Szempontok az irányítási rendszer modellváltásához

Abstract

According to author, during three decades following Second World War, highly successful control of developed capitalist countries shows several similarities to socialist experiment which failed. Central control and planning became bureaucratic means of realizing central objectives and direct intervention into market mechanisms. This was also built up of basic elements of economy and it also focused on economic development. This stystem gave preferences to large, productive organizations. National economy was considered to be most relevant level of planning, and state intervention was a generally accepted doctrine. The main purpose was, everywhere, to develop a uniform industrial society, and thus regional interests could not be taken into account. By 1980s, as a result of new industral revolution, this success model of modernization lost some of its driving force, and developed Western states, parallel with Central-Eastern Europe, are looking for new structure which could/would give new impetus to development. With analysis of spatio-cultural existence of people, and of local dependencies, author intends to support idea, that tendencies of decentralization which started all over world, and increased role of small communities, locality, have very deep roots. People try to find their safety in center of their spatial relations, in their everyday Lebensraum. The importance of those small territories, where people can communicate face to face, where everybody can react to, and if necessary, can influence processes, is continuously growing. Developments are increasingly based on regional identity formed by actors of region and rooted in local culture. Actors of everyday life are dependent on regionally reproduced socio-economic conditions. The traditional and modern forms of local dependencies decrease willingness of people and organizations to change and mobility and, at same time, arm them to carry out activities required to enforce their own interests. Development is a kind of structural change, when economic, cultural, political, ecological and other factors influence each other in a new way, thus it cannot be identified with quantitative development. Wording and executing aims related to soft characteristics of development (quality of life, preservation of cultural heritage, self-government, political independence, quality of environment, etc.) can only partly be imagined on national level, and different regions and settlements have significant role in them, too. Requirements of local economic development (exploring conditions and using them to greatest excent in local interests, etc.) also necessitate a which is constructed from bottom to top. The author describes theoretical outlines of a regional-centric control/planning model, where different economic activities, consumption, quality of life, etc. are equally judged and considered, and which can be reconciliated with political and economic changes and does not interfere with of local governments to be introduced soon, either. In this model, state is not most important determining factor any more. The regionally separated population is basic principle of organization/arrangement. The space separates, makes regional interests more articulate and solid, but at same time it is also dissolved, because it is basic interest of separate regional/spatial units to find ways of cooperation, which — in majority of cases — can be found in horizontal relations. Based on mutually acknowledged similarity of interests, different regional units can plan common programs and/or coordinate their acitivities. Central control has normative influence on local control and planning. Direct interventions are only accidental. It is very useful, if central authorities and state organizatons participate in support of issues preferred on basis of agreements and according to guarantees of legal contracts. Planning is becoming political, and regional movements have increasing role in them. Finally, author draws conclusion, that Hungary should not follow mechanically course of modern development dictated by West mechanically, but we do not need preservation of our ancient, cultural achievements either. What we really need is a path of development, which helps everybody in preserving his/her own, communal and national identity and sustains environmental balance. We should choose course of development, which would facilitate us to accept and receive values of diversity of cultures without becoming victims of the imperialism of cultural and without making our system of preferences totally international. The development strategy which is built up from bottom to top, tolerates differences and is in harmony with nature — this would substitute development policies based on one doctrine and central development policy — does not necessarily mean a specific Hungarian way. At present, there are several development theories/strategies which promise more equitable and more balanced regional development, and which have already been and are still applied successfully in several countries. During more than one thousand years of her history, Hungary should try, for first time, to develop a new course of development built up from bottom to top, and this way we could go by latest trends of development.