- Email: [email protected]
Hungary
INATION
PROFILEI
Hungary The National Settlement Development Strategy
Paul A. Compton
This article first outlines Hungarian urban history from the 19th century and then analyses the country’s current urban policy, in particular the National Settlement Development Strategy (NSDS). It is pointed out that the dismemberment of Hungary after the first world war left Budapest with a disproportionate role in the nation’s settlement system. The setting up of the NSDS in 1971 was designed to resolve this regional imbalance and involved three main categories of settlement, from Budapest and the five largest regional cities at the top to villages and small towns in the lower tier. Criticisms that the NSDS was overcentralized and inflexible are noted, and the article describes the 1981 modifications to the strategy. It concludes with some predictions for the future Hungarian urban development policy. Urbanization; Keywords: Regional policy
Hungary;
Dr Compton is with the Department of Geography, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast BT7 INN, Northern Ireland. UK
374
One of the most characteristic features of the transformation of Hungarian society during the last three decades has been the growing dominance of an urban lifestyle. This is expressed not only in the rising proportion of the population that resides in the towns and cities and in the growing number of settlements that are designated as towns, but also in the expansion of urban-like occupations in those areas that remain. morphologically speaking, essentially rural. At first this shift towards a more urban-centred society was an incidental effect of industrialization and agricultural modernization, but as such issues as decentralization, regional development and the elimination of spatial differences in living standards and service provisions came more to the fore, so the need for a more coherent urban policy became increasingly apparent. Accordingly, in 1971 the Hungarian government adopted the National Settlement Development Conception or Strategy, which has become the master plan for national urban development policy. It goes without saying that urban policy in Hungary is both a reflection of and a response to processes which have brought about urban development and change, which are in turn a function of more general social and economic processes as well as of specific historical factors. It is also through an urban policy that certain social ends arc achieved and incompatible processes reconciled. Urban policy in Hungary cannot therefore be treated in isolation. but has to be set within the context of the general factors and values that have influenced the development of the urban system. Because of this, the article falls into two distinct sections: the first part is a historical resum6 of the evolution of the urban system, concentrating on those processes that have brought about its characteristic features, the second discusses Hungarian urban policy in general. and the National Settlement Development Strategy (NSDS) in particular.
0264-2751/84/040374-13$03.00
0 Butterworth
& Co (Publishers)
Ltd
Hungary:
Urban development
The National Settlement Development
Authority
in Hungary
Using the empirical examples of Western Europe and North America, a three-stage model of urban development is posited. The first stage comprises a period of explosive growth and concentration of population in urban centres. The second stage is relative urban decentralization as growth in the largest cities ceases and suburbanization comes to the fore, while the third stage is marked by absolute urban decline or counterurbanization as the focus of population increase passes beyond the urban fringe into intervening rural space. Explosive urban development
When this schema is applied to Hungary, it is clear that urbanization has only recently reached the point of transition between stages one and two, even though Hungarian urbanization is over a century old. Thus, not only has the explosive stage of urban growth taken relatively long to complete, it also falls into two distinct phases separated by a period of urban stagnation. The first phase embraced the last third of the 19th century and was brought to an end by the outbreak of the first world war. This period was marked by the explosive growth of Budapest, which had by 1910 evolved into a modern European city with a well developed urban infrastructure, including an advanced public transport system. Two main factors led to this rapid growth. First, with the creation of the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary Budapest became the undisputed capital of a territory which stretched from the outskirts of Vienna to the eastern limb of the Carpathians and included part of the Adriatic seaboard. The enhanced administrative importance that Budapest thus acquired generated additional commercial and financial functions, thereby stimulating urban growth. The second factor was the awakening of industrial activity. The export of grain to central and western Europe stimulated the construction of a rail network centred on Budapest. Out of the grain export trade there soon grew an extensive flour milling ndustry, which in turn quickly evolved into a more broadly based food processing industry. The needs of the food processing industry and continuing rail construction then stimulated the rise of an engineering industry and iron and steel smelting in Budapest. Needless to say, these interrelated developments produced a considerable in-migration of people seeking work and the needs of the growing population in turn encouraged further commercial expansion and urban growth. At the turn of the century the forces of development were beginning to diffuse outwards as Hungary strove to become a more integrated economic unit. Signs of nascent modernization had also begun to emerge in the more important provincial centres of population. We can only hypothesize about what would have emerged if this process had been left to continue unhindered, for the dismemberment of Hungary at the end of the first world war brought these developments to an abrupt end. The drastic redrawing of frontiers in 1919 left Hungary with less than half of its pre-war territory and population, while important provincial centres like Pozsony (modern-day Bratislava) and Temesvar (now Timisoara), the very towns in which modern urban processes had begun to stir, were shorn from the body politic. From having a balanced settlement hierarchy Hungary thus emerged from the Trianon settlement with but one urban centre, Budapest, in which about one quarter CITIES May 1984
375
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Authority
of the nation’s population lived, and with no other centre sufficiently large or with sufficiently developed functions to counteract its dominant position. The bulk of the population lived in a variety of villages and in small market towns. If anything, the inter-war period increased this imbalance because any urban growth inevitably occurred in Budapest. Consequently, when rapid urban expansion was resumed in 1950 after a gap of almost 30 years, the elimination of the Trianon legacy - ie the reduction of the importance of Budapest to the nation - became a prime objective of policy and remained so for the next three decades. Initially, however, little was done to reduce Budapest’s standing. The first five year plan of the early 1950s was autarkic in concept, concentrating on the extensive development of heavy industry, and implemented through inflexible central control. New investment was directed towards established industrial concentrations and mainly benefited Budapest. A number of important new industrial centres were, however, established on green field sites and were subsequently to grow into the new socialist towns of Dunaujvaros, Kazincbarcika, Komlo, Oroszlany and Varpalota. As a result, rural workers surplus to the requirements of agriculture (which was itself undergoing collectivization) poured into the new urban housing estates that were constructed to service the new industries. During this phase of development, which continued in modified form to the end of the 195Os, net migration into Budapest was in excess of 30000 per annum, while the population of the new socialist towns had increased fourfold by the end of the decade. Urban decentralization The 1960s saw a move from rigid central economic direction and the establishment of a more decentralized system of management. The disadvantages of the overdominant position of Budapest to the nation as a whole, as well as the special problems that continued heavy inmigration created for the capital itself, prompted a shift in policy towards the development of the five regional cities of Debrecen, GyGr, Miskolc (Figure l), PCcs and Szeged as counterpoles to Budapest. Thus during the 1960s the focus of urbanization moved away from Budapest, and incidentally away from the new socialist towns as well (Figure 2), and became centred on these regional centres. As the flow of migrants to Budapest declined so that to the provincial centres progressively increased. By the end of the 1960s however, it was clear that the second phase of explosive urban growth had run its course. During the decade net migration from rural to urban areas had declined by more than one half, dropping from over 90000 in 1960 to under 45000 in 1969. It has remained at about that level ever since. Nevertheless, the gain in urban population over the previous 20 years or so had been impressive, rising as a proportion of the total from 36.6% at the time of the 1949 census to 46.4% in 1970. Although the bulk of this growth had been through in-migration, the creation of the new socialist towns and the raising of 22 other settlements to urban rank also played a significant role. Moreover, the distribution of population within the urban system had undergone a fundamental change with the number of urban dwellers in the other towns comfortably outdistancing the number of residents in Budapest by 1970. The slow-down in urban growth during the 1960s has continued, and
376
CITIES May 1984
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Figure 1. Miskolc, Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen County: new housing estates and old family
Authority
houses (photograph courtesy of
INTERFOTO MTI). the transition to the stage of relative urban decentralization had effectively been completed by 1980. Population growth in Budapest has now practically ceased, for, although net in-migration continues, it is on a greatly diminished scale and is offset by natural decrease. Indeed, the inner districts of the capital have been losing population for some years. Moreover the most rapid urban population growth has continued to move down the urban hierarchy and now takes place in the county towns and smaller centres. Furthermore, there is evidence that settlements lying within the shadow of large centres are also becoming the focus of rapid population increase. The suburban or agglomeration zone surrounding Budapest forms the clearest case of this. First recognized as an entity in 1971, the source of this zone’s growth has not been outflow of population from the central city, as with classic suburban development in the UK and North America, but the in-migration of people from other parts of the country to settle in the villages and small towns of the zone, from which many then commute to work in Budapest. The administrative restriction placed on permanent settlement in Budapest helped initially to direct population to the agglomeration zone, although the zone soon acquired a growth momentum of its own and is now expanding as rapidly as any area of the country. CITIES May 1984
377
Hungary:
The National Settlemcwi Developmrnr
Authorit)
Figure 2. Dunaujvros, Fejer County: a new socialist town on the Danube with a population of about 60000. This residential area is separated from the Danube Iron Works by a cultivated strip of forest. It is no coincidence that similar layout and architecture are to be seen in Soviet cities (see for example the similarity between this photograph and the photograph of Tol’ yatti in John Sallnow, ‘The USSR: new directions for the 198Os’, Cities, Vol 1, No 1, August 1983, p 42). Hungarian system building is in fact based on Soviet design. (photograph courtesy of INTERFOTO MTI).
