The State of Infrastructural Development in Hungary,

Transcription

1 The State of Infrastructural Development in Hungary,

2 Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute for World Economics The State of Infrastructural Development in Hungary, by Éva Ehrlich DSc. HAS Institute for World Economics Titular University Professor and Tamás Szigetvári Ph.D. HAS Institute for World Economics Senior Researcher with contribution by Gábor Révész DSc. HAS Institute of Economics Retired Head of Research Department and coauthored by Sándor Kerekes DSc. University Professor (The waste management and sewage treatment infrastructure in Hungary) Péter Mihályi DSc. University Professor (Health care from a territorial approach) István Polonyi Ph.D University Professor and Head of Department (Regional differences in education) Ms Gábor Székely Central Statistical Office Chief Advisor (Housing situation in the Hungarian regions) István Varró DSc. Titular University Professor (Regional data of criminality) The present research was carried out within the framework of the tender related to the National Research and Development Programmes. The consortium was headed by the Regional Research Center of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, its project director was Gyula Horváth DSc., Director General of the Regional Research Center. (The study reflects the situation as of December 2004.)

3 3 Contents INTRODUCTION I. HUNGARIAN INFRASTRUCTURES IN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON I. ( ) II. A FEW WORDS ON THE HISTORICAL TYPES OF INFRASTRUCTURAL II. DEVELOPMENT III. A FEW GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HUNGARIAN III. COUNTIES AND REGIONS III. III/1. CHANGES IN THE LEVEL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTIES III. III/2. CHANGES IN THE POPULATION OF COUNTIES AND REGIONS III. III/3. EMPLOYMENT RATE AND THE REGIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE LABOUR MARKET III. III/4. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT STOCK IV. HUNGARY S INFRASTRUCTURE ACCORDING TO COUNTIES, IV. REGIONS AND MAJOR CITIES IV. IIV/1. THE TRANSPORT SECTOR IV. IIV/2. THE INFORMATICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR IV. IIV/3. THE HOUSING PROVISION AND UTILITIES SECTOR IV. IIV/4. THE HEALTH CARE SECTOR IV. IIV/5. THE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SECTOR IV. IIV/6. THE CULTURE SECTOR IV. IIV/7. THE TRADE AND TOURISM SECTOR IV. IIV/8. THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SECTOR IV. IIV/9. THE PUBLIC SAFETY SECTOR IV. IIV/10. HUNGARIAN INFRASTRUCTURE AS A WHOLE IN THE COUNTIES AND THE REGIONS...41 IV. IIV.11. THE INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF LARGE CITIES IV. IIV/11/1. General characteristics IV. IIV/11/2. The infrastructural development level of large cities V. BRIEF THEMATIC STUDIES ON THE EXAMINED BRANCHES V. V/1. TRANSPORT V. V/2. INFORMATICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. V/2. V/2/1. International tendencies V. V/2. V/2/2. Hungarian telecommunications V. V/2. V/2/3. Wired telephone V. V/2. V/2/4. Regional differences V. V/2. V/2/5. Mobile telephone V. V/2. V/2/6. Cable television V. V/2. V/2/7. Informatics, Internet V. V/2. V/2/8. Post V. V/2. V/2/9. Summary V. V/3. THE HOUSING SITUATION IN THE HUNGARIAN REGIONS V. V/3. V/3/1. Basic data of the housing stock of the regions V. V/3. V/3/2. Size and number of rooms of dwellings V. V/3. V/3/3. The quality and equipment of dwellings V. V/3. V/3/4. Composition and state of the building stock V. V/3. V/3/5. Housing market, changes of residence

4 4 THE STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN HUNGARY, V. V/4. HEALTH CARE FROM A TERRITORIAL APPROACH V. V/4. V/4/1. Parallel capacities V. V/4. V/4/2. Analysis of patient routes V. V/4. V/4/3. Power and responsibility V. V/4. V/4/4. Summary V. V/5. REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN EDUCATION IN HUNGARY AT THE END OF THE 1990s V. V/5. V/5/1. Preschool provision V. V/5. V/5/2. Primary school V. V/5. V/5/3. Secondary education V. V/5. V/5/4. Higher education V. V/5. V/5/5. Education in large cities V. V/5. V/5/6. Regional development of educational level V. V/5. V/5/7. Education outlay V. V/5. V/5/8. Quality, structure V. V/5. V/5/9. In conclusion V. V/6. THE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND SEWAGE TREATMENT INFRASTRUCTURE V. V/6. IN HUNGARY V. V/6. V/6/1. The situation of waste production and disposal V. V/6. V/6/2. Water supply and sewage treatment in Hungary V. V/6. V/6/3. Quality of life consequences of public utility developments V. V/7. REGIONAL DATA OF CRIMINALITY VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS, EVALUATIONS AND PROPOSALS REFERENCES APPENDICES APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX

