Development opportunities at the periphery in light of a survey in Baranya county

Abstract

The study analyses the concept of centre-periphery in the rural-urban, county-capital county context using the results of two primary data collections. In addition, it presents a general problem map of Baranya county and examines the municipalities in terms of objective (based on statistical data) and subjective (through questionnaires and interviews) success. Empirical data also confirm the persistence of centres and peripheries in the county, a situation that can only be counterbalanced by the proper use of local resources, the activity of the population and conscious planning and settlement management, and in some places by the mayor himself.

The development of peripheral municipalities is a major challenge, given the scale and complexity of the problems. The demographic structure is also affected due to poor infrastructure, lack of employment opportunities and obstacles to access to public services, with an exodus of the more active and educated classes. Yet there are examples of how it is possible to develop, maintain or even increase prosperity in such peripheral areas (geographical, economic, power). Our study does not give a recipe for success, but provides empirical evidence of the decisive role played by its key components (existence of an economic base, preparation and activity of local authorities, conscious planning, human and social capital, etc.).

The study analyses the relationship between success and peripherality along economic and social factors. We examine the attitudes of local elites in Baranya county towards success in four main dimensions: conditions for success, development areas, personal competences, and factors of local economic development. We found that respondents identified success with commitment and an emotional factor (family ties in the municipality, property ownership, friendships, etc.). Our empirical research confirms that the existence of an economic base and jobs is a prerequisite everywhere. Developing a city without its surroundings is a wrong decision (Enyedi 1997). Infrastructural development in rural areas can facilitate access to jobs in the centre, thus reducing the chances of marginalisation. However, good infrastructure, both for passenger car traffic and public transport, is not sufficient for catching up, but is a primary factor. The availability of public services is a key element in the conditions for success, and it would therefore be desirable to ensure that they are organised optimally at local and regional levels. This requires well-prepared municipal management, which, according to the surveys, is also an important prerequisite for success.

Our attempt to assess success shows that grassroots development and local resource management are becoming increasingly accepted in the county. However, the interviews also suggest that the success of local economic development is still a function of complex factors, missing elements can in most cases only be addressed with government assistance through a Member of Parliament.