‘Direct comparisons are complicated by the way administrative boundaries are delimited. In the case of Hungary they are drawn very generously around towns and cities to allow for expansion within the administrative limits. The reverse of this is invariably the case in the UK.
378
What has happened to population evolution in and around Budapest is very similar to the pattern displayed by large UK cities, ie a wave crest of high growth has progressed outwards from the inner districts and now lies astride the outermost parts of the built-up area of Budapest and the innermost settlements of the zone of agglomeration.’ At the same time the inner districts of the city are now losing population. In all likelihood before the end of the present decade the wave crest may be expected to pass wholly into the agglomeration zone, as development along the periphery of the administrative area of the capital ceases. Apart from incipient agglomeration zones have been that around Budapest, recognized around the regional cities, in the Sajo valley and around Lake Balaton. Although as yet none has a rate of population increase faster than that of its respective central city, the signs are that these agglomeration zones will follow the same pattern of development as Budapest and its environs. Relative urban decentralization also finds expression in terms other than population distribution. Budapest is increasingly being transformed into a city performing tertiary functions. Manufacturing has been located in rural areas as a deliberate act of policy and as many industrial workers are now to be found in the villages as in Budapest.
CITIES
May
1984
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Authority
Indeed, only 30% of the active village population is now engaged in agriculture and of these only 60% are in traditional farming activities.
The National Settlement Development
Strategy (NSDS)
The spatially concentrated economic programmes of the 1950s and first half of the 196Os, dominated by sectoral planning, gave way in 1967 to a more decentralized system of economic management - the so-called New Economic Mechanism (NEM). One result of the NEM was to shift decisively the emphasis towards regional development, and the adoption of the National Settlement Development Strategy (NSDS) in 1971 was seen as consistent with this change. In fact what had emerged by the early 1970s was a two-pronged attempt to solve the regional problem: the NEM was to provide the stimulus for regional economic development, the creation of new enterprises and new jobs, while the NSDS was to look after the provision of utilities and other services needed by the population. In its essentials this still forms the basis of regional policy today. Specifically, the NSDS was designed to overcome the serious deficiencies that had for long been apparent in the existing settlement system.* The Great Hungarian Plain, for example, had been served by a sparse network of rudimentary ‘urban’ centres, many of which were no more than vastly overgrown villages. Moreover, outside the main population centres of Budapest, the provincial cities and a handful of other towns, there was a general deficiency of urban functions and services. Although termed a settlement development strategy, the NSDS has in fact become a strategy for urban development and the vehicle for the planned diffusion of urban functions more evenly through the country. It is also regarded as a policy of social justice and is the principal means for eliminating the substantial differences in living standards, access to services and infrastructural provision that had existed between advantaged and disadvantaged areas, where the most elementary items for civilized existence could be lacking. A further objective of the policy has been the stabilization of the regional distribution of population in order to alleviate the problems of certain cities caused by heavy in-migration; for instance, the housing crisis in Budapest and other large centres of population. The strategy
In its conception, the NSDS represents the tailoring of Christaller’s central place principles to the special requirements of a socialist society and economy. Over 1100 settlements have been designated as part of the strategy and each has been assigned to a particular level of a settlement hierarchy.3 When the details of the strategy were first ‘Gy6rgy KOszegfalvi, ‘Telepijl&sh816zapublished in 1971, a hierarchy consisting of nine separate levels was tunk fejleszt&Snek nt+hAny k&d&e (Some questions about the development envisaged, with Budapest designated the national centre at its apex. The of the settlement system)‘, Terijleti Statiszeight levels beneath Budapest were grouped into three tiers - an upper tika, Vol XXVI, No 5, 1976, pp 473-462. tier consisting of three levels, a middle tier with two levels and a lower 3Magyar K6zl6ny, A Magyar Forradalmi MunkbParaszt KormBny 1007/1971 tier again subdivided into three levels. Each settlement is envisaged as (Ill. 16) szcimu hatdrozata. Az orsztigos serving its own population and that of a surrounding area with functions telepiil&sMl~zatfejleszt&i koncepci6rbl (The Ill. 16 Decision of the Hungarian appropriate to its position in the hierarchy. Population targets were also Revolutionary Workers-Peasants Governset for each hierarchical level in 1971 (Table 1); the spatial representament. Regarding the National Settlement tion of the strategy is shown in Figure 3. The precise labels given to each Development Strategy), Budapest, 1971, level are specific to Hungarian circumstances and as they cannot be pp 272-275.
CITIES May 1984
379
Hungary:
The National
Settlement
Development
Authority
Table 1. Population targets established for NSDShierarchy
Tiers
Orders
Upper Source: Magyar Kbzliiny, A Magyar Forradalmi Munkb-Paraszt Kormiiny 1007/1971 (111.16) szLimu hat&ozata. Az orszdgos telepDl&h&5zatfejtesztbsi koncepcidr6l (The II. 76 Decision of the Hungarian Revolutionary Workers-Peasants Government. Regarding the National Settlement Development Stratagy), Budapest, 1971, pp 272-275.
Middle Lower
Population targets (lOJ) For centre For zone of attraction 25OCb2800
Budapest 1st 2nd 3rd
1St
in 1971.
150-300 80-I 50 5-0
2nd
20-40 6-15
1St 2nd 3rd
510 3-4 l-2
Number of centres
National
1
1 OOC-1500 400-600 150-400
5 7 11
50-l 20 20-25
64 39
l&15 56 2-3
120-150 65&700 200-300
readily translated into English the terms ‘tier’ and ‘order’ have been combined to define each level, ie upper tier first order, upper tier second order, upper tier third order, middle tier first order and so on.
4Gyula Bora, ‘A kijlijnbtizd telepCik%tipusok helye 6s funkci6i a telepiilt%h&5zatban (The position and function of the different settlement types in the settlement network)‘, Tertileti Statisztika, Vol XXXII, No 4, 1982, pp 371-379.
Figure 3. National velopment Strategy dle tiers).
380
The upper tier. The first order centres making up the upper tier serve a regional function in the strategy and are composed of the five large regional cities of Debrecen, Gyiir, Miskolc, P&s and Szeged (these are also county towns). Typically, these cities contain the regional administrative offices of the state railways, the Post Office, the principal banks and the electricity and gas undertakings4 The more important industrial and commercial enterprises also have offices in these centres. In addition, each houses a university or equivalent institution of higher education, a major hospital or clinic and the more well known provincial theatres, museums and libraries. Regional television and radio studios are also located in these cities. Although the adoption of the NSDS has meant considerable additional development in each place, in practical terms the strategy has merely confirmed the existing role of these cities as regional centres. The second and third order centres of the upper tier comprise the remaining county towns, together with four other centres of similar population size and weight. Naturally the county administrative apparatuses are based in the towns belonging to these two orders, together with the management of those commercial and industrial
Settlement De(upper and mid-
CITIES May 1984
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Authority
enterprises that fall under county council direction. Additional functions associated with these centres include county hospitals, county law courts, and county cultural centres. They also serve a tertiary educational role and are important retail centres, many having modern shopping centres, department stores and specialist shops. The functional differences between the two orders are comparatively modest and really lie in the size of each centre and the population of the areas they serve. The NSDS has, however, generated considerable development in the small towns belonging to the two orders - ie in SzekszBrd, Baja and VeszprCm - in order to raise their functional levels closer to the norm for the two orders. The middle tier. One hundred and three centres were assigned to the middle tier of the hierarchy. These act as district centres providing such functions as health centres, secondary schools, servicing facilities and retailing. In 1971 the populations of the settlements of this tier ranged widely from just over 4 000 for the smallest to over 45 000 for the largest. While some already performed the functional role assigned to them by the strategy in 1971, others were virtually underdeveloped. It is with this tier that the strategy has therefore been confronted with its most difficult problems. The lower tier. As regards the settlements that form the lowest tier of the hierarchy, these perform rudimentary functions only, such as distributing everyday items, gnd providing the site for primary schools and a local cultural house. Little of any specific nature was envisaged for them in the strategy. Effectiveness
%&a
Balogh, J6zsef K6rodi and Gyula Wirth, ‘As Orszdgos TelepiilBshMzatfejlesztbsi Koncepci6 (The national settlement development strategy)‘, Teriileti Stafisztika, Vol XXI, No 3, 1971, pp 23348.