5 5 Tables and Figures Figure 1 Scores for the complete infrastructure according to the 2000 ranking of the 54 surveyed countries in 1990 and in Figure 2 Scores for transport according to the 2000 ranking of the surveyed 54 countries in 1990 and Figure 3 Scores for informatics and telecommunications according to the 2000 ranking of the surveyed 54 countries in 1990 and Figure 4 Scores for education and culture according to the 2000 ranking of the surveyed 54 countries in 1990 and Figure 5 Scores for health care according to the 2000 ranking of the surveyed 54 countries in 1990 and Figure 6 Scores for environmental protection according to the 2000 ranking of the 54 surveyed countries in 1990 and Table 1 Hungary s position in the international comparison of the examined i nfrastructural fields among the market economies and the transition countries in 1990 and Table 2 Scores of the relative standard of the 14 transition countries by infrastructural fields in 1990 and Table 3 The most and the least developed infrastructural areas and the magnitude of the differences in relative standard in the transition countries in 1990 and Table 4 Changes in the real value of per capita GDP during the 12 years following the regime change Table 5 Size of the population and distribution according to age groups in 1990 and Table 6 Proportion of employed and unemployed among the year-old population in Table 7 Sectoral employment rates and average earnings by regions Table 8 The educational level of employees by regions Table 9 Distribution of the equity capital of enterprises with foreign participation by regions.. 24 Table 10 Scores and ranking of the transport sector by counties and regions in 1990 and Table 11 County and regional scores and ranking of the informatics and telecommunications sector in 1990 and Table 12 County and regional scores and ranking of the sector of housing provision and utilities in 1990 and Table 13 County and regional scores and ranking of the health care sector in 1990 and Table 14 County and regional scores and ranking of the educational subsector in 1990 and Table 15 County and regional scores and ranking of the research subsector in and Table 16 County and regional scores and ranking of the culture sector in 1990 and Table 17 County and regional scores and ranking in the trade and tourism sector in 1992 and Table 18 County and regional scores and ranking of the environmental Table 19 protection sector in 1990 and County and regional scores and ranking of the public safety sector in 1990 and Table 20 Scores and ranking of the whole infrastructure in 1990 and Table 21 Population change of large cities Table 22 The ratio of registered unemployed in large cities Table 23 Estimated GDP of eight urban small regions and Budapest Table 24 The number of small and medium enterprises in large cities, 1996 and

6 6 THE STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN HUNGARY, Table 25 Average scores and ranking of the eight large cities and their respective counties in the infrastructural sectors in Table 26 Scores of the eight large cities and their respective counties in the eight sectors of the infrastructure in Table 27 Change indices for six infrastructural sectors in eight large cities and counties, Table 28 ICT and telecommunications investments Figure 7 The number of main telephone lines according to use Figure 8 A MATÁV s current ownership structure Figure 9 Share in the Hungarian wired telephone market according to number of main lines Figure 10 Service areas of the various telephone providers Figure 11 Market share of the mobile telephone providers according to number of subscribers, Figure 12 Distribution of wired and mobile telephone subscribers Figure 13 Internet access packages, 40-hour accessibility during peak time, August Table 29 Computer, mobile telephone and satellite provision in the regions, Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Changes in the number of postal service points during the past few years in Hungary Number and ratio of occupied and unoccupied dwellings by regions (2001, 2003) Main accommodation-density indicators of the housing stock of regions (occupied dwellings) Table 33 Ratio of owner-occupied dwellings Table 34 Number of building permits issued, built dwellings, Table 35 Number of rooms of dwellings, Table 36 Enlargements, conversions and other building activities in occupied dwellings Table 37 Comfort level of dwellings, Table 38 Public utility provision of dwellings and public utility expenditures since Table 39 Public utility related investments in dwellings Table 40 State of the buildings according to residents (2003) Table 41 Distribution of dwellings according to major renovations in the building since 1999 (2003) Table 42 The ratio and spatial distribution of moves since Table 43 Reasons for satisfaction or dissatisfaction with dwelling (2003) Table 44 Intents to make a change (within the home or by moving), Table 45 Aims of the change intended within five years, Table 46 Number of new building permits issued and the number of built dwellings by counties, Table 47 Housing stock, 1990, 2001, Table 48 Quality of the housing stock, 1990, 2001, Table 49 Changes in the territorial differences of the provision system and health condition, Table 50 Changes in the territorial differences of the provision system and health condition between 1990 and Table 51 Prevalence rate of the main diseases of the BAZ county s total year-old population and the Roma population of the same age Table 52 Reasons for noncompliance with the territorial provision principle from the point of view of patients Table 53 The ratio of out-of-territory patients in inpatient provision Table 54 The ratio of patients turning to out-of-territory hospital in inpatient provision Figure 14 Changes in the size of the relevant population from the point of view of education,

