Hungary by Anita Halasz (CEU CPS)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cohesion policy implementation, performance and communication Report on Hungary By Anita Halasz (CEU CPS) The COHESIFY project (February 2016-April 2018) has receiveD funDinG from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme unDer grant agreement No. 693127 1 Contents 1. Context and background .............................................................................. 4 1.1. Socio-economic background ................................................................... 4 1.2. Political context ........................................................................................... 4 1.3. European identity ........................................................................................ 6 2. Cohesion policy implementation and performance .................................. 7 2.1 EU Cohesion policy strategic and implementation framework ............. 7 2.2. Implementation framework and partnership structures ........................ 18 2.3. Assessment of performance .................................................................... 26 2.4. Assessment of added value ..................................................................... 36 3. Cohesion policy communication ............................................................... 38 3.1. Approach to communication .................................................................. 38 3.2. Assessment of the effectiveness of communication strategies ............ 44 3.3. Good practice examples ......................................................................... 52 3.4. Media framing of Cohesion Policy .......................................................... 54 3.5. Implications for citizens CP perceptions and attitudes to the EU ......... 60 4. Citizens views of Cohesion Policy and the EU ........................................... 61 5. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 69 6. References .................................................................................................... 72 7. Annex - List of interviews ............................................................................. 73 2 Introduction The objective of this case study is to analyse implications of Cohesion policy for the European identity in Hungary. The study refers to programme periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 (up to the end of 2017). The key methodological requirement in the Horizon 2020 project call was a comparative case study approach Based on “genuine and innovative case studies from MemBers States with different current and historical territorial administrative frameworks and regional identities.” The case study is Based on mixed-methods design employing qualitative and quantitative methods (surveys of citizens and stakeholders, in-depth interviews, focus groups, documentary analysis, content analysis of political party manifestos and media framing analysis); and By adopting a cross- cutting approach with a common case study structure to facilitate comparative analysis. Part 1 of the case study is focused on the socio-economic context and Background of identity formation. Part 2 discusses the implementation and performance of Cohesion policy, relying desk research, stakeholder surveys and interviews. Part 3 analyses the communication aspects in terms of the effectiveness of communication strategies, Based on media framing analysis, surveys and stakeholder interviews on the public perceptions of Cohesion policy. Finally, part 4 tackles the impact of Cohesion policy on identification with the EU, drawing on the citizens survey and focus group tasks. 3 1. Context and background 1.1. Socio-economic background Soon after the start of the 2007-2013 programming period, Hungary has Been facing one of the most severe recessions within the EU. Already at the Beginning of the crisis, Hungary received financial assistance from the EU and the IMF and there was a need for consideraBle fiscal consolidation in the country. At this time, Hungary has Been facing multiple challenges, among them were the challenges to restore fiscal staBility, to raise laBour force participation and to increase the lbaour supply of under-represented groups, to improve general puBlic administration and to improve the efficiency of of the health and education systems1. Furthermore, Hungary also faced challenges necessitating structural reforms in the product and laBour markets. After the crisis, the main drivers of faster growth have Been the inflows of FDI and EU structural funds. The domestic Business environment has Been impacted By the frequently changing regulatory environment. Skill requirements on the laBour market have increased the demand for higher skills, while the education system reacted slowly. Increasing laBour market participation has been bolstered by the expanded public works schemes, however, training within these schemes was not effective enough to improve relevant laBour market skills. Administrative Burdens and regulatory instaBility had a detrimental impact on the overall Business environment. Currently, growth in the Hungarian economy has Been picking up (from 1,9% in 2016 to an estimated 3.5% in 2017), and growth has Been mainly driven by domestic demand. Real GDP surpassed its pre-crisis peak. Towards the end of the 2007-2013 programming period, GDP growth has Been significantly Bolstered By the inflow of EU funds into the Hungarian economy. The temporary decline of EU-funded investment in 2016 reduced growth for 2016, But the impact of the inflow of EU funds on GDP growth in Hungary should again pick up with the gradually increasing absorption of EU funds. The drop in the inflow of EU funds after 2015 affected private investment, too. In 2017, the laBour market situation has Been gradually improving in Hungary, the activity rate has rapidly increased and unemployment has Been falling, due to the orientiation of social policy and the influence of pension policies. Recently, laBour market shortages are showing up at all skill levels, indicating the tightening of the Hungarian laBour market in 2017. 1.2. Political context With the exception of JOBBIK, national parties in Hungary are strongly in favour of Both European integration and EU Cohesion policy (DeBus and Gross 2017). Note, however, that Fidesz, governing with an aBsolute majority, changed its position on European integration radically in 2014. Fidesz is now heavily opposed to European integration issues But still in favour of CP (see TaBle 1). TaBle 1. National party positions on European integration and EU Cohesion policy in Hungary 1 The contriBution of EU funds to the economic development of Hungary and to the tackling of these challenges are descriBed in more detail in the subsequent sections of the report. 4 Party European integration Cohesion policy 2006 2010 2014 2006 2010 2014 MSZP 6.83 6.85 6.07 6.40 6.47 6.50 FIDESZ-MPP 5.50 5.35 2.70 6.20 6.06 5.92 MDF 6.60 5.93 - 6.40 6.00 - SZDSZ 7.00 6.60 - 6.40 6.25 - KDNP 4.50 4.88 - 6.20 5.47 - JOBBIK - 2.35 1.21 - 4.31 4.50 LMP - 6.47 5.29 - 6.19 6.09 E14 - - 6.64 - - 6.42 DK - - 6.71 - - 6.58 Note: Party policy positions are Based on a CHES seven-point scale, ranging from ‘strongly opposed’ (1) to ‘strongly in favour’ (7); see (Bakker et al., 2015). Unfortunately, only the 2010 Fidesz election manifesto was availaBle for coding European issues. Hence, there is no possiBility to draw any conclusion regarding if Fidesz’ radical shift on its policy stances towards European integration in 2014 might Be mirrored in an increasing or decreasing issue emphasis of European issues in the 2014 election manifesto. Yet, it seems that European issues featured more prominently in the 2010 elections than in the following election (see Figure 1). CP does play a role for parties’ election campaigns But most of the Hungarian parties talk more about Europe and the EU in general than about EU funding (see Figure 2). Figure 1. EUPER by parties by election year in Hungary Note: Bars show the percentage of the national manifestos (grouped By party and election year) that focuses on European issues (EUPER). A Blank space indicates that a party’s election manifesto could not Been coded. 5 Figure 2. EUGEN and SUMFUND by parties in Hungary Note: Bars in dark grey show the average percentage of the national manifestos (grouped By party) that focuses on Europe in general (EUGEN). Bars in light grey show the average sum of all categories related to EU funding (SUMFUND) in parties’ national manifestos. 1.3. European identity In the first years after accession, Hungarians exhiBited a higher level of trust in the EU as compared to the EU average. Eurobarometer data show that in 2006, 61 percent of the Hungarians trusted the EU, compared to 45 percent of EU average. 2 The trust of Hungarians in the EU moved in line with trust in the EU in the whole EU, and consistently stayed aBove EU average. In 2017, 46% of Hungarians trusted the EU, compared to 42 percent of EU average. The attachment of Hungarians to the European Union is close to the EU average within the EU. In 2017, according to EuroBarometer, 55 percent have Been very attached or fairly attached to the EU in Hungary, as compared to 54 percent at the EU average. This represent some decline in attachment to the EU in Hungary since the years following accession. At the same time, the level of optimism about the future of the EU amongst Hungarians is somewhat higher than the EU average. The level of optimism of Hungarians aBout the future of the EU declined