CITIES May 1984
of the NSDS
There is some debate as to whether the NSDS was intended as an outline for long-term development - Balogh et al writing in 1971 implied a time-scale of some 30 years5 - or whether it was an actual blueprint or prescription for action. But whatever the initial intention may have been, the strategy has in fact been implemented as a prescriptive plan since 1971. By the early 198Os, all the regional centres apart from Gyiir had comfortably exceeded the minimum population target of 150000 that had been set for them, while KecskemCt, Nyiregyhha, SzCkesfehCrvar and Szombathely had surpassed the minimum total of 80000 established for second order centres of the upper tier. In addition, 20 further settlements belonging to the middle tier of the hierarchy have been raised to urban rank, implying a generally satisfactory level of infrastructural provision and services. The general population dynamics of the upper and middle tiers have also been moving in the direction prescribed by the strategy (Table 2). The relative position of Budapest has continued to weaken since 1971; rates of net migration have not only slackened throughout Hungary but the rate of population in-flow to settlements of the middle tier has increased, while a higher proportion of population growth during the 1970s was generated by natural increase than during the previous decade. In turn the growth of population in Budapest and in the five regional centres has fallen substantially, that of other settlements in the upper tier has remained essentially the same, while that of middle tier centres has increased considerably. However, despite this substantial narrowing of growth differentials compared with the previous decade, 381
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Authority
Table 2. Population dynamics of upper and middle tiers of NSDS hierarchy 1960-70 Distribution of population (%) 1960 1970
Middle Tier
Actual change (%) 1960-70 1970-60
Natural change (%) 1960-70 1970-60
Net migration (%) 1960-70 1970-60
38.5
37.2
34.5
12.2
2.9
-1 .o
00
a.9
2.9
1st 2nd 3rd
12.4 a.2 a.2
13.9 9.1 9.0
14.5 10.1 9.9
25.0 25.4 24.7
15.4 23.0 22.0
4.5 5.2 4.9
6.9 9.0
a.1
20.5 23.0 i 9.8
14.1 13.9
1St
22.5 10.1
21.8 90
22.4 a.7
9.6 1.1
13.7 7.2
4.3 4.7
6.1 5.6
5.3 -3.6
7.6 1.6
14.2
10.9
2.5
4.3
11.7
6.6
_
_
_
_
_
_
Budapest Upper Tier
1960
and 1970-60.
2nd Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total population (1 03)
4635
5374
5961
a.5
Source: Hungarian Census of Population 1960, 1970. 1960
few of the medium-sized and small settlements of the hierarchy had achieved the population and function targets set for them by the early 1980s. Other favourable trends brought about by the strategy include a narrowing of the differences that had formerly existed in public utilities, housing and other services among the county towns; a significant improvement in the service supply of larger villages; the virtual elimination of the former isolation of many villages through a and a marked decline in programme of rural road construction; employment has become long-distance commuting as non-agricultural more widely dispersed.h
Criticism of the strategy
‘TelepOl&sh&5zatPaksy, fejleszt&i politik&nk (Policies for the development of the settlement network)‘, VAros@it& No 6, 1981, pp 25-26. 7GyBrgy KOszegfalvi, ‘A magyarorszagi vProshMzat helyzete, fejlOdb&nek probl6m8i, ellentmond&ai, a fejlesztes feladatai (The position of the Hungarian urban network, development problems, contradictions, and development tasks)‘, Tertileti Statisztika, Vol XXIX, No 2, 1979, pp 121-830. ‘Telepiil&h816zatY?IoltBn ZoltBn, fejleszt6si politikank k&dOjelei (Queries about policies for settlement network development)‘, Vriroskpit&s, No 1, 1982, pp 16-17. ‘GAbor
382
and inflexible was Criticism that the NSDS was overcentralized increasingly voiced towards the end of the 1970s.’ The criticism of overcentralization may at first appear strange, given the fact that when first announced the strategy was viewed as a further step towards decentralization. Yet it has to be remembered that the axioms behind the strategy were in fact formulated during the early and mid-1960s when central direction was still regarded as the best way of ensuring rapid and effective growth. In other words, the strategy belongs to that period of post-war Hungarian history when the consensus still subscribed unquestioningly to the advantage of scale economies: ie utilities could only be efficiently supplied in large settlements; substantial population concentrations were needed to warrant infrastructural provision; the state would only site new housing in large, densely packed estates. Small-scale developments in almost all fields were regarded as unsustainable, and it was felt that investment in settlement development should therefore be used to encourage the growth of large centres as opposed to small centres, from which beneficial effects would radiate out into the surrounding countryside. It has been further argued that the approval of the NSDS by the Ministerial Council of the government in 1971 had the effect of validating ideologically the centralized tendencies in settlement development of earlier decades and of justifying investment in extreme settlement concentrations during the 1970s.’ This line of reasoning suggests that there was an almost complete lack of awareness of the incompatibility of such ideas with the New Economic Mechanism. The requirements of this new system of decentralized economic manage-
CITIES May 1984
Hungary:
9GyBrgy Enyedi, ‘A magyar telepiil6sh&5zat Btalakulba (The transformation of the Hungarian settlement network)‘, Magyar TudomAny, No 5, 1983, pp 341-352.
CITIES May 1984
The National Settlement Development
Authority
ment in the area of industrial location could only be met effectively by a corresponding decentralization of the settlement system. A settlement strategy was clearly needed for the 1970s but not one that accentuated the contradictions between regional economic development and the settlement system. Symptomatic of the centralized assumptions underpinning the NSDS is the fact that two-thirds of all settlements were excluded from the strategy. Moreover, because administrative and financial responsibility has been exercised from the top of the hierarchy downwards, the regional cities and county towns forming the upper tier have been developed at the expense of medium and small towns and also of large villages. An upper tier comprising the five regional cities was entirely justifiable, but the intensive development of 18 other centres - ie the remaining county towns - has involved unnecessary duplication in a country as small as Hungary, and is too closely tied to a spatial administrative structure that has gone unreformed since 1949. The needs of the population would probably have been better served by a wider dispersal of more centres of somewhat smaller population size but still offering essentially the same functions as the present county towns. It is worth examining further the way in which the financing of settlement development has generated a strong centralizing tendency. Although councils were given more independence in decision making at the time of the adoption of the NSDS, the way the system has worked has meant that locally generated development funds have been increasingly syphoned off, thus increasing dependence on centrally distributed resources and undermining the basis for independent local development initiatives. Thus, according to Enyedi, 67% of development funds administered by district councils in 1980 were, by central edict, spent on housing and a further 13% were spent on public services .9 Since spending on health and education is also determined centrally, there is now little leeway for local investment initiatives, and what there is invariably takes place in a few favoured towns. In addition, because state housing finance can only be used for large-scale residential developments, the bulk of housing funds is also spent in the larger towns. Given the fact that sectoral investment is also generally made in urban settings, one can begin to appreciate the cumulative centralizing power of the various financial allocations for different types of development. Indeed, only 10% of development funds now goes to those settlements in which 47% of the population reside. A further source of criticism has been the general inflexibility of the strategy. It is said that the hierarchical structure of the network with prescribed population targets and prescribed functions is too rigid. In a number of instances the strategy has ignored the changing geography of the country; for example, the special needs of the emerging agglomeration belts were not recognized, nor was the necessity of forging linkages between central places and their surrounding areas. Further, although many settlements already embodied the functions appropriate to their assigned order in the hierarchy when the strategy was announced, others were so underdeveloped that the necessary functions could only be provided at great expense to the central exchequer and could certainly not be met out of the locally generated resources. Yet again, there were instances where neighbouring settlements of identical type and function, notably in the Alfold, were assigned to the same level of the hierarchy and were thereby encouraged to compete rather than
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Authority
coordinate their activities. Nor was coordination encouraged among those groups of towns that are functionally linked and complementary to each other, for instance, TatabBnya-Tata-Oroszlhny or BCkCsBCkCscsaba-Gyula. “’ Modifications
to NSDS
Indeed, the criticisms of overcentralization and inflexibility have recently received some official recognition with the announcement of modifications to the strategy by the Ministerial Council in mid-1981.” The changes include the abandonment of population targets and the reduction of the number of hierarchical orders from nine to seven with the abolition of the distinction that had hitherto been made within the lower tier. From now on emphasis is to be placed on the development of the small to medium-sized towns, and investment in the regional and county centres will be correspondingly reduced. The desirability of fostering more cooperation within certain hierarchical orders has also been recognized (those orders affected have been renamed group centres) while the particular needs of the Budapest agglomeration have been met with the naming of six settlements as main centres and a further six settlements as subsidiary centres within the agglomeration belt. The middle tier of the hierarchy has also been expanded with the addition of a further nine settlements. Small
‘OGy6rgy Kdszegfalvi, ‘A magyarorszagi telepUl&rendszer strukturalis v<oz&& nak sajatos vonBsai (Characteristic features of the structural change of the Hungarian settlement system)‘, Teriileti Statisztika. Vol XXXII, No 5, 1982, pp 453475. “Magyar KBzlany, A Minisztertanscs
1018/1981 (VI. 19) szAmu haf&ozata. AZ orszAgos te;epii/&hb/6zat-fej/esz~6si koncepci6 mddosit&2rbl (The 1018/l 98 1 (VI. 19) Decision of the Ministerial Council. Regarding the Modification of the National Strategy), Settlement Development Budapest, 1981, p 568. ‘2GyBrgy Enyedi, ‘A magyar telepul&sh& lbzat &talakul&ai, tendenciai (The transformation of, and trends in, the settlement Magyar TudomBny, No 10, network)‘, 1981, pp 727-734. ‘3Moreover, many of the changes that have been brought about within the village network were implemented without local consultation and largely against local wishes.