7 TABLES AND FIGURES 7 Figure 15 Changes in the number of preschools, preschool-age children and preschoolers, Figure 16 The number of students in secondary education, Table 55 The number of regular students and the number of (regular) students per 100,000 population by regions, Table 56 Educational provision of large cities, Table 57 Development of educational level by regions, Figure 17 The ratio of budgetary education outlay as a percentage of GDP by educational levels in Hungary Table 58 Education outlay as a proportion of GDP by regions, Table 59 The standard of public education by regions Figure 18 The volume of hauled communal solid waste Table 60 Table 61 Changes in the number of settlements included in waste collection by regions between 2000 and The number of communal solid waste dumps in Hungary according to operational status Table 62 Changes in the volume of total sewage Table 63 Changes in sewer fees, national average and in Budapest Table 64 Changes in the volume of sewage not carried off by sewers from 1992 to Table 65 Changes in the length of the sewer network from 1992 to Figure 19 Changes in the ratio of dwellings connected to the sewer network by regions Table 66 Criminality Table 67 Known public prosecution crimes

8 8 THE STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN HUNGARY, Introduction The present study starts with an introductory analysis presenting the findings of an international comparison of the most important infrastructural areas based on natural indices. The analysis based on the international comparison of the natural indices makes use of the experiences of numerous previous researches and the applied methods developed over decades. These antecedents located the level of economic development and infrastructural state of Hungary and the other Central and Eastern European (henceforth CEE) countries within an international framework, on the one hand, and showed the differences that characterize structurally these countries compared with similarly developed market economies, on the other. Based on 49 natural indices for five infrastructural sectors, the introductory analysis, covering 54 countries in , shows the position the countries occupy in international ranking and the changes, shifts in position during the period in question especially as regards Hungary and the other transition countries. It also shows whether Hungarian development has approximated international trends or for some reason differs and/or has grown apart, on the one hand, and the level of development of Hungarian infrastructures compared with the other CEE countries, on the other. After presenting the international ranking of the Hungarian infrastructural sectors, the study focuses on the regional examination of Hungary s infrastructure. The aim of our research was to discover the differences in the development of the counties in the examined infrastructural sectors, specifically, the differences among the counties and, through the counties, among the seven regions established in the course of Hungary s accession to the European Union. Our research covered Hungary s 19 counties and seven regions, nine sectors of its infrastructure and, within this, the examination of 73 natural indices, as follows: 1. Transport (14 indices) 2. Informatics and telecommunications (7 indices) 3. Housing provision and equipment (11 indices) 4. Health care provision (11 indices) 5. Education and research (9 indices) 6. Culture (6 indices) 7. Trade and tourism (7 indices) 8. Environmental protection (6 indices) 9. Public safety (2 indices). Our investigations concerning the counties offer a picture of the changes that took place in the examined sectors during the 12-year period ( ) after the regime change, specifically, the magnitude of the county-level state of development of the examined infrastructures, the differences among the counties and the magnitude of the inequalities within the regions. Our research also included the examination of the infrastructure of eight large cities with a population of more than 100,000. Since only a part of the base data on large cities is available, in this respect we could build on the study of only 42 natural indices and eight infrastructural branches. Our research on large cities contains a comparison of infrastructural standard between the large cities and the counties. Last, the final part of our study contains seven short papers, which, besides highlighting regional aspects, offer brief information on the most important topical questions of the specific infrastructural sector. These papers were written by acknowledged experts in the respective field upon our request.

9 HUNGARIAN INFRASTRUCTURES IN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON ( ) 9 I. Hungarian infrastructures in international comparison ( ) 1 In this chapter we answer the following two questions. 1. What position did Hungary occupy in the international ranking of the examined infrastructures at the beginning of the regime change in 1990 and a decade later in 2000? 2. What changes and readjustments took place in the relative standard of the examined infrastructures of the transition countries during the decade after the regime change? The investigation involving 54 countries covers five infrastructural sectors on the basis of the factual data for the 49 natural indices. 2 The five examined infrastructural sectors are: Transport (16 indices) Informatics and telecommunications (9 indices) Education and culture (9 indices) Health care (9 indices) and Environmental protection (6 indices) The following figures show the results in scores for the period under investigation, arranged according to the 2000 ranking: Figure 1: infrastructure as a whole Figure 2: transport Figure 3: informatics and telecommunications Figure 4: education and culture Figure 5: health care Figure 6: environmental protection. 1 The international comparison of the infrastructures was carried out in the second half of 2003 within the framework of a Ministry of the Economy and Transport project. 2 See Appendix 2.

