Abstract

Various aspects of ‘regional capacity development’ and ‘regional capacity building’ have gained considerable attention in recent years among scholars in regional science. The approach became popular due to regional adaptation of endogenous growth theory and the emergence of concepts related to social well-being. In the past few decades, in-depth analyses explored and analyzed the features and elements of regional capacity building, such as social capital, knowledge infrastructure, effective territorial leadership, self-governance and selfmanagement, collaborative advantage and regional resilience.Our aim with this work is to throw light on some of the underlying aspects of regional capacity building, to demonstrate the topic’s actuality, and to discuss its relationship with the views and works of Gyula Horváth. We present the most significant features and processes that determine the regional development in the Carpathian Basin and we also highlight some negative tendencies related to capacity building, e.g. the loss of regional functions, the conservation of territorial structure and the shortcomings concerning the regional institutional background.In a further section, we discuss the main dilemmas and opportunities of capacity building methodology. Both in a general sense and in terms of the regional development in the Carpathian Basin, we argue for an increased focus on the nature of capacity building elements. For instance, we stress that scientist should stop relying on the quantification of social capital because its essence is not defined by unevenness but by the unique and incomparable attributes available in each territory.Finally, we provide a few ‘regional capacity building’ suggestions for future research agendas by highlighting its relation to regional resilience. The article concludes with an emphasis on the global financial crisis in order to explore the features of capacity development to re-engineer regions.

Highlights

  • In a further section, we discuss the main dilemmas and opportunities of capacity building methodology

  • We discuss the main dilemmas and opportunities of capacity building methodology. Both in a general sense and in terms of the regional development in the Carpathian Basin, we argue for an increased focus on the nature of capacity building elements

  • We stress that scientist should stop relying on the quantification of social capital because its essence is not defined by unevenness but by the unique and incomparable attributes available in each territory

Read more

Summary

Introduction

We discuss the main dilemmas and opportunities of capacity building methodology. Különös tekintettel a regionális és a városi fejlődés hajtóerőire, valamint a Kárpát-medence régióinak fejlődését befolyásoló térformáló funkciókra. Összegzésként a témakör jövőbeni kutatási irányai közül a regionális rugalmasság (alkalmazkodóképesség) megközelítését emeljük ki; e téren is hivatkozva Horváth professzor néhány meglátására.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call