384
towns and villages
Although the 1981 modifications have gone some way towards meeting the criticisms of overcentralization and rigidity, one important reservation still remains; that by neglecting small towns and large villages and by completely excluding the bulk of the village network, the NSDS has aggravated certain spatial inequalities. l2 Virtually all settlements with less than 3000 inhabitants were left outside the NSDS on the grounds that small settlements could not sustain effective development. This has had the effect of condemning 1.5 million people, mainly residing in the southern half of the country, to worse living conditions now than in 1971. At the same time, the same centralizing assumptions on which the NSDS has been based have also been applied to the village network. The programme of cooperative farm amalgamation has produced the closure of many farm offices, thus destroying the economic rationale of many villages. Some four-fifths of all village stores have been done away with since 1960. The village school network has been replaced by a system of district schools, and health care facilities have also been centralized. Of 3024 separate village councils in existence 20 years ago only 679 remain and in their place 715 joint village councils have been created. It is not, of course, axiomatic that all aspects of rural centralization are necessarily bad, but subsequent events have shown that the NSDS assumption that settlements of less than 3000 inhabitants were not viable was unduly pessimistic.‘” Small-scale service activities involving an expansion of cooperative farm activities can be made to work in these villages, while the encouragement of private ventures can also help to ensure the provision of an adequate level of services. Strong opinions about this matter have been expressed; VBgi, for instance, has argued that since spatial inequalities serve no useful social or economic purpose they should be eliminated. He rejects such arguments as lack of financial resources, less favourable historical legacies, geographical
CITIES May 1984
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Authority
disadvantages, etc which are invariably advanced to explain such inequalities (and by implication used to justify doing little about them).14
The future of urban development policy
“‘Gabor Vagi, ‘crvek es ellener-vek az BletkMilmenyek teriileti egyenlotlensegeirol (Arguments and counterarguments about spatial inequalities in living conditions)‘, Va/&hg, No 6, 1981, pp 41-48. 15Gy6rgy Koszegfalvi, ‘A telepiilesek fejl6desenek iranyi-t&sat, megalapoz6 kutatasok programja (A basic research programme for directing settlement development)‘, V~rosr$it&s, No 6, 1982, pp 18-20. ‘%andor Kalnoki Kis, ‘Avarosfejlesztestelepiilesfejlesztes iy tendenciai (New trends in urban and settlement development)‘, TArsadalmi Szemle, No 5, 1982, pp 63-71. “Gabor Preisich, Varosepiteszeti Szempotok a rehabilitacioban (Rehabilitation as a form of urban construction), V&OS eoites, No 3, 1982, pp 4-7; Laszl6 Pus, A Lakohazfenntartas iy vonasai (New features of tenement maintanance), VdrosBpetes, No 5, 1982, pp 4-7. leThe containment of urban expansion would also serve the purposes of environmental protection (Barnabas Barta, ‘Az urbanizaci6s folyamat tarsadalmi es kornyezeti vonatkozasai (Social and environmental concerns of the urbanisation process)‘, Teriileti Statisztika, Vol XXXII, No 4, 1982, pp 313-329).
CITIES May 1984
After more than a decade of the NSDS, settlement development policy in Hungary is once again undergoing a re-appraisal. In part this is a result of the severe criticisms of the strategy, but it is also caused by the straitened economic circumstances Hungary has experienced during the early 1980s. Even the most basic assumptions of the NSDS are coming under close scrutiny. For example, is settlement policy a consequence or a cause of socioeconomic development? Is there any need at all for a settlement policy in which the details of settlement development are spelt out, and, if so, should this be nationally, regionally or locally based? What particular model of settlement development should be followed: a hierarchical system of centres only, a system based on centres together with their zones of attraction, or a model based on the simple dichotomy of towns and villages? Is a hierarchical system necessary to ensure the effective spatial distribution of service functions, and is it right to concentrate functions in comparatively few centres? A comprehensive research programme into settlement development has been set up to provide the answers to such questions. The programme is sponsored by the Ministry of Construction and Urban Development and is directed by a steering committee made up of representatives of the Academy of Sciences, the National Planning Office, the Central Statistical Office, the Ministerial Council and the Economic Policy Division of the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party. Twenty-five research institutes will share in the actual research work.i5 The research programme’s recommendations will only be implemented, if at all, in the medium term and are therefore unlikely to influence to any great extent the course of urban development policy during the rest of the 1980s. Until the recommendations are made and acted on it is clear that policy will be based on promoting what is termed ‘intensive’ as opposed to ‘extensive’ urbanization.i6 This means that the further physical expansion of towns and cities will be constrained and better utilization made of existing urban space. There will be no more large housing developments on urban peripheries and housing demand will be increasingly financed from private sources. Stress will increasingly be placed on qualitative rather than the quantitative objectives of the recent 15-year housing plan. State-owned land within towns is being progressively released for sale on long-term leases for private building and state resources are now being directed towards the rehabilitation of the housing stock in the inner city areas - especially in Budapest.” ‘ Intensive urbanization also implies more coordination between towns and their surroundings. l8 The steady flow of population into urban areas can only be stemmed by improving the level of services offered by the smaller settlements to their surrounding areas. It is in the interests of town councils to encourage and actively participate in this process, as such a development would mean an easing of the existing tensions in urban housing and service provision and would help to stabilize the population distribution. A more balanced development of towns within the settlement network and greater coordination among individual urban centres will also be encouraged.
385
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Authority
In addition local autonomy will be strengthened and there will be much closer coordination between those institutions responsible for drawing up urban development plans and the councils responsible for their execution. Greater public participation is also to be encouraged which will involve moving away from the existing system, whereby development has been determined by the role of any given town in the settlement hierarchy, and the adoption of a system geared more towards the satisfaction of local preferences and needs. The granting of greater financial autonomy for local councils should form an integral part of this process, which may involve some change in the system of taxing enterprises. In future, individual settlements will also have more control over what types of job opportunities are created within their jurisdictions, and here small-scale co-operative (for instance the extension of agricultural cooperative activities into the tertiary sector) and private ventures will play an increasingly important role.