10 10 THE STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN HUNGARY, Figure1. Scores for the complete infrastructure according to the 2000 ranking of the 54 surveyed countries in 1990 and in 2000

11 HUNGARIAN INFRASTRUCTURES IN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON ( ) 11 Figure 2. Scores for transport according to the 2000 ranking of the surveyed 54 countries in 1990 and 2000

12 12 THE STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN HUNGARY, Figure 3. Scores for informatics and telecommunications according to the 2000 ranking of the surveyed 54 countries in 1990 and 2000

13 HUNGARIAN INFRASTRUCTURES IN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON ( ) 13 Figure 4. Scores for education and culture according to the 2000 ranking of the surveyed 54 countries in 1990 and 2000

14 14 THE STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN HUNGARY, Figure 5. Scores for health care according to the 2000 ranking of the surveyed 54 countries in 1990 and 2000

15 HUNGARIAN INFRASTRUCTURES IN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON ( ) 15 Figure 6. Scores for environmental protection according to the 2000 ranking of the 54 surveyed countries in 1990 and 2000

16 16 THE STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN HUNGARY, Tables 1 and 2 show Hungary s position in an international comparison at the beginning of the regime change (in 1990) and ten years later (in 2000) and among the transition countries. Table 1 Hungary s position in the international comparison of the examined infrastructural fields among the market economies and the transition countries in 1990 and 2000 Examined infrastructural fields compared with 39 market economies Hungary's position* among the 14 transition countries** Complete infrastructure Transport Informatics and telecommunications Education and culture Health care Environmental protection * According to scores in the specific infrastructural field. See Appendix 2 for more detail. ** China is not included in transition countries here. We can see that as regards the complete infrastructure Hungary s position compared with the 39 market economies remained the same throughout the examined period. Of the five infrastructural sectors, Hungary moved up considerably (three places) in the field of informatics and telecommunications and one place in environmental protection. We can also see that with respect to transport, education and culture and health care it fell back two places. In the comparison with the 14 transition countries, the country was unable to move up from its sixth position concerning the complete infrastructure. In the field of informatics and telecommunications Hungary fell back two places and three places in environmental protection. It made no advance in transport. However, it moved up three places in the education and culture sector and two in the health care sector. Table 2 shows the relative position of the 14 transition countries in the examined five infrastructural sectors. We can see that as regards infrastructure as a whole the countries (with the exception of Ukraine) approximated one another with scores increasing everywhere (see last two columns). The change in positions was insignificant. Slovenia occupies the first position with 48 points, the Czech Republic is second, followed by the three Baltic countries (Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, in this order) and only then by Hungary (in 6th position) and the remaining eight countries, with Ukraine and Serbia-Montenegro as last. Table 2 Scores of the relative standard of the 14 transition countries by infrastructural fields in 1990 and 2000 Ranking of countries according to scores of complete infrastructure in 2000 Transport Informatics and Telecommunications Education and Culture Health care Environmental protection Complete infrastructure Slovenia Czech Republic Latvia Estonia Lithuania

17 HUNGARIAN INFRASTRUCTURES IN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON ( ) 17 Table 2 (cont.) Scores of the relative standard of the 14 transition countries by infrastructural fields in 1990 and 2000 Ranking of countries according to scores of complete infrastructure in 2000 Transport Informatics and Telecommunications Education and Culture Health care Environmental protection Complete infrastructure Hungary Slovakia Poland Croatia Bulgaria Russia Romania Ukraine Serbia-Montenegro Table 3 shows the infrastructural branches, which were the relatively most and the least advanced in the transition countries during the examined decade. It is noteworthy that in 1990 and 2000, education, culture and health care were the relatively most advanced infrastructural fields in almost every country. In 1990, the least developed areas were informatics and telecommunications in most transition countries, transport in three countries, and in 2000, transport in every transition country. In six countries, besides transport, informatics and telecommunications again proved to be the relatively least developed. Table 3 The most and the least developed infrastructural areas and the magnitude of the differences in relative standard in the transition countries in 1990 and 2000 Ranking of countries according to scores of complete infrastructure in 2000 Most developed infrastructural area(s) Least developed Index of differences in relative standard Slovenia Ed.&cult. Ed.&cult. Transport Tansport Czech Republic Health Health Inf.&telecom. Inf.&telecom Latvia Ed.&cult. Ed.&cult. Inf.&telecom. Inf.&telecom. Transport Estonia Ed.&cult. Ed.&cult. Inf.&telecom. Transport Slovakia Health Ed.&cult. Inf.&telecom. Transport Hungary Ed.&cult. Ed.&cult. Inf.&telecom. Transport Lithuania Ed.&cult. Ed.&cult. Inf.&telecom. Poland Ed.&cult. Health Ed.&cult. Health Inf.&telecom. Transport Inf.&telecom. Transport Inf.&telecom. Transport Croatia Health Health Inf.&telecom. Transport

