Contextual aspects; drivers and Brakes
Changing fields of force for the local government
Local communities continuously face problems at the beginning of the 21st century that do not have simple solutions. The questions of economy, the tasks of environmental protection, the conservation and maintenance of health, or the preservation of the coherence of the local community need such complex answers that have been long embraced by activities of professionally separate individuals and organisations. This complexity is rooted in the fact that boundaries between certain fields of life and institutions became more blurred, therefore the complexity of functions, aims, and responsibilities are an attribute of modern life.
The complexity is reflected in the fact that the previously clear and, in most cases, legally described boundaries between public policies became more relative in the case of various social problems. For instance, who is responsible for stabilizing the economic situation of people living in small villages? The individual, who should be able to manage their economy effectively? The state, whose duty it is to create a better economic environment (training, property conditions, legal environment)? The market, because the market is the space for economic activities? The local government, because it is responsible for the well-being of the citizens living in the village? Or the civil organisations that take on social responsibilities? These issues are especially relevant today in Hungary, where the development of local governments has taken a special path in recent decades following the change of regime.
Centralized of power instead of decentralization and power sharing
In the early nineties one of the defining features of the regime change was the decentralization of power with respect to which Hungary was at the forefront among the countries of East-Central Europe. The Act No. LXV of 1990 on Local Governments granted a high degree of autonomy for the local governments. They developed the classic local public services extensively, and their administrative power and their role in economic development were also significant. Hungary developed one of the most modern local government systems in the region and decentralized the political and public services.
Why this change was surprising and why experts regarded it with scepticism? The decentralization of local governments did not have a strong tradition in Hungarian history and governance. Despite the law supporting the independence of local governments the broad autonomy granted to the Hungarian municipalities could not be realized after the regime change, because as its most important prerequisite, financial independence, was missing. As a consequence of these factors, the new decentralised model was implemented in practice only to a limited extent in Hungary. In most cases, mayors of local governments were supporters of centralized power, both micro and macro level. One of the interviewees in the project talks about this form of exercising power like this:“The mayor has been running for the office as the only candidate since 1990. He functions like the lord of an estate, maintaining a feudal structure… Part of the inhabitants essentially live as servants, dependent on the goodwill of the mayor who controls public employment. Nobody knows where they are employed and who is supposed to do what.” (coordinator, Locality 10)
Questions and tasks:
Read the text above and answer the questions!
A) What challenges did local governments face after the change of regime?
B) What model of local power does the interview excerpt demonstrate?
Fragmented settlement structure
The fragmentation of local governments presented yet another serious obstacle: the average population of rural settlements is less than 2,700, and half of the municipalities have less than a thousand inhabitants.
Due to the size of the settlement, a significant part of public services is not developed and the local government has many tasks. During the interviews, the mayors of the small communities also said that the shift to the centralized model would undo the results they had achieved and ignore local government and public service systems which had previously evolved over decades.Sometimes the mayors themselves feel the weight of the task at hand is excessive.
“[The mayor is] the only person of authority that people can turn to when they need something… since most services are missing from the village, he is the one they approach without any second thoughts in case of any problems; not only issues related to public life but also those of private life (family conflicts, psychological, financial, childcare-related problems).” (mayor, Locality 9)
Putting entrepreneurship first for self-sufficiency
Following the 2010 change of government, it has also become one of the key responsibilities of the local governments to increase the municipalities’ employment rate and moneymaking capacity. These expectations apply to all local governments, even those of the smallest villages, regardless of the size, financial background and human resources of a community. The central administration now excepts local governments to provide a new form of public service: They are required to be innovators, initiators, and controllers of the local economy, and they are supposed to establish social cooperatives, “village enterprises”, integrated production systems, as well as to make money.
However, very few municipalities have the opportunity to set up businesses:“… there are fewer and fewer municipalities left that have sufficient reserves and liquidity to start such a project. Small communities like ours are mainly dependent on state funding. If the state funding is reduced to a certain level … then the hands of the communities are almost tied…” (mayor, Locality 3)
Questions and tasks:
Analyze the graph above and read the interview excerpts! Think and answer the questions!
A) Why the settlement structure is a challenge during local developments?
B) What challenges do local leaders face in settlements with less than 2,000 people?
Barriers for co-creation
“Those families that I am familiar with, they do not have such a level of awareness to be able to plan this. … when they are just getting by day to day all the time, … all their energy is consumed by figuring out how to make ends meet from one month to the next.” (coordinator in Locality 2)
“Q: And who should take the initiative to make it happen? A: Well, I think the officials should. You see, if I go over to my friend and say hey, let’s start a farmer’s association, he’ll tell me I’m nuts. But if [the mayor] says, speaking for his office, look, I can provide a room for you, then this is a municipal or state-level support… so then, I think, we have a chance.” (participant in Locality 7)
“The way the mayor sees his role is that he has to take care of everything. He is not good at empowerment… he believes that this is a slow method that is not effective in this environment.” (coordinator in Locality 5)
“It is difficult to create something together because of the mentality and the traditions, and [co-creation] shifts very easily into a superior-subordinate relationship.” (mayor of Locality 6)
Questions and tasks:
Please, answer the following questions!
A) Based on the context outlined above, what are the main barriers for co-creation in the Hungarian pilot?
B) In your opinion, what tools can be used to overcome these barriers?