386
CITIES May 1984
PROFILEI
Hungary The National Settlement Development Strategy
Paul A. Compton
This article first outlines Hungarian urban history from the 19th century and then analyses the country’s current urban policy, in particular the National Settlement Development Strategy (NSDS). It is pointed out that the dismemberment of Hungary after the first world war left Budapest with a disproportionate role in the nation’s settlement system. The setting up of the NSDS in 1971 was designed to resolve this regional imbalance and involved three main categories of settlement, from Budapest and the five largest regional cities at the top to villages and small towns in the lower tier. Criticisms that the NSDS was overcentralized and inflexible are noted, and the article describes the 1981 modifications to the strategy. It concludes with some predictions for the future Hungarian urban development policy. Urbanization; Keywords: Regional policy
Hungary;
Dr Compton is with the Department of Geography, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast BT7 INN, Northern Ireland. UK
374
One of the most characteristic features of the transformation of Hungarian society during the last three decades has been the growing dominance of an urban lifestyle. This is expressed not only in the rising proportion of the population that resides in the towns and cities and in the growing number of settlements that are designated as towns, but also in the expansion of urban-like occupations in those areas that remain. morphologically speaking, essentially rural. At first this shift towards a more urban-centred society was an incidental effect of industrialization and agricultural modernization, but as such issues as decentralization, regional development and the elimination of spatial differences in living standards and service provisions came more to the fore, so the need for a more coherent urban policy became increasingly apparent. Accordingly, in 1971 the Hungarian government adopted the National Settlement Development Conception or Strategy, which has become the master plan for national urban development policy. It goes without saying that urban policy in Hungary is both a reflection of and a response to processes which have brought about urban development and change, which are in turn a function of more general social and economic processes as well as of specific historical factors. It is also through an urban policy that certain social ends arc achieved and incompatible processes reconciled. Urban policy in Hungary cannot therefore be treated in isolation. but has to be set within the context of the general factors and values that have influenced the development of the urban system. Because of this, the article falls into two distinct sections: the first part is a historical resum6 of the evolution of the urban system, concentrating on those processes that have brought about its characteristic features, the second discusses Hungarian urban policy in general. and the National Settlement Development Strategy (NSDS) in particular.
0264-2751/84/040374-13$03.00
0 Butterworth
& Co (Publishers)
Ltd
Hungary:
Urban development
The National Settlement Development
Authority
in Hungary
Using the empirical examples of Western Europe and North America, a three-stage model of urban development is posited. The first stage comprises a period of explosive growth and concentration of population in urban centres. The second stage is relative urban decentralization as growth in the largest cities ceases and suburbanization comes to the fore, while the third stage is marked by absolute urban decline or counterurbanization as the focus of population increase passes beyond the urban fringe into intervening rural space. Explosive urban development
When this schema is applied to Hungary, it is clear that urbanization has only recently reached the point of transition between stages one and two, even though Hungarian urbanization is over a century old. Thus, not only has the explosive stage of urban growth taken relatively long to complete, it also falls into two distinct phases separated by a period of urban stagnation. The first phase embraced the last third of the 19th century and was brought to an end by the outbreak of the first world war. This period was marked by the explosive growth of Budapest, which had by 1910 evolved into a modern European city with a well developed urban infrastructure, including an advanced public transport system. Two main factors led to this rapid growth. First, with the creation of the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary Budapest became the undisputed capital of a territory which stretched from the outskirts of Vienna to the eastern limb of the Carpathians and included part of the Adriatic seaboard. The enhanced administrative importance that Budapest thus acquired generated additional commercial and financial functions, thereby stimulating urban growth. The second factor was the awakening of industrial activity. The export of grain to central and western Europe stimulated the construction of a rail network centred on Budapest. Out of the grain export trade there soon grew an extensive flour milling ndustry, which in turn quickly evolved into a more broadly based food processing industry. The needs of the food processing industry and continuing rail construction then stimulated the rise of an engineering industry and iron and steel smelting in Budapest. Needless to say, these interrelated developments produced a considerable in-migration of people seeking work and the needs of the growing population in turn encouraged further commercial expansion and urban growth. At the turn of the century the forces of development were beginning to diffuse outwards as Hungary strove to become a more integrated economic unit. Signs of nascent modernization had also begun to emerge in the more important provincial centres of population. We can only hypothesize about what would have emerged if this process had been left to continue unhindered, for the dismemberment of Hungary at the end of the first world war brought these developments to an abrupt end. The drastic redrawing of frontiers in 1919 left Hungary with less than half of its pre-war territory and population, while important provincial centres like Pozsony (modern-day Bratislava) and Temesvar (now Timisoara), the very towns in which modern urban processes had begun to stir, were shorn from the body politic. From having a balanced settlement hierarchy Hungary thus emerged from the Trianon settlement with but one urban centre, Budapest, in which about one quarter CITIES May 1984
375
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Authority
of the nation’s population lived, and with no other centre sufficiently large or with sufficiently developed functions to counteract its dominant position. The bulk of the population lived in a variety of villages and in small market towns. If anything, the inter-war period increased this imbalance because any urban growth inevitably occurred in Budapest. Consequently, when rapid urban expansion was resumed in 1950 after a gap of almost 30 years, the elimination of the Trianon legacy - ie the reduction of the importance of Budapest to the nation - became a prime objective of policy and remained so for the next three decades. Initially, however, little was done to reduce Budapest’s standing. The first five year plan of the early 1950s was autarkic in concept, concentrating on the extensive development of heavy industry, and implemented through inflexible central control. New investment was directed towards established industrial concentrations and mainly benefited Budapest. A number of important new industrial centres were, however, established on green field sites and were subsequently to grow into the new socialist towns of Dunaujvaros, Kazincbarcika, Komlo, Oroszlany and Varpalota. As a result, rural workers surplus to the requirements of agriculture (which was itself undergoing collectivization) poured into the new urban housing estates that were constructed to service the new industries. During this phase of development, which continued in modified form to the end of the 195Os, net migration into Budapest was in excess of 30000 per annum, while the population of the new socialist towns had increased fourfold by the end of the decade. Urban decentralization The 1960s saw a move from rigid central economic direction and the establishment of a more decentralized system of management. The disadvantages of the overdominant position of Budapest to the nation as a whole, as well as the special problems that continued heavy inmigration created for the capital itself, prompted a shift in policy towards the development of the five regional cities of Debrecen, GyGr, Miskolc (Figure l), PCcs and Szeged as counterpoles to Budapest. Thus during the 1960s the focus of urbanization moved away from Budapest, and incidentally away from the new socialist towns as well (Figure 2), and became centred on these regional centres. As the flow of migrants to Budapest declined so that to the provincial centres progressively increased. By the end of the 1960s however, it was clear that the second phase of explosive urban growth had run its course. During the decade net migration from rural to urban areas had declined by more than one half, dropping from over 90000 in 1960 to under 45000 in 1969. It has remained at about that level ever since. Nevertheless, the gain in urban population over the previous 20 years or so had been impressive, rising as a proportion of the total from 36.6% at the time of the 1949 census to 46.4% in 1970. Although the bulk of this growth had been through in-migration, the creation of the new socialist towns and the raising of 22 other settlements to urban rank also played a significant role. Moreover, the distribution of population within the urban system had undergone a fundamental change with the number of urban dwellers in the other towns comfortably outdistancing the number of residents in Budapest by 1970. The slow-down in urban growth during the 1960s has continued, and
376
CITIES May 1984
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Figure 1. Miskolc, Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen County: new housing estates and old family
Authority
houses (photograph courtesy of
INTERFOTO MTI). the transition to the stage of relative urban decentralization had effectively been completed by 1980. Population growth in Budapest has now practically ceased, for, although net in-migration continues, it is on a greatly diminished scale and is offset by natural decrease. Indeed, the inner districts of the capital have been losing population for some years. Moreover the most rapid urban population growth has continued to move down the urban hierarchy and now takes place in the county towns and smaller centres. Furthermore, there is evidence that settlements lying within the shadow of large centres are also becoming the focus of rapid population increase. The suburban or agglomeration zone surrounding Budapest forms the clearest case of this. First recognized as an entity in 1971, the source of this zone’s growth has not been outflow of population from the central city, as with classic suburban development in the UK and North America, but the in-migration of people from other parts of the country to settle in the villages and small towns of the zone, from which many then commute to work in Budapest. The administrative restriction placed on permanent settlement in Budapest helped initially to direct population to the agglomeration zone, although the zone soon acquired a growth momentum of its own and is now expanding as rapidly as any area of the country. CITIES May 1984
377
Hungary:
The National Settlemcwi Developmrnr
Authorit)
Figure 2. Dunaujvros, Fejer County: a new socialist town on the Danube with a population of about 60000. This residential area is separated from the Danube Iron Works by a cultivated strip of forest. It is no coincidence that similar layout and architecture are to be seen in Soviet cities (see for example the similarity between this photograph and the photograph of Tol’ yatti in John Sallnow, ‘The USSR: new directions for the 198Os’, Cities, Vol 1, No 1, August 1983, p 42). Hungarian system building is in fact based on Soviet design. (photograph courtesy of INTERFOTO MTI).