18 18 THE STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN HUNGARY, Table 3 (cont.) The most and the least developed infrastructural areas and the magnitude of the differences in relative standard in the transition countries in 1990 and 2000 Ranking of countries according to scores of complete infrastructure in 2000 Most developed infrastructural area(s) Least developed Index of differences in relative standard Bulgaria Health Ed.&cult. Inf.&telecom. Russia Health Ed.&cult Inf.&telecom. Inf.&telecom. Transport Inf.&telecom. Transport Environ.prot Romania Health Ed.&cult. Inf.&telecom. Transport Ukraine Ed.&cult. Ed.&cult. Inf.&telecom. Inf.&telecom. Environ.prot Serbia-Montenegro Health Health Ed.&cult. Inf.&telecom. Transport The table also shows the magnitude of differences between the most and the least advanced areas of each of the examined five infrastructural sectors. By 2000, the differences observed in every country in 1990 lessened considerably. II. A few words on the historical types of infrastructural development From our series of international researches covering the 19 th and 20 th centuries the following three types of modern infrastructural development take shape. 1. The pre-industrialisation building of the infrastructures was characteristic of the rich early capitalist countries (e.g. England, the Netherlands). Within the framework of this type, industrialisation took place based on the conserved infrastructural facilities (roads, waterways, ports, sewerage in some parts of cities, etc.) and institutions (e.g. educational system) of earlier ages. 2. In the relatively rapidly and harmoniously (without interruption) industrializing follower countries of the modern world, the growth of production capacities was accompanied by a simultaneous, interrelated, inter-linked concurrent development of the infrastructure. The infrastructural discrepancies appearing as obstructions in this process were temporary and overcome in a relatively short time. The United States is an almost extreme embodiment of this type, where, in the 19 th century, co-development also came to include the process of territorial expansion as its third element. 3. Finally, we distinguished the subsequently developing infrastructure type, which is the concomitant of state socialism, of forced industrialization. The state economic policy of forced industrialization was to concentrate resources in order to increase production capacities. The result was that the development of the shabby and obsolete infrastructures inherited from the past, their renewal, modernization, the meeting of the various related demands arising in connection with technical development, and, at the same time, the maintenance of existing infrastructures were also backward, neglected. Under these circumstances the state and operation of the infrastructures were characterized by shortages, substandard quality, patchwork. We found the phenomena of and examples for this last infrastructural development type in the state socialist countries, primarily in the CEE countries, on which our investigations focused in the 1970s.

19 A FEW GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HUNGARIAN COUNTIES AND REGIONS 19 Having presented and evaluated the positions of the examined infrastructures in current ranking, we may conclude that during the decade following the regime change, Hungary (like most transition countries) as we shall demonstrate in each examined sector did not surpass the subsequent infrastructural development type that had characterized state socialism, it was not transformed into interconnected development progressing together with economic development in a chain-like manner. The facts show that as regards condition and state, the complete Hungarian infrastructure (with some exceptions) is invariably featured by the characteristics of subsequent infrastructural growth, development. As far as the operation of infrastructural areas is concerned, efficiency requirements still fail to prevail, a left over from the state socialist economy, notwithstanding the privatization carried out in a number of important areas and the move toward creating a competitive situation (or pointing in the direction of emerging competitiveness) in some areas. It follows from the current situation of the Hungarian infrastructure that in the course of the negotiations leading to EU membership a great many derogation agreements were reached on requirements and prescriptions relating to infrastructural areas, including those discussed in the present report and others outside the scope of our investigation. However, we must add that in consequence of the concluded and the sometimes interrupted still ongoing changes in the ownership relations of the Hungarian infrastructures and the liberalization launched in the process the regime change, competitiveness, competitive situations have appeared and are broadening, and in some cases are already operating, in these areas as well,. Hopefully, accession and the gradual gaining of ground of EU requirements will soon lead Hungary toward an infrastructural growth, development progressing together with the economy in a chainlike manner. III. A few general characteristics of the Hungarian counties and regions An approximate knowledge of the facts and processes concerning macroeconomics and social structure in relation to counties and regions is indispensable in the case of infrastructural investigations as well. Accordingly, we shall review the indices 3 and the data showing the changes in them between 1990 and 2001/2002, pertaining to the level of economic development, population and age-structure, employment structure, employee structure according to branches and education, and foreign listed capital investment of the counties and the regions. III.1. Changes in the level of economic development of counties Table 4 shows the changes in economic development between 1990 and In the period between the regime change and EU accession, Hungary s GDP increased by only 16%, in other words, average annual growth barely exceeded 1%. As it is known, Hungary s economic performance was characterized by widely fluctuating turns. During the first few years there was a nearly 20% decline, followed by accelerating growth from 1995, which, taken together, added up to the above modest growth rate. The per capita GDP data of the Hungarian counties show that the first group of four counties developed considerably faster than the country as a whole. Their growth rate was 3.8% annually, consequently their weight in the economy grew considerably. The annual growth rate of the second group of four counties was approximately 2%, which was also higher than Hungary s average rate of growth. But in the case of the third group of eight counties and, especially, in that of the fourth group of three counties growth was below the average. Finally, Békés was the only county where growth declined. From the growth of the counties measured by the per capita GDP index we may conclude that in terms of the level of economic development the gap between the counties greatly widened between 1990 and Development in more than half of the counties (12) slowed down, and came to a standstill in four. 3 Since data on the exact volume of investments in infrastructure are unavailable, we had to dispense with this important index.

