The Situation of Children and Young People at the Regional Level in Hungary

Prepared by Hungary Country Statistical Team Co-ordinator: Judit Lakatos Central Statistical Office, Budapest

MONEE Country Analytical Report November 2004

The project to monitor the impact of economic and social change on children in Eastern and Central Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (MONEE) was initiated at the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre in 1992. The project seeks to monitor, analyse and disseminate information on economic and social trends affecting children’s rights and wellbeing in countries in the region. A key feature of the Project is a network of correspondents in the 27 National Statistical Offices (NSOs). On an annual basis these correspondents complete an extensive data template which in turn is used for calculating indicators, supporting research of the project and, in due course, being made publicly available as the TransMonee database and in tables and graphs of the Innocenti Social Monitor.

For a number of years, each participating NSO prepared a Country Analytical Report based on extensive outline from UNICEF IRC on a different theme on the situation of children every year. These analytical reports have provided valuable input into the research at UNICEF IRC and, as significantly, have also served as important national documents on monitoring aspects of child wellbeing in the countries. Some of these Country Analytical Reports have been issued by the NSOs (in the national language) as part of their publication programme.

UNICEF IRC attaches great value to these national assessments of the situation of children and is committed to promote the efforts, including through translating the reports into English (where the submitted report has been in Russian) and offering its website to make them accessible to a wider research audience. The Country Analytical Reports are owned and authored by the National Statistical Offices and are not the intellectual property of UNICEF (see below).

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or view of UNICEF. The text has not been edited for official publication standards and UNICEF accepts no responsibility for errors. The designations in this publication do not imply an opinion on legal status of any country or territory, or of its authorities, or the delimitation of frontiers.

2

Child Well-being in the Regions of Hungary by Judit Lakatos

Budapest, 2004

3 The territorial-administrative structure

In Hungary, the basic units of the territorial administrative structure are the 20 historical counties, which correspond to the European NUTS-3 level. The Hungarian territorial administration is a centralised one in which the counties have only a limited decision making and financial autonomy. In Hungary NUTS-2 regions, the crucial level in the EU, were adopted in 1995 following lengthy debates. The 7 NUTS-2 regions are made up of 2 or 3 neighbouring counties. NUTS-1 regions, the so called big region level, were created as late as in 2003. Currently the territorial administrative structure is as follows:

NUTS-3 NUTS-2 NUTS-1 County Region Big region

Budapest Pest Central Hungary Central Hungary

Fejér Komárom-Esztergom Central Transdanubia Veszprém

Gy ır-Moson -Sopron Vas Western Transdanubia Zala

Baranya Somogy Southern Transdanubia Tolna Transdanubia

Borsod-Abaúj -Zemplén Heves Northern Hungary Nógrád

Hajdú-Bihar Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Northern Great Plain Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg

Bács-Kiskun Békés Southern Great Plain Csongrád Great Plain

The regions do not have any legal status, neither any shared history or traditions; for the time being, they amount to no more than artificially created units for accounting

4 purposes. They exist for the simple reason that the Union handles units with a population ranging from three million to eight hundred thousand in its funding system, and the Hungarian counties, the traditional administrative units, were to small.

Statistical data are required by the EU to be supplied at the regional level thus the main results of sampling surveys (HBS, LFS etc) for the regions are available. (For county level analyses, however, the samples usually are not big enough.) Time series regional data are available as of 1996, but in full coverage surveys (such as demographic surveys) regional data from earlier than 1996 can be produced too.

Population and demographic change

Of the regions, the Central Hungarian region has the largest population and is the most developed region in all aspects. This region includes the organically connected capital city of Budapest and county Pest. Over the last 15 years, an increasingly great number of people have moved out from Budapest into the neighbouring towns while keeping their jobs and sending their children to school in the city. 2.4 million of the total Hungarian population of 10 million live in Budapest and its agglomeration. This special feature of the Hungarian structure of cities, i.e. one single large influential city, is reflected in all regional data.