‘Direct comparisons are complicated by the way administrative boundaries are delimited. In the case of Hungary they are drawn very generously around towns and cities to allow for expansion within the administrative limits. The reverse of this is invariably the case in the UK.
378
What has happened to population evolution in and around Budapest is very similar to the pattern displayed by large UK cities, ie a wave crest of high growth has progressed outwards from the inner districts and now lies astride the outermost parts of the built-up area of Budapest and the innermost settlements of the zone of agglomeration.’ At the same time the inner districts of the city are now losing population. In all likelihood before the end of the present decade the wave crest may be expected to pass wholly into the agglomeration zone, as development along the periphery of the administrative area of the capital ceases. Apart from incipient agglomeration zones have been that around Budapest, recognized around the regional cities, in the Sajo valley and around Lake Balaton. Although as yet none has a rate of population increase faster than that of its respective central city, the signs are that these agglomeration zones will follow the same pattern of development as Budapest and its environs. Relative urban decentralization also finds expression in terms other than population distribution. Budapest is increasingly being transformed into a city performing tertiary functions. Manufacturing has been located in rural areas as a deliberate act of policy and as many industrial workers are now to be found in the villages as in Budapest.
CITIES
May
1984
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Authority
Indeed, only 30% of the active village population is now engaged in agriculture and of these only 60% are in traditional farming activities.
The National Settlement Development
Strategy (NSDS)
The spatially concentrated economic programmes of the 1950s and first half of the 196Os, dominated by sectoral planning, gave way in 1967 to a more decentralized system of economic management - the so-called New Economic Mechanism (NEM). One result of the NEM was to shift decisively the emphasis towards regional development, and the adoption of the National Settlement Development Strategy (NSDS) in 1971 was seen as consistent with this change. In fact what had emerged by the early 1970s was a two-pronged attempt to solve the regional problem: the NEM was to provide the stimulus for regional economic development, the creation of new enterprises and new jobs, while the NSDS was to look after the provision of utilities and other services needed by the population. In its essentials this still forms the basis of regional policy today. Specifically, the NSDS was designed to overcome the serious deficiencies that had for long been apparent in the existing settlement system.* The Great Hungarian Plain, for example, had been served by a sparse network of rudimentary ‘urban’ centres, many of which were no more than vastly overgrown villages. Moreover, outside the main population centres of Budapest, the provincial cities and a handful of other towns, there was a general deficiency of urban functions and services. Although termed a settlement development strategy, the NSDS has in fact become a strategy for urban development and the vehicle for the planned diffusion of urban functions more evenly through the country. It is also regarded as a policy of social justice and is the principal means for eliminating the substantial differences in living standards, access to services and infrastructural provision that had existed between advantaged and disadvantaged areas, where the most elementary items for civilized existence could be lacking. A further objective of the policy has been the stabilization of the regional distribution of population in order to alleviate the problems of certain cities caused by heavy in-migration; for instance, the housing crisis in Budapest and other large centres of population. The strategy
In its conception, the NSDS represents the tailoring of Christaller’s central place principles to the special requirements of a socialist society and economy. Over 1100 settlements have been designated as part of the strategy and each has been assigned to a particular level of a settlement hierarchy.3 When the details of the strategy were first ‘Gy6rgy KOszegfalvi, ‘Telepijl&sh816zapublished in 1971, a hierarchy consisting of nine separate levels was tunk fejleszt&Snek nt+hAny k&d&e (Some questions about the development envisaged, with Budapest designated the national centre at its apex. The of the settlement system)‘, Terijleti Statiszeight levels beneath Budapest were grouped into three tiers - an upper tika, Vol XXVI, No 5, 1976, pp 473-462. tier consisting of three levels, a middle tier with two levels and a lower 3Magyar K6zl6ny, A Magyar Forradalmi MunkbParaszt KormBny 1007/1971 tier again subdivided into three levels. Each settlement is envisaged as (Ill. 16) szcimu hatdrozata. Az orsztigos serving its own population and that of a surrounding area with functions telepiil&sMl~zatfejleszt&i koncepci6rbl (The Ill. 16 Decision of the Hungarian appropriate to its position in the hierarchy. Population targets were also Revolutionary Workers-Peasants Governset for each hierarchical level in 1971 (Table 1); the spatial representament. Regarding the National Settlement tion of the strategy is shown in Figure 3. The precise labels given to each Development Strategy), Budapest, 1971, level are specific to Hungarian circumstances and as they cannot be pp 272-275.
CITIES May 1984
379
Hungary:
The National
Settlement
Development
Authority
Table 1. Population targets established for NSDShierarchy
Tiers
Orders
Upper Source: Magyar Kbzliiny, A Magyar Forradalmi Munkb-Paraszt Kormiiny 1007/1971 (111.16) szLimu hat&ozata. Az orszdgos telepDl&h&5zatfejtesztbsi koncepcidr6l (The II. 76 Decision of the Hungarian Revolutionary Workers-Peasants Government. Regarding the National Settlement Development Stratagy), Budapest, 1971, pp 272-275.
Middle Lower
Population targets (lOJ) For centre For zone of attraction 25OCb2800
Budapest 1st 2nd 3rd
1St
in 1971.
150-300 80-I 50 5-0
2nd
20-40 6-15
1St 2nd 3rd
510 3-4 l-2
Number of centres
National
1
1 OOC-1500 400-600 150-400
5 7 11
50-l 20 20-25
64 39
l&15 56 2-3
120-150 65&700 200-300
readily translated into English the terms ‘tier’ and ‘order’ have been combined to define each level, ie upper tier first order, upper tier second order, upper tier third order, middle tier first order and so on.
4Gyula Bora, ‘A kijlijnbtizd telepCik%tipusok helye 6s funkci6i a telepiilt%h&5zatban (The position and function of the different settlement types in the settlement network)‘, Tertileti Statisztika, Vol XXXII, No 4, 1982, pp 371-379.
Figure 3. National velopment Strategy dle tiers).
380
The upper tier. The first order centres making up the upper tier serve a regional function in the strategy and are composed of the five large regional cities of Debrecen, Gyiir, Miskolc, P&s and Szeged (these are also county towns). Typically, these cities contain the regional administrative offices of the state railways, the Post Office, the principal banks and the electricity and gas undertakings4 The more important industrial and commercial enterprises also have offices in these centres. In addition, each houses a university or equivalent institution of higher education, a major hospital or clinic and the more well known provincial theatres, museums and libraries. Regional television and radio studios are also located in these cities. Although the adoption of the NSDS has meant considerable additional development in each place, in practical terms the strategy has merely confirmed the existing role of these cities as regional centres. The second and third order centres of the upper tier comprise the remaining county towns, together with four other centres of similar population size and weight. Naturally the county administrative apparatuses are based in the towns belonging to these two orders, together with the management of those commercial and industrial
Settlement De(upper and mid-
CITIES May 1984
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Authority
enterprises that fall under county council direction. Additional functions associated with these centres include county hospitals, county law courts, and county cultural centres. They also serve a tertiary educational role and are important retail centres, many having modern shopping centres, department stores and specialist shops. The functional differences between the two orders are comparatively modest and really lie in the size of each centre and the population of the areas they serve. The NSDS has, however, generated considerable development in the small towns belonging to the two orders - ie in SzekszBrd, Baja and VeszprCm - in order to raise their functional levels closer to the norm for the two orders. The middle tier. One hundred and three centres were assigned to the middle tier of the hierarchy. These act as district centres providing such functions as health centres, secondary schools, servicing facilities and retailing. In 1971 the populations of the settlements of this tier ranged widely from just over 4 000 for the smallest to over 45 000 for the largest. While some already performed the functional role assigned to them by the strategy in 1971, others were virtually underdeveloped. It is with this tier that the strategy has therefore been confronted with its most difficult problems. The lower tier. As regards the settlements that form the lowest tier of the hierarchy, these perform rudimentary functions only, such as distributing everyday items, gnd providing the site for primary schools and a local cultural house. Little of any specific nature was envisaged for them in the strategy. Effectiveness
%&a
Balogh, J6zsef K6rodi and Gyula Wirth, ‘As Orszdgos TelepiilBshMzatfejlesztbsi Koncepci6 (The national settlement development strategy)‘, Teriileti Stafisztika, Vol XXI, No 3, 1971, pp 23348.