20 20 THE STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN HUNGARY, Table 4 Changes in the real value of per capita GDP during the 12 years following the regime change ( ) County First group GDP/head index 2002/ Budapest Pest County Komárom-Esztergom County Gyôr-Moson-Sopron County 1.40 Second group 5. Heves County Veszprém County Fejér County Vas County 1.18 Third group 9. Zala County Baranya County Somogy County Nógrád County Hajdú-Bihar County Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Bács-Kiskun County Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County 1.08 Fourth group 17. Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Tolna County Csongrád County 1.00 Fifth group with declining rate 20. Békés County 0.96 Source: KSH (Central Statistical Office) III/2. Changes in the population of counties and regions Table 5 shows the changes in populations and age structure in We can see that population growth was considerable in five counties during the period in question. The greatest growth (by 134,000 people) was in Pest County, a significant number of whom moved out from Budapest. The population of four other counties also increased (these were, in the order of the magnitude of growth: Fejér, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg, Gyôr-Moson-Sopron and Hajdú-Bihar counties). In 13 counties the population declined. The greatest decline could be seen in Budapest where the number of people decreased by 240,000 during the 12-year period. In two counties (Komárom-Esztergom and Bács- Kiskun) there was essentially no change. It is worth noting that already in there were only two counties whose population increased (by 40,500 in Pest and by 5,432 in Gyôr- Moson-Sopron), while the population decline continued in Budapest (by 71,000 persons), in Fejér and Veszprém counties (by 5,738 and 5,275, respectively). In other counties the decline was small. Turning to the change in the age structure of the population (see columns 3 8 in Table 5), we call attention to three noteworthy facts. 1. During the long decade in question the proportion of the 0 14 age bracket decreased significantly, that is, while in 1990, the proportion of 0 4-year-olds was between 20 and 23% in the counties (but not Budapest), by 2001, their proportion dropped to 16-19% in most counties. The highest figure is found in Csongrád county (20.6%), the lowest in Budapest (12.8%) and Szabolcs-Szatmár- Bereg county (15.9%). 2. The 35 37% proportion of the age bracket is essentially the same in most counties and regions and virtually unchanged throughout the long decade. 3. The proportion of the year-olds (and older) increased significantly during this period. While in 1990, the proportion of the age group in question was between 42 and 45% in most counties and regions, by 2001, their proportion rose to 50-51% in seven counties and to 46-49% in the rest, and to 47-49% in most regions. This change in proportion is directly related to the fact that the children of baby boom of the 1950s reached 40 after In other words, during the process of the regime change the proportion of young generations has declined significantly and the older age groups already make up practically half of the population. Aging of the population is causing an increasing problem in meeting pension payments not only in Hungary but also in most EU countries, and it may, in addition, affect unfavorably the country s competitiveness, the unavoidable renewal of the economy and society.

21 A FEW GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HUNGARIAN COUNTIES AND REGIONS 21 Table 5 Size of the population and distribution according to age groups in 1990 and 2001 Country, region Total resident population (thousand) and older Distribution according to age group, % Budapest Pest Central Hungary Fejér Komárom-Esztergom Veszprém Central Transdanubia Gyôr-Moson-Sopron Vas Zala Western Transdanubia Baranya Somogy Tolna Southern Transdanubia Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Heves Nógrád Northern Hungary Hajdú-Bihar Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Northern Great Plain Bács-Kiskun Békés Csongrád Southern Great Plain Source: Népszámlálás (KSH népszámlálási könyvei), 2001 Population Census (KSH population census records) III/3. Employment rate and the regional structure of the labour market The economic recession during the first years of the transformation, also called transformation crisis, was accompanied by a sharp fall in employment throughout Central and Eastern Europe. Between 1989 and 1994, this decline was generally within the 10-20% range in the CEE countries. In Hungary, however, due to the robust change of the economic structure, employment fell by more than 30%. Between 1989 and 1994, the number of registered employees dropped from 5,490,000 to 3,827,000, and the increase since then has been insignificant. The number of employees registered in 2003 (3,847,000) make up 57% of the population of working age (15 64-year-olds), 4 which is extremely low in international comparison. In the EU-15 the corresponding figure is 64.3% 4 Workforce surveys (KSH/Central Statistical Office)