Between 1990 and 2003 Hungary’s population decreased by 230 thousand. The largest loss in people, however, took place in the Central Hungary region, which includes Budapest. The decline is primarily the result of the „exodus” from the capital city in the 1990s and to a smaller extent of the fertility rate, which is traditionally lower in this region than nationally. Between 1990 and 2003 the population grew in only one region – the Northern Great Plain – and by as few as 6700. At the same time, the loss in population was insignificant in Central Transdanubia and in Western Transdanubia. In the latter two regions this trend was probably due to the internal migration towards the economically more advanced areas, which, however, in Hungary is much more limited than what would be necessary or reasonable (the main reasons for this being territorial differences in costs of housing as well as the strength and economic role of traditional family networks).

5

The fertility rate decreased from the national 1.84 in 1990 to 1.28 in 2003, and parallel with this regional differences of the total fertility rate narrowed somewhat. In this respect, the Northern Great Plain region leads the pack, and within this region country Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg has the highest rate (2003: 1.51). Consequently, in 2003 18.4% of the population was under 15 as opposed to the national average of 16.1%. The share of children was the smallest in Central Hungary (14.5%), but regional differences decreased over the 13 year period with respect to this indicator, too.

Male life expectancy is the longest in Central Hungary (2003: 69.60 years) while in Northern Hungary men live three years shorter on average. Women tend to live longer lives, and differences in their life expectancy are less marked than in men.

In 2003 in Hungary the average family consisted of 2.68 persons (HBS data). Families were the largest in the Northern Great Plain (2.88 persons/family) while in Central Hungary the rate was 2.45.

6 Dependency ratios, ageing indices, 31 December

Regions Youth dependency Old-age Total dependency Ageing index ratio dependency ratio ratio 1990 2002 1990 2002 1990 2002 1990 2002

Central Hungary 27.8 20.9 21.7 23.1 49.4 44.0 78.1 110.6 Central 32.8 23.5 16.4 20.5 49.2 44.0 50.1 87.2 Transdanubia Western 31.7 22.1 20.2 22.1 51.9 44.2 63.8 100.2 Transdanubia Southern 30.6 23.4 19.4 22.6 50.0 46.0 63.5 96.8 Transdanubia Northern 32.4 25.9 19.4 23.2 51.8 49.1 59.8 89.3 Hungary Northern Great 34.9 27.3 18.5 20.9 53.4 48.2 52.8 76.8 Plain Southern Great 30.8 23.7 21.8 23.7 52.6 47.4 70.9 100.1 Plain Total 31.0 23.5 20.0 22.4 51.0 45.9 64.5 95.4

As for the ageing index */ , again these two regions represent the two extremes (110.6 and 76.8, respectively). Differences of this indicator have been steadily growing since 1990 as the ageing of society and the atomisation of households is more rapid in large cities than the average. These demographic phenomena, however, are related to the territorial location of the Roma population, too.

At the last census, some 180 thousand reported themselves to be Roma, yet experts estimate that the actual number of the Roma is around five or six hundred thousand. (Roma are specifically mentioned because in Hungary they are the only ethnic group that differs from the majority in terms of customs, social and economic characteristics.) The map based on the data of the census, however, allows to see the territorial distribution of the total Roma population. As seen in the cartrogram below, the share of the Roma, with their larger families, higher fertility and mortality rates, is the largest in the Northern Great Plain. Roma are also fairly concentrated in South Transdanubia and Northern Hungary. A larger than average share of the Roma live in tiny villages (regardless of region) with bad transportation connections which is responsible, inter alia, for their extremely bad employment indicators.

*/ The number of people 65 and older, and their ratio to the young under 15.

7

Regional economic structure and change

What primarily influences the lives of families, and of their children, is the overall economic situation of the given country and, to a much smaller extent, of the region. In this respect, it is quite important to see that in Hungary the various regions have unequally benefited from the economic transition. Central Hungary has retained its outstanding significance and weight (as a matter of fact, its share in GDP grew between 1995 and 2002). Industrial restructuring was relatively smooth in the regions of Central and Western Transdanubia.