CITIES May 1984
of the NSDS
There is some debate as to whether the NSDS was intended as an outline for long-term development - Balogh et al writing in 1971 implied a time-scale of some 30 years5 - or whether it was an actual blueprint or prescription for action. But whatever the initial intention may have been, the strategy has in fact been implemented as a prescriptive plan since 1971. By the early 198Os, all the regional centres apart from Gyiir had comfortably exceeded the minimum population target of 150000 that had been set for them, while KecskemCt, Nyiregyhha, SzCkesfehCrvar and Szombathely had surpassed the minimum total of 80000 established for second order centres of the upper tier. In addition, 20 further settlements belonging to the middle tier of the hierarchy have been raised to urban rank, implying a generally satisfactory level of infrastructural provision and services. The general population dynamics of the upper and middle tiers have also been moving in the direction prescribed by the strategy (Table 2). The relative position of Budapest has continued to weaken since 1971; rates of net migration have not only slackened throughout Hungary but the rate of population in-flow to settlements of the middle tier has increased, while a higher proportion of population growth during the 1970s was generated by natural increase than during the previous decade. In turn the growth of population in Budapest and in the five regional centres has fallen substantially, that of other settlements in the upper tier has remained essentially the same, while that of middle tier centres has increased considerably. However, despite this substantial narrowing of growth differentials compared with the previous decade, 381
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Authority
Table 2. Population dynamics of upper and middle tiers of NSDS hierarchy 1960-70 Distribution of population (%) 1960 1970
Middle Tier
Actual change (%) 1960-70 1970-60
Natural change (%) 1960-70 1970-60
Net migration (%) 1960-70 1970-60
38.5
37.2
34.5
12.2
2.9
-1 .o
00
a.9
2.9
1st 2nd 3rd
12.4 a.2 a.2
13.9 9.1 9.0
14.5 10.1 9.9
25.0 25.4 24.7
15.4 23.0 22.0
4.5 5.2 4.9
6.9 9.0
a.1
20.5 23.0 i 9.8
14.1 13.9
1St
22.5 10.1
21.8 90
22.4 a.7
9.6 1.1
13.7 7.2
4.3 4.7
6.1 5.6
5.3 -3.6
7.6 1.6
14.2
10.9
2.5
4.3
11.7
6.6
_
_
_
_
_
_
Budapest Upper Tier
1960
and 1970-60.
2nd Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total population (1 03)
4635
5374
5961
a.5
Source: Hungarian Census of Population 1960, 1970. 1960
few of the medium-sized and small settlements of the hierarchy had achieved the population and function targets set for them by the early 1980s. Other favourable trends brought about by the strategy include a narrowing of the differences that had formerly existed in public utilities, housing and other services among the county towns; a significant improvement in the service supply of larger villages; the virtual elimination of the former isolation of many villages through a and a marked decline in programme of rural road construction; employment has become long-distance commuting as non-agricultural more widely dispersed.h
Criticism of the strategy
‘TelepOl&sh&5zatPaksy, fejleszt&i politik&nk (Policies for the development of the settlement network)‘, VAros@it& No 6, 1981, pp 25-26. 7GyBrgy KOszegfalvi, ‘A magyarorszagi vProshMzat helyzete, fejlOdb&nek probl6m8i, ellentmond&ai, a fejlesztes feladatai (The position of the Hungarian urban network, development problems, contradictions, and development tasks)‘, Tertileti Statisztika, Vol XXIX, No 2, 1979, pp 121-830. ‘Telepiil&h816zatY?IoltBn ZoltBn, fejleszt6si politikank k&dOjelei (Queries about policies for settlement network development)‘, Vriroskpit&s, No 1, 1982, pp 16-17. ‘GAbor
382
and inflexible was Criticism that the NSDS was overcentralized increasingly voiced towards the end of the 1970s.’ The criticism of overcentralization may at first appear strange, given the fact that when first announced the strategy was viewed as a further step towards decentralization. Yet it has to be remembered that the axioms behind the strategy were in fact formulated during the early and mid-1960s when central direction was still regarded as the best way of ensuring rapid and effective growth. In other words, the strategy belongs to that period of post-war Hungarian history when the consensus still subscribed unquestioningly to the advantage of scale economies: ie utilities could only be efficiently supplied in large settlements; substantial population concentrations were needed to warrant infrastructural provision; the state would only site new housing in large, densely packed estates. Small-scale developments in almost all fields were regarded as unsustainable, and it was felt that investment in settlement development should therefore be used to encourage the growth of large centres as opposed to small centres, from which beneficial effects would radiate out into the surrounding countryside. It has been further argued that the approval of the NSDS by the Ministerial Council of the government in 1971 had the effect of validating ideologically the centralized tendencies in settlement development of earlier decades and of justifying investment in extreme settlement concentrations during the 1970s.’ This line of reasoning suggests that there was an almost complete lack of awareness of the incompatibility of such ideas with the New Economic Mechanism. The requirements of this new system of decentralized economic manage-
CITIES May 1984
Hungary:
9GyBrgy Enyedi, ‘A magyar telepiil6sh&5zat Btalakulba (The transformation of the Hungarian settlement network)‘, Magyar TudomAny, No 5, 1983, pp 341-352.
CITIES May 1984
The National Settlement Development
Authority
ment in the area of industrial location could only be met effectively by a corresponding decentralization of the settlement system. A settlement strategy was clearly needed for the 1970s but not one that accentuated the contradictions between regional economic development and the settlement system. Symptomatic of the centralized assumptions underpinning the NSDS is the fact that two-thirds of all settlements were excluded from the strategy. Moreover, because administrative and financial responsibility has been exercised from the top of the hierarchy downwards, the regional cities and county towns forming the upper tier have been developed at the expense of medium and small towns and also of large villages. An upper tier comprising the five regional cities was entirely justifiable, but the intensive development of 18 other centres - ie the remaining county towns - has involved unnecessary duplication in a country as small as Hungary, and is too closely tied to a spatial administrative structure that has gone unreformed since 1949. The needs of the population would probably have been better served by a wider dispersal of more centres of somewhat smaller population size but still offering essentially the same functions as the present county towns. It is worth examining further the way in which the financing of settlement development has generated a strong centralizing tendency. Although councils were given more independence in decision making at the time of the adoption of the NSDS, the way the system has worked has meant that locally generated development funds have been increasingly syphoned off, thus increasing dependence on centrally distributed resources and undermining the basis for independent local development initiatives. Thus, according to Enyedi, 67% of development funds administered by district councils in 1980 were, by central edict, spent on housing and a further 13% were spent on public services .9 Since spending on health and education is also determined centrally, there is now little leeway for local investment initiatives, and what there is invariably takes place in a few favoured towns. In addition, because state housing finance can only be used for large-scale residential developments, the bulk of housing funds is also spent in the larger towns. Given the fact that sectoral investment is also generally made in urban settings, one can begin to appreciate the cumulative centralizing power of the various financial allocations for different types of development. Indeed, only 10% of development funds now goes to those settlements in which 47% of the population reside. A further source of criticism has been the general inflexibility of the strategy. It is said that the hierarchical structure of the network with prescribed population targets and prescribed functions is too rigid. In a number of instances the strategy has ignored the changing geography of the country; for example, the special needs of the emerging agglomeration belts were not recognized, nor was the necessity of forging linkages between central places and their surrounding areas. Further, although many settlements already embodied the functions appropriate to their assigned order in the hierarchy when the strategy was announced, others were so underdeveloped that the necessary functions could only be provided at great expense to the central exchequer and could certainly not be met out of the locally generated resources. Yet again, there were instances where neighbouring settlements of identical type and function, notably in the Alfold, were assigned to the same level of the hierarchy and were thereby encouraged to compete rather than
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Authority
coordinate their activities. Nor was coordination encouraged among those groups of towns that are functionally linked and complementary to each other, for instance, TatabBnya-Tata-Oroszlhny or BCkCsBCkCscsaba-Gyula. “’ Modifications
to NSDS
Indeed, the criticisms of overcentralization and inflexibility have recently received some official recognition with the announcement of modifications to the strategy by the Ministerial Council in mid-1981.” The changes include the abandonment of population targets and the reduction of the number of hierarchical orders from nine to seven with the abolition of the distinction that had hitherto been made within the lower tier. From now on emphasis is to be placed on the development of the small to medium-sized towns, and investment in the regional and county centres will be correspondingly reduced. The desirability of fostering more cooperation within certain hierarchical orders has also been recognized (those orders affected have been renamed group centres) while the particular needs of the Budapest agglomeration have been met with the naming of six settlements as main centres and a further six settlements as subsidiary centres within the agglomeration belt. The middle tier of the hierarchy has also been expanded with the addition of a further nine settlements. Small
‘OGy6rgy Kdszegfalvi, ‘A magyarorszagi telepUl&rendszer strukturalis v<oz&& nak sajatos vonBsai (Characteristic features of the structural change of the Hungarian settlement system)‘, Teriileti Statisztika. Vol XXXII, No 5, 1982, pp 453475. “Magyar KBzlany, A Minisztertanscs
1018/1981 (VI. 19) szAmu haf&ozata. AZ orszAgos te;epii/&hb/6zat-fej/esz~6si koncepci6 mddosit&2rbl (The 1018/l 98 1 (VI. 19) Decision of the Ministerial Council. Regarding the Modification of the National Strategy), Settlement Development Budapest, 1981, p 568. ‘2GyBrgy Enyedi, ‘A magyar telepul&sh& lbzat &talakul&ai, tendenciai (The transformation of, and trends in, the settlement Magyar TudomBny, No 10, network)‘, 1981, pp 727-734. ‘3Moreover, many of the changes that have been brought about within the village network were implemented without local consultation and largely against local wishes.