22 22 THE STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN HUNGARY, Table 6 Proportion of employed and unemployed among the year-old population in 2003 County, region Employed Unemployed I (1) II (2) Budapest Pest Central Hungary Fejér Komárom-Esztergom Veszprém Central Transdanubia Gyôr-Moson-Sopron Vas Zala Western Transdanubia Baranya Somogy Tolna Southern Transdanubia Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Heves Nógrád Northern Hungary Hajdú-Bihar Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Northern Great Plain Bács-Kiskun Békés Csongrád Southern Great Plain National average and among the ten new EU member countries it is 65.5% in the Czech Republic, 63.4% in Slovenia and between 60 and 62% 5 in the Baltic states, and only in Poland is the employment rate lower than in Hungary. 6 Table 6 shows the employment and unemployment rates of the working age population in the counties and the regions for According to the table, a relatively high European-level employment is concentrated in the Central Hungarian, the Central and Western Transdanubian regions showing a fairly even distribution among the constituent counties. On the other hand, the data of the other four regions indicate chronically low employment rates. This is especially true of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén county in the north-east peripherery of the country (the heavy industry base in the preceding period) and Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg county where half of the year-old population do not have regular employment. The regional order seen here is also represented in the unemployment rates, primarily the more characteristic data of the registered unemployed (column three in Table 6). 7 However, the relatively moderate level of these data and especially the workforce survey data are inconsistent with the low employment rate. 8 Widespread unregistered employment, or black labour, explains this contradiction to some extent. The regional inequalities of the labour market are shown in Table 7 along sectoral employment rates and wage scales. Notes: 1) Unemployed I = according to KSH workforce survey; 2) Unemployed II = according to unemployment registry. Source: Munkaerôfelmérés 2003 (KSH 2004) és Foglalkoztatási Hivatal Munkanélküli Nyilvántartás (átvéve A magyarországi munkaerôpiac 2004 c. kiadványból; Foglalkoztatási Hivatal Országos Foglalkoztatási Közalapítvány). (2003 Workforce Survey (KSH 2004) and Unemployment Registry of the Employment Office (in Hungarian labour market 2004, Employment Office s National Employment Public Foundation).) 5 Employment in Europe Of course, the low employment rate, by international comparison, in itself exerts an unfavourable influence on the level of economic development, on its GDP/inhabitant indicator. An international publication, containing data on the comparison of 34 countries, lists Hungary 25th from the point of view of productivity (GDP/working hour) preceding, for example, Cyprus, Korea and the Czech Republic (as well as Slovakia and Poland). Due the shorter than average workdays and, even more so, to below average employment rate, the said countries precede Hungary in the ranking according to level of economic development, putting it 28th. (Source: R.H. McGuckin and Bart van Ark: Performance 2004; Productivity, Employment and Income in the World s Economies; Research Report R RR) 7 Regulations prescribe the various support forms (e.g. unemployment benefits, welfare payments) only for the registered unemployed. This why, especially in areas with higher unemployment rates, the number of registrants typically and considerably exceeds the number of those who are found to be unemployed in job interviews. 8 International statistics for 2002 registered based on the interview method 8.6% unemployment rate for Germany, 10% for Greece, 11.3% for Spain and 9% for Italy besides employment rates in the range between 55.5% and 65.3%. (Source: Employment in Europe 2003)