Foreign capital concentrated in these regions through purchase of existing establishments (privatisation) and green field investment, which has also stimulated domestic businesses. At first, firms were attracted by the well developed infrastructure, productions traditions and qualified labour as well as the easy access to the capital city and western countries. Thus, large industrial parks were created in the cities of Gy ır and Székesfehérvár, where the first multinational company brought several others. Today, however, the situation has somewhat changed. Businesses

8 needing semi-skilled labour have been closing down their establishments in Hungary because of changes in their markets (the drop in Western European, primarily German demand, and a very promising Chinese market), and in search for cheaper labour they have been relocating to other countries causing the loss of jobs and tax revenues even in the Western parts of Hungary.

Because of the loss of the traditional Sovjet markets, firms in the Eastern part of Hungary (primarily the food manufacturing industry which, exploiting the good agricultural potential of the area, had produced mostly for the Sovjet market) have closed down while the North Eastern counties suffered from the cessation of heavy industrial activities.

Foreign capital inflow in the Eastern part of the country is insignificant compared to the western part, partly because of bad transportation connections (In terms of highways, Hungary is rather underdeveloped: in 2002 there were only 581 kms of highways of which about 300 kms were in Central Hungary and in Central Transdanubia. The construction of the highway towards the Eastern border, which stopped at only 60 kms a long time ago, has considerably accelerated over the past two years. With the highway, the eastern part of the country is expected to become a more attractive target area for capital.)

According to 2002 data, nearly 64% of HUF 7020.7 billion of FDI was concentrated in the Central Hungary region. Western Transdanubia had the second most FDI, 13.3%, the third was Central Transdanubia with 8.4% and the last one was South Transdanubia with 2%. The three other regions had more or less equal shares of the remaining 12%.

9 Enterprises with foreign direct investment, 2002

Number of Owner’s Of which: Owner’1s Of which Foreign Share of enterprises equity Foreign equity per Foreign direct foreign Region direct enterprise direct investment direct investment investment per investment inhabitant from HUF billion HUF thousand owner’s equity

Central Hungary 15497 5812.2 4455.1 35053.2 287481.4 1577.2 76.7 Central 1679 618.9 587.8 368.612.3 350089.3 527.8 95.0 Transdanubia Western 2593 988.6 933.2 381257.2 359892.0 929.2 59.4 Transdanubia Southern 1347 169.0 143.7 125.464.0 106681.5 145.2 85.0 Transdanubia Northern Hungary 779 463.3 331.0 594736.8 424903.7 256.8 71.4 Northern Great 2218 398.2 363.4 179531.1 163841.3 233.8 91.3 Plain Southern Great 1580 253.7 206.5 1605696 130696.2 151.1 81.4 Plain Total 25693 87039 7020.7 338765.4 273253.4 692.2 80.7

In 2002, in Central Hungary the per capita GDP in PPS terms was 87.5% of the EU15 average, making it one of the three regions in accession countries that is not entitled to funding based on the GPD indicator. The per capita GDP in PPS terms in Western Transdanubia, the second most developed region in Hungary, was 55.2% (well under the 75% threshold) while the last one was Northern Hungary with 34%.

Regional standard of living

The labour market position of families is one of the most important determinants of their living standard. The poverty risk of families without an employed member and raising children is several times as high as that of families in which all adults work. The unequal economic restructuring that took place in the various regions has resulted in significant regional differences in employment which have increased rather than decreased over the past year and a half. While the employment rate has grown in all regions since its lowest in the mid-1990s, the rate of increase has been slower in the Northern and North Eastern parts of the country. In 2003 the national average of the employment rate in the population aged 15-64 was 57%, which is one of the lowest in the EU25.

The regional rate is 62.3% in Central Transdanubia, 61.7% in Central Hungary (63.3% in the capital city) and 61.9% in Western Transdanubia were the highest. The

10 other pole is Northern Hungary and the Northern Great Plain with 51.2% and 51.6%, respectively while in South Transdanubia the rate is only slightly higher (53.4%). The difference between the counties with the best and the worst indicators is even greater. While out of 100 aged 15-64 in county Vas and in Budapest 64 work, only 48 and 49 in Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg and Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén, the two worst counties in terms of employment rate.

Obviously, the unemployment rate is low in regions with high employment rates, and is high in the ones with low employment rates. Based on LFS, in 2003 the two extremes were Central Hungary (3.9%) and Northern Hungary (8.6%). In terms of registered unemployment, the difference is greater (2.8% and 15.6%). As the unemployment benefit is conditional upon registration, in areas with few jobs a part of the unemployed have already given up actively looking for a job (which is one criteria of unemployment according to the LFS definition) but are registered in order to be eligible for the benefit. And the other way around, in regions with good economic situation, one stands good chances to find another job within a short while and thus does not necessary undertake the procedure of registration.

In addition to structural processes outlined in the previous chapter, the polarity in the national labour market situation is caused by the liquidation of traditional large companies in Budapest to where earlier a great number of workers (mainly unskilled males) had commuted from the eastern parts of Hungary.

According to the 2002 HBS, in the Central Hungary region 42 of 100 persons were active earners and 28 were on retirement pension while in Northern Hungary the figures were 31 and 29, in the Northern Great Plain 32 and 27. These differences are heavily manifest in the per capita net income of families. In 2002, the per capita net income in the Central Hungary region was by 36% higher than in Northern Hungary, the lowest income region.

The majority of social security benefits and social supports (for instance the family allowance, maternity benefits, unemployment benefit) are statutory provisions; depending on their financial situations, however, local governments may provide additional types of assistance. Because of the scarcity of resources, people living in

11 the poor regions stand a smaller chance to get any additional aid than those who are the financially worst-off in richer regions (municipalities).

Poverty ratio per region in 2000 (Calculated by OECD3 scale)

Total Poverty ration Region Number of poor non-institutional (%) population

Central Hungary 232200 2812696 8,3 Central Transdanubia 88130 1094720 8,1 Western Transdanubia 61810 973085 6,4 Southern Transdanubia 144960 968142 15,0 Northern Hungary 199228 1263336 15,8 Northern Great Plain 233256 1508832 15,5 Southern Great Plain 190865 1332234 14,3 Total 1150449 9953045 11,6

Education and Health

The health care and education systems are identical everywhere and are financed centrally on a normative basis without significant regional differences. Nonetheless, access to these services varies by the hierarchy of municipalities. While residents of Budapest and of large cities may decide mostly freely which educational and health institutions they want to use those living faraway from centres have few options and can use higher qualtiy services only if they travel long distances. Part of the health care infrastructure of the capital city serves the total population of the country which makes the per capita indices here saliently high, but apart from this there are no significant differences between the regions.

12 Main health service indicators

Inhabitants Family Consulting Cases of Hospital County, capital, General per paediatrists hours per medical beds per region practitioners General per 1000 treatment 10 000 Practitioner 100 000 inhabitants per inhabitants inhabitants inhabitant

Central Hungary 1451 1947 19 2235 24.5 94.0 Central 553 2014 15 1379 5.6 69.8 Transdanubia Western 515 1950 14 1353 13.0 80.2 Transdanubia Southern 542 1825 15 1570 13.6 74.5 Transdanubia Northern Hungary 637 2023 13 1260 14.8 74.1 Northern Great 736 2112 14 1399 14.6 71.8 Plain Southern Great 691 1978 16 1516 17.8 72.3 Plain Total 5125 1979 13 1624 17.8 79.2

The geographic distribution of public education institutions is even. As the network of institutions (at least primary schools) were originally created for far more children, their maintenance seems to be a financial problem. Small municipalities regard giving up their own schools as reducing their autonomy though to raise the professional quality of schools would require greater centralisation. A precondition, however, to commuting between towns, would be the creation of a busing system.

