Discussion Papers 2009.
Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins 51-59. p.
REGIONAL PLANNING AND CO-OPERATION
IN PRACTICE IN THE DANUBE–CRIS–MAROS–TISA
EUROREGION
GÁBOR NAGY
Main characteristics of the border region
The historically defined meso-region of so-called Délvidék (the area among and
along the four main rivers: Duna-Danube, Körös-Cris, Maros-Mures, Tisza-Tisa)
formed a specific border region of Europe. Two of the NUTS2 regions of the
DKMT Euroregion belongs to countries which are members of the EU (from 2004
– Hungary, from 2007 – Romania) and one is inside the Schengen-system (Dél-
Alföld from Hungary, after 2007). The Hungarian part of the Euroregion seems a
periphery inside its country with less developed areas and structural crisis (agri-
culture and wider agri-business, textile industries etc.) (Nagy – Kugler, 2004). The
West region (Romania) had experienced one of the most impressive paths of eco-
nomic development and restructuring inside Romania, thanks to the growth poles
of Timişoara and Arad as the bases of new wave of industrialisation. The
Vojvodina [Vajdaság] is one of the most developed regions of the remaining
Serbia, but after the five civic wars and the economic blockade, the whole country
and even Vojvodina became one of the poorest territories in Europe. After the
agony of Yugoslavia (the declaration and de jure independence of Montenegro –
Crna Gora and Kosovo in 2006 and 2007) the Serbian integration into European
political and economic space fastened (Csatári – Timár, 2002).
This border region is one of the most important areas of the EU, with a specific
role in Trans-European and Pan-European corridors, and as a crucial area in the
modernisation of the West-Balkans. There are similarities and differences com-
pared to the Austrian, Slovakian, Hungarian tri-border region. In that case, the
moderately developed region of Austria (Burgenland) tried to find common inter-
ests with the well developed regions of Hungary (Nyugat-Dunántúl – West Trans-
danubia) and Slovakia (region around Bratislava, the capital city). The difference is
rooted in the specific urban structure (Figure 1) of Délvidék, where no dominant
centres exist vis-à-vis the role of Wien and even Bratislava in the West Pannonian
Euroregion (Nárai – Rechnitzer, 1999). In the DKMT Euroregion a more balanced
city network exists, without national capitals but with NUTS2 and NUTS3 level
centres. The other difference is rooted in the possibility of crossing borders. From
Hungary and Slovakia to Austria, a person only had one crossing per 3 years before

Nagy, Gábor : Regional Planning and Co-operation in Practice in the Danube-Cris-Maros-Tisa Euroregion.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 51-59. p. Discussion Papers, Special

52
GÁBOR NAGY
1985 and 1989, because of the ‘Cold War’ opposition of East and West. In the
Southern border region from Hungary to the other two countries, there existed a
system of border zone movements after 1975, as a result of the vigorous Ostpolitik
of the Social-Democratic Party in Germany.
Figure 1
The balanced urban structure of DKMT Euroregion

Source: Strategic Plan and Operative Programmes of DKMT Euroregion, 2005. Békéscsaba–Timi-
şoara–Subotica.
The specific feature of the Délvidék region is that the flow of persons, goods
and services, and after the transition, capital was fluid under the rule of Commu-
nism1 and the transition period, as well. The level of personal and economic
connections was relative high, particularly between Yugoslavia and Hungary after
1975, when an agreement made cross-border movements easier.
This kind of co-operation was the basis of creating an organisational back-
ground (DKMT Euroregion) in 1997, with the participation of 4 Romanian coun-
ties (Timiş, Arad, Hunedoara, Caraş-Severin), 3 Hungarian megye (Bács-Kiskun,

1 Except two, relative short periods between 1948–1955, when Yugoslavia was the declared enemy of
the Soviet bloc, and 1999–2000, when NATO troops bombed Vojvodina in the Kosovo War.