384
towns and villages
Although the 1981 modifications have gone some way towards meeting the criticisms of overcentralization and rigidity, one important reservation still remains; that by neglecting small towns and large villages and by completely excluding the bulk of the village network, the NSDS has aggravated certain spatial inequalities. l2 Virtually all settlements with less than 3000 inhabitants were left outside the NSDS on the grounds that small settlements could not sustain effective development. This has had the effect of condemning 1.5 million people, mainly residing in the southern half of the country, to worse living conditions now than in 1971. At the same time, the same centralizing assumptions on which the NSDS has been based have also been applied to the village network. The programme of cooperative farm amalgamation has produced the closure of many farm offices, thus destroying the economic rationale of many villages. Some four-fifths of all village stores have been done away with since 1960. The village school network has been replaced by a system of district schools, and health care facilities have also been centralized. Of 3024 separate village councils in existence 20 years ago only 679 remain and in their place 715 joint village councils have been created. It is not, of course, axiomatic that all aspects of rural centralization are necessarily bad, but subsequent events have shown that the NSDS assumption that settlements of less than 3000 inhabitants were not viable was unduly pessimistic.‘” Small-scale service activities involving an expansion of cooperative farm activities can be made to work in these villages, while the encouragement of private ventures can also help to ensure the provision of an adequate level of services. Strong opinions about this matter have been expressed; VBgi, for instance, has argued that since spatial inequalities serve no useful social or economic purpose they should be eliminated. He rejects such arguments as lack of financial resources, less favourable historical legacies, geographical
CITIES May 1984
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Authority
disadvantages, etc which are invariably advanced to explain such inequalities (and by implication used to justify doing little about them).14
The future of urban development policy
“‘Gabor Vagi, ‘crvek es ellener-vek az BletkMilmenyek teriileti egyenlotlensegeirol (Arguments and counterarguments about spatial inequalities in living conditions)‘, Va/&hg, No 6, 1981, pp 41-48. 15Gy6rgy Koszegfalvi, ‘A telepiilesek fejl6desenek iranyi-t&sat, megalapoz6 kutatasok programja (A basic research programme for directing settlement development)‘, V~rosr$it&s, No 6, 1982, pp 18-20. ‘%andor Kalnoki Kis, ‘Avarosfejlesztestelepiilesfejlesztes iy tendenciai (New trends in urban and settlement development)‘, TArsadalmi Szemle, No 5, 1982, pp 63-71. “Gabor Preisich, Varosepiteszeti Szempotok a rehabilitacioban (Rehabilitation as a form of urban construction), V&OS eoites, No 3, 1982, pp 4-7; Laszl6 Pus, A Lakohazfenntartas iy vonasai (New features of tenement maintanance), VdrosBpetes, No 5, 1982, pp 4-7. leThe containment of urban expansion would also serve the purposes of environmental protection (Barnabas Barta, ‘Az urbanizaci6s folyamat tarsadalmi es kornyezeti vonatkozasai (Social and environmental concerns of the urbanisation process)‘, Teriileti Statisztika, Vol XXXII, No 4, 1982, pp 313-329).
CITIES May 1984
After more than a decade of the NSDS, settlement development policy in Hungary is once again undergoing a re-appraisal. In part this is a result of the severe criticisms of the strategy, but it is also caused by the straitened economic circumstances Hungary has experienced during the early 1980s. Even the most basic assumptions of the NSDS are coming under close scrutiny. For example, is settlement policy a consequence or a cause of socioeconomic development? Is there any need at all for a settlement policy in which the details of settlement development are spelt out, and, if so, should this be nationally, regionally or locally based? What particular model of settlement development should be followed: a hierarchical system of centres only, a system based on centres together with their zones of attraction, or a model based on the simple dichotomy of towns and villages? Is a hierarchical system necessary to ensure the effective spatial distribution of service functions, and is it right to concentrate functions in comparatively few centres? A comprehensive research programme into settlement development has been set up to provide the answers to such questions. The programme is sponsored by the Ministry of Construction and Urban Development and is directed by a steering committee made up of representatives of the Academy of Sciences, the National Planning Office, the Central Statistical Office, the Ministerial Council and the Economic Policy Division of the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party. Twenty-five research institutes will share in the actual research work.i5 The research programme’s recommendations will only be implemented, if at all, in the medium term and are therefore unlikely to influence to any great extent the course of urban development policy during the rest of the 1980s. Until the recommendations are made and acted on it is clear that policy will be based on promoting what is termed ‘intensive’ as opposed to ‘extensive’ urbanization.i6 This means that the further physical expansion of towns and cities will be constrained and better utilization made of existing urban space. There will be no more large housing developments on urban peripheries and housing demand will be increasingly financed from private sources. Stress will increasingly be placed on qualitative rather than the quantitative objectives of the recent 15-year housing plan. State-owned land within towns is being progressively released for sale on long-term leases for private building and state resources are now being directed towards the rehabilitation of the housing stock in the inner city areas - especially in Budapest.” ‘ Intensive urbanization also implies more coordination between towns and their surroundings. l8 The steady flow of population into urban areas can only be stemmed by improving the level of services offered by the smaller settlements to their surrounding areas. It is in the interests of town councils to encourage and actively participate in this process, as such a development would mean an easing of the existing tensions in urban housing and service provision and would help to stabilize the population distribution. A more balanced development of towns within the settlement network and greater coordination among individual urban centres will also be encouraged.
385
Hungary:
The National Settlement Development
Authority
In addition local autonomy will be strengthened and there will be much closer coordination between those institutions responsible for drawing up urban development plans and the councils responsible for their execution. Greater public participation is also to be encouraged which will involve moving away from the existing system, whereby development has been determined by the role of any given town in the settlement hierarchy, and the adoption of a system geared more towards the satisfaction of local preferences and needs. The granting of greater financial autonomy for local councils should form an integral part of this process, which may involve some change in the system of taxing enterprises. In future, individual settlements will also have more control over what types of job opportunities are created within their jurisdictions, and here small-scale co-operative (for instance the extension of agricultural cooperative activities into the tertiary sector) and private ventures will play an increasingly important role.
386
CITIES May 1984