b anch o go - e nmen , elying on which se e al go e nmen de- c ees issued in la e 2006 implemen ed he egional ans o ma ion o he deconcen a ed s a e admin- is a i e o ganisa ions, which had so a had coun- y-based s uc u e, in such a way ha hey we e aligned wi h he planning-s a is ical egions. The O bán go e nmen elec ed in 2010 al o- ge he abandoned he idea o he egions, and as a consequence, hey mo ed he emphasis also on he in e media e le el o e i o ial s a e adminis a- ion om egions o he coun ies as uni s o signi i- can his o ical adi ions. The e we e undamen ally wo ac o s in he backg ound o he p ocess: on he one hand, in ecen yea s, he Eu opean Un- ion is also displays an inc easing deg ee o dis us owa ds Eas e n-Eu opean egions (Pálné, Ko ács, 2009), on he o he hand, he new go e nmen was s i ing o emphasize independence om he Eu- opean Union, and his e o also mani es ed i - sel in he a ea o public adminis a ion. I was in he spi i o he abo e, ha he Hunga ian Pa lia- men passed Ac CXXVI o 2010 on me opoli an and coun y-le el go e nmen o ices and legisla- i e amendmen s pe aining o he es ablishmen o me opoli an and coun y-le el go e nmen o ic- es and o e i o ial in eg a ion, which s a ed ha he me opoli an and coun y-le el go e nmen o - ices a e he e i o ial s a e adminis a ion agencies o he cen al go e nmen wi h gene al compe ence. As he nex s ep o he ans o ma ion, Go e nmen Dec ee 288/2010 (XII. 21.) on he me opoli an and coun y-le el go e nmen o ices was adop ed, unde which he majo i y o he ea lie independen ly op- e a ing e i o ial uni s o he cen al adminis a ion became sub-uni s ( o use he o icial e m, special- ized adminis a i e agencies) o he me opoli an and coun y go e nmen o ices. Examining he de elopmen o he e i o i- al s uc u e o he deconcen a ed s a e adminis- a i e o ganiza ions (Table 1) we can essen ially e eal he e ec s o go e nmen al in e en ions de- ailed abo e. In he 1990s mo e han hal o he o - ganiza ions ope a ed a coun y le el (Hajdú, 2001) and he mos o he o ganiza ions ope a ing wi h- in egional ames did no i o he planning-s a- is ical egions. The only excep ion is he e i o ial o ices o he Hunga ian Geological Su ey and, in 1998, he b anch o ices o he Di ec o a e o Cul- u al He i age. The i s signi ican change in he e i o ial s uc u e was in oduced be ween 1998 and 2002, which was basically o igina ed om he Na ional Spa ial De elopmen Concep and Ac XCII o 1999 men ioned abo e. As a esul , on he one hand, he e i o ial s uc u e o he Na ional O ice o Meas- u es and he Hunga ian Cus oms and Finance Gua d was adjus ed o he planning-s a is ical e- gions (ea lie , bo h o ganiza ions ope a ed in he e i o ial s uc u e o coun ies), and on he o he hand, he majo i y o he newly c ea ed deconcen- a ed s a e adminis a ion o ganiza ions (Na ional Cen e o Assessmen and Examina ion in Public Educa ion, O ice o Immig a ion and Na ionali y, SAPARD O ice) ollowed he planning-s a is ical egions. The equilib ium ha was in place in 2002 Gábo Kozma, A ila Ba a / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 20 (2013): 59–69 65 able 1. The change o he e i o ial s uc u e o he deconcen a ed s a e adminis a i e o ganiza io June 1994 June 1998 June 2002 June 2006 Ap il 2010 Sep embe 2012 o ganiza ions ope a ing a coun y le el 17 17 16 14 7 19 o ganiza ions ope a ing a egional le el 16 15 18 23 29 15 O hese: o ganiza ions wi h e i o ial compe ences aligning wi h he planning-s a is ical egions 1 2 6 11 20 7 o ganiza ions along he coun y bo de s bu no aligned wi h he planning-s a is ical egions 