Nagy, Gábor : Regional Planning and Co-operation in Practice in the Danube-Cris-Maros-Tisa Euroregion.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 51-59. p. Discussion Papers, Special
REGIONAL PLANNING AND THE CO-OPERATION IN PRACTICE…
53
Békés, Csongrád – one of 4 units had to leave it because of the NUTS2 reform in
1999) and Vojvodina, as an autonomous part of Serbia. The first wave of collabo-
ration (1997–1999) was broken by the Kosovo War, but after that process, a new
level of common thinking emerged in parallel with increasing resources for cross-
border development (Nagy – Kugler, 2004; Nagy in Timár, 2007).
The theories and aims of regional planning
The basic goal of regional planning in all the three regions of the DKMT Eurore-
gion is to channel as much development funds into local and regional projects as
possible. The ‘success’ in regional development seems to use all the resources
coming from national an international levels (particularly from the EU). From this
point of view, it is reasonable to form a regional policy framework, administrative
system etc., fits for the regulations and recommendations of the European Union.
In the earlier steps of improving regional political capacity, all the actors tried to
find a way to identify the formal parts of EU regulations and use them inside the
‘traditional’ national channels of regional development. After a short period, the
end of this approach became clear, so the revised versions of the legal background,
organisational structures and monitoring systems turned more ‘European’. The risk
of low-level adaptability is stopping some sources of development from the EU
budget (see Bulgaria in 2008), the elimination of possibility to apply for Commu-
nity programmes (Rechnitzer – Lados, 2004).
The planning process is very sensitive to the changing priorities of EU regional
policies, mirroring the ESDP, Lisbon Agenda, Gothenburg Strategy, Territorial
Agenda and Leipzig Charter. The ‘first generation’ of regional planning documents
concentrated on alleviating regional inequalities,2 rather than global competitive-
ness and ecological aspects. In the ‘new generation’ of documents, particularly
after 2000, long-term competitiveness became the major goal of development and
the role of development of ecological, architectural, cultural values was emerging
(Rechnitzer, 1998). The meaning of the term ‘cohesion’ became richer; instead of
eliminating regional differences, cohesion concentrates on the particular combina-
tion of local/regional resources as a basis of faster development with broader con-
nections to global processes.
It is important to see that all the three national regional policies (Hungarian af-
ter 1996, Romanian after 1998, Serbian after 2000) strengthened in a phase, when
‘the Europe of Regions’ concept had lost its swing (Benedek, 2006). While these
countries concentrated on establishing the frame of regional administrative capaci-
ties and organisations, the most developed parts of Europe entered the ‘renais-

2 As a reaction to the highly increased regional imbalances after the change of regime in the 1990s.

Nagy, Gábor : Regional Planning and Co-operation in Practice in the Danube-Cris-Maros-Tisa Euroregion.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 51-59. p. Discussion Papers, Special

54
GÁBOR NAGY
sance’ of functional urban areas. FUAs were defined as the key actors of innova-
tive capacity, knowledge transfer and global competitiveness.
The system of Hungarian regional planning divided the planning documents
into two parts: one is regional physical planning, and the other group contains the
regional concepts, strategies, operative programmes and action plans. This division
results in a disharmony among planning documents. The lack of coordination
among sectoral and regional planning is the second weak point of the system. The
third problem is rooted in the missing harmonisation of different levels of planning
documents (local – LAU1 and 2; regional NUTS3 and 2, and national – NUTS0).
There are two different theories of regional planning inside and around the EU.
The ‘bottom-up’ method uses all the documents in the lower administrative levels
to outline the regional development concept, or strategy. The condition of a suc-
cessful planning process is that all the local and regional plans had to contain a
wide-range perspective in all the examined areas and strategic priorities. The ex-
isting practice shows that the planning process is more ‘autarchic’ rather than open
to outside actors. In this case the aggregation process of regional planning is hardly
working. The major advantage of a bottom-up system is the consensual, participa-
tory planning, all the priorities and programming based on the real needs of local
units (Faragó, 2005).
The other possible technique of regional planning is the ‘top-down’ method,
based on national-level (regional and sectoral) documents. All the regional and
local actors try to find their place and role in this system via the des-aggregation of
higher level priorities and development strategies. It has some advantage, too, be-
cause of the high level of harmonisation and overlapping among planning docu-
ments. The major weak point of the system is the absence of local strengths and
needs, the unique combination of local resources (Rechnitzer, 1998). This process
makes the planning period more accurate and faster. The application process for
development resources is simpler; the use of sources seems more effective. How-
ever, the lack of participatory planning may result in the less coordinated use of
money, the lack of synergies among development actions, increasing competition
among actors for resources. The technique of eliminating local needs is a limitation
of consulting partners, and time limits for consensual planning (Faragó, 2005;
Benedek, 2006).
The third major question in regional planning is choosing the philosophy of the
process. In transitioning countries the dominant economic and even planning
school became neo-liberalism, with minimising the role of planning in the first part
of the 1990s and then using neo-liberal principles in the new planning phase (after
1995). Thanks to this change of paradigm, the major priority in regional plans was