Higher education is regionally less evenly distributed than public education, and, similarly to the health care system and cultural institutions, Budapest (i.e. the central region) plays a decisive role. Half of the higher education institutions are in Budapest, and 48% of higher education students study in the capital city. Nearly half of all theater performances and over half of movie spectacles are held in Budapest. Every third visit to a museum takes place in the capital city.

Government Finance

Financial resources available for the regions come overwhelmingly from central normative transfers (for instance, in 2004 the municipality running the school gets HUF 408 thousand per pupil) and from local revenues. The latter is mainly made up of the local share of personal income tax revenues (the percentage is the same for all

13 municipalities) and local tax revenues of which the largest item is the business tax (a percentage of sales revenues of local businesses). As the difference in terms of local taxes between regions (or to be more accurate the counties making up a particular region, and the municipalities in it) may be quite substantial, there is a central leverage system in place too. Given the system financial resources as described above, regional sectoral data (for health care, education etc,) are not available.

Some regional variables of families with children

On the whole, families with children are in a worse financial situation than childless ones, and families raising three or more children are worse-off than families with one or two children. The income and consumption of families with the equal number of children, however, are markedly different regionally due to the different household composition. Nationally, in 2002 18.8% of members of households with three or more children were active earners; the regional percentage was much higher in Western Transdanubia (23.3%) and in Central Hungary and Central Transdanubia (23.2% and 23.9%) while Northern Hungary (12.1%) and the Northern Great Plain (13.8%) represented the other extreme.

Poor families spend a larger part of their incomes on food than better-off ones. In 2002 nationally 28.8% of consumption expenditures were spent on food, and 33.8% in families with three or more children. The share of income spent on food by large families ranged from 30.6% in Central Hungary to 39% in the Northern Great Plain. In terms of physiologically valuable food, the gap between large families and families without children tends to be greater in the poorer regions. Thus, in the Northern Great Plain region the annual per capita consumption of fruits and vegetables of families with three or more children is half of that of childless families, and one third of cheese and dairy, while the difference is around 30% in both categories of food in Central Hungary.

In 2002 in the Northern Great Plain region, a child in a large family had 91.4 kilos of fruit and vegetables and 6.6 kilos of cheese and other dairy products on the annual

14 average while in Central Hungary 103.3 kilos and 13.6 kilos, respectively. (Detailed tables for 1996 and 2002 by household type and region are attached.)

In 2001 a supplementary survey to LFS was conducted on the costs of raising children for society and families as well as on the various possibilities and needs of families. This paper examines only two factors surveyed in „Family in Transition” that influence children’s future life careers: language learning and computer skills. Children’s opportunities in these two areas mostly depend on their parents’ social and financial situation and education, and these are the factors that are primarily reflected in regional differences. Educational possibilities in the municipalities are different even within the same type of school (for instance, all municipalities have primary schools but not all of the schools offer intensive foreign language classes.) Of course, in the capital city (and in Central Hungary) the possibilities are better; nevertheless, also the interest advocacy capability of the given community is an important factor everywhere in getting extra education.

In Hungary, language skills for the younger generations is of outstanding importance as speaking Hungarian does not help in either possible studies abroad or in finding a job. Language skills of elder generations well demonstrate how unsuccessful compulsory foreign language learning is; for an adequate level of language competence, extra sources are needed (intensive language classes at school, private tutor or private courses). In 2001, such „extra” sources were available mostly for the children in Central Transdanubia and Central Hungary (17.5% and 16% of all primary and secondary school pupils went to language-intensive schools or learnt a foreign language privately.) Parents of children in Northern Hungary „invest” the least in their children’s language learning: only 10% of pupils learnt languages intensively.