10 8 6 6 4 3 o ganiza ions wi h e i o ial compe ences no aligned wi h he coun y bo de s 5 5 6 6 5 5 Sou ce: Compiled by he au ho s on he basis o go e nmen dec ees and decisions conce ning each o ganiza ion be ween he deconcen a ed s a e adminis a i e o - ganiza ions ope a ing on he coun y and egional le els was mo ed owa ds he egional o ganiza ions in 2006. I is ue ha h ee o ganiza ions ope a - ing in coun y amewo ks (Ag icul u al and Ru al De elopmen Agency, Na ional Land Fund Manag- ing O ganisa ion, and O ice o Jus ice) we e c ea ed in his pe iod, bu he abo emen ioned ans o ma- ion o he e i o ial o ganiza ions o he Cen al S a is ical O ice and he Hunga ian Asse Manage- men Di ec o a e; in addi ion, he e i o ial uni s o he Hunga ian Labou Inspec o a e also con in- ued hei wo k in acco dance wi h he planning-s a- is ical egions. The g ea es wa es o changes we e implemen - ed in Decembe 2006 when ce ain concen a ions we e implemen ed (e.g. he Na ional O ice o Meas- u es, whose asks we e aken o e by he Hunga ian T ade License O ice). Fu he mo e he go e nmen comple ed he egionaliza ion o he coun y-le - el o ganiza ions such as Tax and Financial Con- ol Adminis a ion, Na ional Public Heal h and Medical O ice Se ice, Public Adminis a ion O - ice, Na ional T anspo Au ho i y, Hunga ian S a e T easu y, Labou Cen e and Pension Paymen Di- ec o a e. The la ge-scale changes can be p ima i- ly a ibu ed o he ac ha in he Eu opean Union 2007–2013 p og amming pe iod, app oxima e- ly 25% o he inancial assis ance a ailable in he New Hunga y De elopmen Plan was used in he amewo k o he Regional Ope a i e P og ammes, and he cen al go e nmen belie ed ha he align- men o he sys em o deconcen a ed o ganisa ions would signi ican ly con ibu e o he success ul im- plemen a ion o hese p og ammes. The measu es o he new go e nmen en e ing in o powe in 2010 a he same ime also signi i- can ly changed he spa ial s uc u e o he e i o- ial o ganiza ions. The majo i y o he specialized adminis a i e agencies o he newly c ea ed me o- poli an and coun y go e nmen o ices, as a ma e o cou se, ha e con inued o wo k in he amewo k o he coun ies, bu we can also obse e some ex- cep ions: — Fo es y Au ho i ies ha e e i o ial ju isdic ions ha also c oss o e coun y lines. — O ices o Cul u al He i age ha e egional ju is- dic ions es ablished along coun y lines, bu hese egions a e no iden ical wi h he planning-s a- is ical egions. — The deconcen a ed o ganiza ions ea lie wo k- ing in he amewo k o he Hunga ian T ade Li- cense O ice, such as he O ices o Measu es and Technical Sa e y o he Me opoli an and Coun- y Go e nmen O ices con inued o ope a e on he le el o he planning-s a is ical egions. Pa allel wi h he eo ganiza ion o egional s a e adminis a ion, s ong compe i ion eme ged be- ween he indi idual coun y cen es o ge ing he i le o sea o he new egional o ganiza ional uni s, which is undamen ally due o he ac , as esea ch- e s (e.g. Ha ey, 1989) ag ee, ha he p esence o he gi en egional sea can ha e se e al ad an ages o he gi en se lemen : — he s a us o egional sea lends p es ige o he gi en se lemen , and i can be used, o exam- ple, in publica ions p omo ing he se lemen , hus also emphasizing he cen al ole played; — ha ing he egional sea inc eases he numbe o employees in he gi en se lemen , hus educ- Gábo Kozma, A ila Ba a / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 20 (2013): 59–69 66 ing unemploymen and he bu dens on he lo- cal go e nmen . Analysing he sea s o he cen es o deconcen- a ed o ganiza ions (Table 2) we can ind he si - ua ion o be clea in he case o i e egions whe e Deb ecen (No he n G ea Plain egion), Szeged (Sou he n G ea Plain egion), Pécs (Sou he n T ansdanubian egion), Miskolc (No he n Hun- ga ian egion), and Budapes (Cen al Hunga ian egion) ha e unc ioned as cen es o he mos o - ganiza ions in he whole pe iod examined. The im- po an ole o he coun y sea s conce ned can be explained by ha ing he la ges numbe o popula- ion wi hin he egion, hei cen al loca ion (in his espec , Miskolc is he only excep ion), and hei his o ical oles: he ci ies conce ned we e consid- e ed, al eady in he socialis e a as coun e poin s o Budapes , and hei de elopmen was a p io i y. able 2. The cen al o ices o he deconcen a ed ( e i o ial) s a e adminis a ion o ganiza ions ( he able con ains only hose se lemen s in which, in any o he yea s indica ed, a leas 10 o ganiza ions had hei cen es, he numbe o o gan- iza ions aligned wi h he planning-s a is ical egions in b acke s 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2012 Cen al Hunga ian egion Budapes 31 (1) 30 (2) 32 (6) 35 (11) 35 (20) 33 (7) No he n Hunga ian egion Miskolc 30 (0) 28 (1) 30 (5) 31 (8) 24 (11) 31 (6) Ege 21 (0) 19 (0) 19 (0) 20 (2) 17 (7) 23 (1) Salgó a ján 17 (1) 16 (1) 16 (1) 15 (1) 8 (2) 19 (0) No he n G ea Plain egion Deb ecen 31 (1) 30 (2) 31 (4) 32 (8) 25 (12) 30 (5) Nyí egyháza 20 (0) 20 (0) 20 (1) 20 (2) 16 (6) 23 (2) Szolnok 22 (0) 23 (0) 22 (1) 20 (1) 12 (2) 22 (0) Sou he n G ea Plain egion Szeged 28 (1) 27 (2) 28 (6) 28 (8) 22 (12) 29 (6) Kecskemé 21 (0) 22 (0) 21 (0) 21 (3) 16 (6) 23 (1) Békéscsaba 19 (0) 20 (0) 20 (0) 18 (0) 10 (2) 20 (0) Sou he n T ansdanubian egion Pécs 33 (1) 32 (2) 32 (4) 35 (9) 27 (12) 33 (6) Kapos á 19 (0) 18 (0) 19 (2) 18 (2) 14 (6) 21 (1) Szekszá d 18 (0) 18 (0) 17 (0) 15 (0) 9 (2) 19 (0) Wes e n T ansdanubian egion Győ 26 (0) 25 (1) 26 (4) 27 (7) 23 (14) 26 (5) Szomba hely 23 (0) 24 (1) 22 (1) 23 (3) 14 (4) 24 (1) Zalaege szeg 21 (0) 20 (0) 19 (1) 17 (1) 10 (2) 21 (1) Cen al T ansdanubian egion Székes ehé á 21 (0) 23 (1) 24 (3) 25 (6) 21 (12) 27 (5) Veszp ém 24 (1) 22 (1) 24 (3) 23 (5) 15 (6) 24 (2) Ta abánya 16 (0) 16 (0) 15 (0) 14 (0) 8 (2) 19 (0) Sou ce: Compiled by he au ho s on he basis o go e nmen dec ees and decisions conce ning each o ganiza ion In he Cen al T ansdanubian egion, Veszp ém s ill had a be e posi ion in 1994, a e which Székes ehé á began o eme ge g adually and be- came he egional cen e o s a e adminis a ion by 2010. A simila p ocess can be obse ed in he Wes e n T ansdanubian egion as well whe e he de elopmen and eme gence o Győ dec eased a he same ime he signi icance o o he u ban se le- men s (e.g. Szomba hely, Zalaege szeg). In he back- g ound o he p ocess in bo h cases was he ac Gábo Kozma, A ila Ba a / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 20 (2013): 59–69 67 ha Székes ehé á and Győ we e among he mos success ul ci ies o he economic ans o ma ion in Hunga y, and his ac also made i s e ec el in he poli ical sphe e while in he case o Székes ehé á , he e ec o he longe his o ical adi ion was also conside ed o be an impo an ac o . A he bo om o he lis a all imes we e Sal- gó a ján, Szekszá d and Ta abánya. In he i s wo cases, he low numbe o popula ion played an im- po an ole in he absence o cen es, o which was also added in he case o Salgó a ján he pe iphe al loca ion wi hin he egion, and in case o Szekszá d he ie ce compe i ion be ween Kapos á and Pécs. In he case o Ta abánya, he un a ou able posi ion can be aced back, i s ly, o he lack o adi ions in ha ci y in he ield o public adminis