Strategic Planning in Post-Communist Settings: The Example of Hungary

  • Izabella Barati-Stec
Part of the Governance and Public Management book series (GPM)


The first part of the chapter is a review about the history, culture and political framework of strategic planning in post-socialist countries, with a focus of Hungary. The second part presents the findings of an empirical research study based on the answers of 294 municipalities. In this study, strategic planning was centralized along with all other attributes of public administration in post-communist countries. During their history of administrative and fiscal decentralization after the 1990s, independent municipalities in the area started to develop plans to adapt to the fast-changing economic environment and while they became fiscally independent, their accountability toward their inhabitants grew. With the fast spreading of private-public partnerships and in general the increasing cooperation between local governments, private, civic and non-governmental actors after 1990, these stakeholders also became involved in the planning process.

The research among Hungarian local governments shows that after 2010, the government started to re-centralize the public administration and service provision. Parallel with the central government gaining power, strategic planning lost its importance, before it could fully develop. Today, 90% of Hungarian municipalities do not feel that they are in control of their own revenues and thus planning today in Hungary focuses on how to manage the day-to-day operations of the municipality. The result of this practice is that municipalities in Hungary often perform financial planning instead of strategic planning.


Strategic planning Decentralization Financial transfers Budapest Tab Hungarian local governments Community development 


  1. Bahl, R. (1999). Fiscal decentralization as development policy. Public Budgeting & Finance, 19(2), 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bahl, R. (2004). Property transfer tax and stamp duty. International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper0427, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.Google Scholar
  3. Barati-Stec, I. (2003). Municipal infrastructure finance in Hungary – Modeling municipal investments. Thesis, Budapest Corvinus University.Google Scholar
  4. Barati-Stec, I. (2014). Destined to be defaulted – Local insolvency and bailout in post-transition Hungary. International Journal of Finance and Banking, 1(4). ISSN 2333-1097.Google Scholar
  5. Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2004). Strategy content and public service organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(2), 231–252. Scholar
  6. Bryson, J. M. (2004). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Denhardt, R. B. (1985). Strategic planning in state and local government. State and Local Government Review, 17(1), 174–179.Google Scholar
  8. IMF. (2015). Making public investment more efficient. Washington, DC. Accessed 3 Mar 2018.
  9. Ingraham, P. W., Joyce, P. G., & Donahue, A. K. (2003). Government performance: Why management matters? Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kerr, D. L. (1994). Rosie the Riveter: The work between strategic planning and performance measurement. Public Productivity & Management Review, 17(3), 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kovach, C., & Mandell, M. P. (1990). A new public-sector-based model of strategic management for cities. State and Local Government Review, 22(1), 27–36.Google Scholar
  12. McAdam, R., Hazlett, S., & Casey, C. (2005). Performance management in the UK public sector: Addressing multiple stakeholder complexity. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(3), 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. OECD. (2015). OECD public governance reviews Hungary: Towards a strategic state approach. Accessed 10 Feb 2018.
  14. OECD National Accounts Statistics – Hungary. OECD. (2015 and 2016).
  15. Pietersen, C., & Oni, O. A. (2014). Employee turnover in a local government department. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(2), 141–153.Google Scholar
  16. Pindur, W. (1992). Public sector strategic planning for the year 2000. Journal of Strategic Change, 1(2), 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (1989). Management tools in municipal government: Trends over the past decade. Public Administration Review, 49(3), 240–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rainey, H. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Rhyne, L. C. (1986). The relationship of strategic planning to financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(5), 423–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Siciliano, J. I. (1996). The relationship between formal planning and performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7(5), 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vinzant, D. H., & Vinzant, J. C. (1996). Strategy and organizational capacity: Finding a fit. Public Productivity and Management Review, 20(2), 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Izabella Barati-Stec
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Public PolicyCentral European UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations