Overview of territorial governance and territorial integration in development documents of Baranya county, since the EU accession to date

Abstract

The Regional Development Act of Hungary in 1996 was part of the European mainstream. However, in subsequent periods, the European discourse on territoriality, the placebased approach of European cohesion policy, notions of ‘territorial cohesion’ and ‘territorial integration’ have only partially been integrated into national regulations. The aim of this study is to highlight the distinctive periods of Hungarian regional development policy through the example of Baranya county and manifestations of the place-based approach between 2003 and the present.

The first part of the study provides a theoretical overview on territorial governance, territorial cohesion, and their significance in the European integration process. This section also outlines regulations of EU cohesion policy, its growing preference for tools of territorial integration and the place-based approach. This is followed by a short methodological summary and a subsequent comparative analysis of the relevant regional development documents (Baranya county development concept – 2003, South Transdanubian Operational Programme 2007-2013, Baranya county development concept and programme and the Baranya county integrated territorial programme of 2014-2020) that apply the place-based typology developed by Fabrizio Barca (2009). The three dimensions of the qualitative analysis include territorial dialogue, participation in the planning process; presence of territorial diversity and knowledge indocuments; and the availability of regional institutions with real capacities.

As the analysis shows, dialogue and participation have been more and more regulated, thus ensured. While the Regional Development Act defined a narrow group of compulsory stakeholders to consult, later regulations expected deeper involvement and, more recent programmes, the preparation of partnership plans. Besides bottom-up procedures, top-down coordination has also been significantly strengthened in each period. Territorial diversity and the application of territorial knowledge have been investigated through the appearance of territorial objectives in documents. These were found to be available in each period, although with signiTcantly diUerent logics. Thedevelopment programme of 2003 was an aggregation of microregional programmes, while the one in2007 provided a diUerentiated territorial approach to each priority of a regional, yet centrallycoordinated operational programme. The concept and programme of 2014 had a strong territorial approach, however the integrated territorial programme (ITP) of Baranya county promoted territoriality only through region-specific project selection criteria that was significantly different from the integrated territorial investment (ITI) tool introduced by the EU. In terms of the institutional criterion, the weaknesses identified in the 2003 document were somewhat remedied at the regional level in 2007. Nevertheless, the change in the role of county administrations led to the weakening of regional capacities for the 2014-2020 period. As a conclusion I suggest that the weak institutional framework has remained the key obstacle for place-based regional development policy in Hungary.