a ion, sec- ondly, o he compe i ion be ween Veszp ém and Székes ehé á , and hi dly, o he bad accessibili y om he o he wo coun y sea s. In connec ion wi h he es uc u ing in 2006, which gene a ed he g ea es changes, we can d aw he conclusion ha he go e nmen did no in- end o concen a e he cen es o he deconcen- a ed s a e adminis a i e o ganiza ions in o one own, bu i dis ibu ed hese o ganiza ions among he coun y sea s o he egions. In ou opinion, his ac can be undamen ally a ibu ed o wo hings. On he hand, he cen al go e nmen has endea - ou ed o sp ead he no ion o egional adminis- a i e s uc u e, and in his espec i would ha e been disad an ageous o concen a e he new cen- es in one coun y sea o each planning-s a is i- cal egion a he expense o igno ing he o he wo coun y sea s. On he o he hand, a e he an i-go - e nmen demons a ion in he au umn o 2006, he go e nmen did no wan o ha e u he con lic s wi h he mainly opposi ion-lead coun y sea s be- cause a e he local elec ion o 2006 only six coun y sea s –Nyí egyháza, Miskolc, Szeged, Pécs, Székes- ehé á and Szomba hely – had mayo s who came om he go e ning pa y. 4. conclusions The mos impo an conclusions o his s udy can be summa ized as ollows. The in e media e le el o public adminis a ion can be ega ded as unbal- anced in Hunga y since he egime change, due o he lack o poli ical consensus, wi h a iew o he s a u o y equi emen s applicable o he a ea con- ce ned, o a long ime no signi ican decisions we e made ei he in he coun y s. egion deba e o in e ms o he scopes o compe ence o he indi id- ual e i o ial le els. Consequen ly, he ac i i ies o he cen al go e nmen we e limi ed o he ans- o ma ion o one b anch o public adminis a ion, i.e. s a e adminis a ion. In he backg ound o he p ocesses ha ook place un il he second hal o he 1990s was he in en ion o inc easing e icien- cy and c ea ing o ganisa ional uni s o app op ia e size, and hen wi h he da e o accession coming close , he e ec o Eu opeaniza ion played and in- c easingly impo an ole. In he new millennium, p epa a ion o he egional policy o he Eu ope- an Union al eady played an impo an ole, which is also shown by he ac ha as a esul o hei ans o ma ion in 2006, o ganisa ion aligned wi h he NUTS 2 le el came o domina e. Simul aneous- ly, he ole o he in e nal ac o s can be ega ded as minimal, which can be explained by he a i icial na u e o he o ma ion o he egions ( he coun y bo de s could no be changed) and wi h he weak egional iden i y (Pálné, Ko ács, 2009). In he ligh o he abo e i is no su p ising ha he alignmen o e i o ial s uc u e o he decon- cen a ed s a e adminis a i e o ganiza ions o he planning-s a is ical egions began a he end o he 1990s, a e he accep ance o he Na ional Spa ial De elopmen Concep and he amendmen o he law on egional de elopmen . In he in e es o he success ul implemen a ion o he Eu opean Union’s egional policy in he 2007–2013 pe iod he go e n- men o med in 2006 ook signi ican s eps in he a ea o aligning he spa ial s uc u e o he o ganiza- ions wi h he planning-s a is ical egions. Howe - e , he pe iod a e 2010 saw a majo es uc u ing, he signi icance o he coun y le el inc eased again, which can be p ima ily aced back o he changed poli ical p e e ences o he new go e nmen . In he pe iod examined, no signi ican changes ook place a he op and a he bo om o he lis acco ding o he numbe o sea s: he la ges , economically mos impo an , geog aphically he mos a ou - ably loca ed se lemen s o he indi idual egions ein o ced hei leading posi ions, wi h Székes e- hé á in he Cen al T ansdanubian and Győ in