23 A FEW GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HUNGARIAN COUNTIES AND REGIONS 23 Table 7 Sectoral employment rates and average earnings by regions Regions Sectoral employment rates in percent Gross earnings, national average = 100 a b c a b c Central Hungary Central Transdanubia Western Transdanubia Southern Transdanubia Northern Hungary Northern Great Plain Southern Great Plain National average Notes: a = production sector; b = of which: processing industry; c = tertiary sector Source: Foglalkoztatási Hivatal bértarifa felvételébôl átvéve A magyarországi munkaerôpiac 2004 c. kiadványból, Foglalkoztatási Hivatal Országos Foglalkoztatási Közalapítvány. (Wage tariff survey of the Employment Office, in Hungarian labour market 2004, Employment Office s National Employment Public Foundation.) Between 1990 and 2001, following prevalent international trends, the tertiary sector came to dominate the employment structure in Hungary, too. From the regional point of view, in this case, too, the outstanding 73% tertiary rate puts Central Hungary (and within it Budapest) in the lead. The regional data also reflect the very strong differentiation of earnings during the transformation period. The foregoing already allow for the conclusion that the numbers express the superiority of Central Hungary and the advantageous position of Central Transdanubia followed by Western Transdanubia in the established wage structure. In this wage structure only in Central Hungary (Table 8) are higher wages motivated by the greater proportion of employees with higher education and the smaller proportion of those with lower education. Table 8 The educational level of employees by regions (%) Regions Low* High** Low* High** level of qualification Central Hungary Central Transdanubia Western Transdanubia Southern Transdanubia Northern Hungary Northern Great Plain Southern Great Plain Total Notes: * completed 8 grades or less; ** Highly qualified: college or university education Source: Népszámlálás (2001 Population Census) On the national scale, the ratio of those who completed eight grades or less dropped from 39% to 20%, while the ratio of those with college and university education rose from 12% to 18% during the period in question. This change, too, corresponds to international tendencies and also expresses the

24 24 THE STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN HUNGARY, processes of economic and social transformation from this perspective. Given these national averages, the ratio pairs for the regions show Central Hungary s prominent position and the balanced position (at a lower level) of six regions. III/4. Regional distribution of foreign direct investment Following the large-scale recession of the Hungarian economy during the transformation (when 60% of the processing industry went bankrupt) recovery began. The indispensable structural change this involved was brought about by foreign capital. It may suffice to just mention here that foreign capital played a prime role in Hungarian privatization, in financing mostly greenfield investments introducing the most advanced technology, in laying the ground for the export-oriented dynamic growth that unfolded by the second half of the 1990s. Foreign capital covered more than 20% (50% 9 in outstanding years) of the gross investment. Today, 80% 10 of the country s export is produced by foreign-owned companies. During the first years of the transformation, the intensity of the influx of direct investment was highest in Hungary among the CEE countries. This may be attributed to the fact, that from the economic and mainly from the legal point of view, Hungary was the best prepared in the whole region to accommodate foreign capital, and, also related to this, it was the first to begin the direct-sale privatization of state-owned property operating in the economy. Up to 1997, 25% of the total direct investment flowing into the CEE was invested in Hungary. Thus, at the end of 1997, the per capita foreign direct investment of USD 1,490 was the highest in the region (the corresponding data were USD 537 in the Czech Republic, USD 339 in Poland, USD 161 in Slovakia and USD 366 in Slovenia). During the years after privatization gained momentum in the neighbouring countries as well, a degree of equilibrium was reached. By the end of 2002, the stock of per capita foreign direct investment amounted to USD 3,590 in Hungary, USD 3,770 in the Czech Republic, USD 1,240 in Poland, USD 1,900 in Slovakia, USD 2,050 in Slovenia and USD 2,560 in Croatia. 11 Considerations of the allocation of foreign capital and regional inequalities may stand in a reciprocal causal relationship acting on one another in a positive feedback process. On the one hand, the relative development of human capital and infrastructural provisions may be an important consideration in the Table 9 Distribution of the equity capital of enterprises with foreign participation by regions Regions Value Distribution HUF bn % Central Hungary Central Transdanubia Western Transdanubia Southern Transdanubia Northern Hungary Northern Great Plain Southern Great Plain Total Note: Non-distributable HUF 117 billion Source: Magyar Statisztikai Évkönyv KSH, p (Hungarian Statistical Annual KSH, p. 294.) allocation of foreign capital. On the other, the extent of foreign capital may contribute considerably to further growth of the respective area. But it is also possible that the capital operating in a certain branch of the economy and partaking in territorial expansion is attracted by more backward (but still consolidated) conditions. In Hungary s case the former, clearly more general relationship can be seen to prevail. With respect to the regional allocation of foreign capital invested in Hungary, we used the data of state records kept on enterprises. 12 Therefore, Table 9 shows for each region the distribution of the total equity capital value of the enterprises with foreign participation grouped according to the place of registry. It almost goes without saying that two-thirds of the enterprises with foreign participation, as calculated on the basis of equity capital, are registered in Central Hungary as the dominant 09 Source: World Investment Report United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2004, p The main characteristics of foreign capital investments, Ms E. Hübner, KSH report, p Source: World Investment Report 2004 (United Nations New York and Geneva, 2004, p. 380) 12 Foreign participation in an enterprise means that the investor holds at least 10% of the ordinary or voting shares. Foreign investments represent 81% of the total equity capital of these enterprises.