15

The number of households by the participation of children in language learning

In the Only int he With Total of school in Total of normal private Total of household an non Regions school teacher language with intensive language curriculum (too) learners school- form learners The child(ren) learn(s) languages children

Number of children

Central Hungary 164 074 23 715 13 852 201 641 33 105 234 746 Central Transdanubia 74 087 12 417 6 756 93 260 16 224 109 484 Western Transdanubia 68 385 8 198 6 665 83 248 11 757 95 005 Southern Transdanubia 68 608 10 354 2 548 81 510 11 794 93 304 Northern Hungary 93 699 7 743 4 911 106 353 17 573 123 926 Northern Great Plain 111 733 10 258 10 807 132 798 21 487 154 285 Southern Great Plain 88 492 9 086 8 142 105 720 18 341 124 061 Total 669 078 81 771 53 681 804 530 130 281 934 811

(%)

Central Hungary 69.9 10.1 5.9 85.9 14.1 100.0 Central Transdanubia 67.7 11.3 6.2 85.2 14.8 100.0 Western Transdanubia 72.0 8.6 7.0 87.6 12.4 100.0 Southern Transdanubia 73.5 11.1 2.7 87.4 12.6 100.0 Northern Hungary 75.6 6.2 4.0 85.8 14.2 100.0 Northern Great Plain 72.4 6.6 7.0 86.1 13.9 100.0 Southern Great Plain 71.3 7.3 6.6 85.2 14.8 100.0 Total 71.6 8.7 5.7 86.1 13.9 100.0

Source: LFS ad-hoc module 2001

Over the past years, left wing governments have substantially subsidised the young to learn computer skills. (Between 1994 and 1998 public education institutions were equipped with computers and Internet access, and from 2003 on a special tax relief helps families with children buy a computer at home). In 2001 three quarters of school-age children used computer and another 16.5% of them did not use one regularly (for instance they were too young) but their parents considered computer skills important. The share of children having access to a computer also at home was again the greatest in Central Transdanubia and Central Hungary while South Transdanubia and the South Great Plain were the most disadvantaged in this respect. Northern Hungary, though economically depressed, had had long industrial traditions, and thus scored at about the middle both in terms of access to skills and of parents’ attitudes.

16 Number of households by the opportunity of their school age children to use computer

The They use it but only at Use only at Use Use only children of school home both at household of them: at home another do(es) not agree with and at place Regions Total use using it school total computer but cannot afford to buy

Central Hungary 59 300 79 145 47 540 11 433 84 573 295 234 746 Central Transdanubia 22 734 36 301 22 141 7 067 42 861 521 109 484 Western Transdanubia 20 430 39 953 21 975 4 226 29 696 700 95 005 Southern Transdanubia 23 581 42 067 27 109 2 171 24 738 747 93 304 Northern Hungary 33 564 48 080 29 448 3 957 38 033 292 123 926 Northern Great Plain 40 721 62 358 39 600 6 990 43 966 250 154 285 Southern Great Plain 32 464 56 650 33 527 3 523 30 444 980 124 061 Total 232 794 364 554 221 340 39 367 294 311 3 785 934 811

Central Hungary 25.3 33.7 20.3 4.9 36.0 0.1 100.0 Central Transdanubia 20.8 33.2 20.2 6.5 39.1 0.5 100.0 Western Transdanubia 21.5 42.1 23.1 4.4 31.3 0.7 100.0 Southern Transdanubia 25.3 45.1 29.1 2.3 26.5 0.8 100.0 Northern Hungary 27.1 38.8 23.8 3.2 30.7 0.2 100.0 Northern Great Plain 26.4 40.4 25.7 4.5 28.5 0.2 100.0 Southern Great Plain 26.2 45.7 27.0 2.8 24.5 0.8 100.0 Total 24.9 39.0 23.7 4.2 31.5 0.4 100.0

Source: LFS ad-hoc module 2001

17