Nagy, Gábor : Regional Planning and Co-operation in Practice in the Danube-Cris-Maros-Tisa Euroregion.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 51-59. p. Discussion Papers, Special
REGIONAL PLANNING AND THE CO-OPERATION IN PRACTICE…
55
competitiveness (whatever it means), but there are several problems with sustain-
ability,3 equal opportunities; not in the documents, but in practice.
The process of regional planning and the work
of the DKMT Euroregion
In this part of the paper we take a closer look at two parallel processes of regional
planning, the Dél-Alföld (NUTS2) region and the DKMT Euroregion. It would be
interesting to see the results of different backgrounds on the processes and the
similarities in the documents and development steps.
Regional planning has begun in Hungary in 1996, after the acceptance of the
21/1996 Act on Regional Planning and Development. (To be more accurate, be-
tween 1994–1996 there were some planning experiments on different administra-
tive levels, mainly in the Western part of Hungary, using the newly opened sources
of INTERREG programmes, in parallel with the EU-accession of Austria.) This
legal framework defined all the major areas, competencies and roles in regional
development, and created a special source of development, financing only the re-
gional programmes.
The newly founded Regional Development Agency (DARFÜ) and Council
(DARFT) were set up in 1996, but the planning process had begun only in 1998, by
formulating the long-term development concept, and later the mid-term strategic
plan. After this phase of development, 14 operational programmes were made in
2000–2001, covering a certain part of the strategic priorities. The first wave of re-
gional planning was over in 2001, when the actors (developers) and planners saw
that resources for regional development were marginal, compared to the sectoral
policies. The lack of development funds resulted in an increasingly passive behav-
iour in regional development. The realisation of documents could hardly begin in
that period; synergy among the development steps was missing, large-scaled de-
velopment was completely independent from regional sources.
The new wave of regional development planning emerged in 2003, thanks to
the successful conclusion of the accession period (1997–2002), and new sources of
regional development opened for the 2004–2006 period. Formulating the National
Development Plan, the needs of local and regional actors were articulating through
the PEA programme (Pre-Application Programme) in 2003, with a first circle se-
lection of good ideas for regional development. EU-accession in 2004 initiated a
new phase of the regional planning process, through half-time revision of Regional
Development Concept and defining a new Strategic Plan in 2005. After the accep-

3 In Hungary, the planners sometimes use the term sustainability as ‘long-term, fast economic
development’, without any hint of the original meaning of the phrase.

Nagy, Gábor : Regional Planning and Co-operation in Practice in the Danube-Cris-Maros-Tisa Euroregion.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 51-59. p. Discussion Papers, Special

56
GÁBOR NAGY
tance of the basic documents, the Regional Operative Programme (as a part of the
new National Development Plan – ÚMFT) was created in 2006 for the new fi-
nancing period of the EU to channel Structural Funds into regional development
projects.
The DKMT Euroregion was founded in 1997 as a consultancy forum of the
Presidents Council (Presidents of the member NUTS3 regions and Vojvodina). The
Agency was missing, the formation of a stable Secretariat in Szeged was a longer
process. However, the lack of organisation was the weak point of the structure
however, several thematic workgroups were established with the external expertise
of certain development areas from the business sector, civil society organisations
and local governments. These groups of experts developed the strategic priorities
of the major areas in 1998, but the realisation of plans was crashed by the Kosovo
War in 1999–2000. After this period, the frame of the co-operation stabilised with
the formation of Romanian NUTS2 regions, the operative network of the Secre-
tariat and national co-ordinators in 2003. The first Development Concept was es-
tablished in 1999 without any result and the changing situation involved the need
for a new basic document. In 2005, the Development Concept, Strategy and Op-
erative Programmes were accepted by the leaders. In this document, the planners
used all the existing materials from the three member regions in different adminis-
trative levels and conducted parallel planning in three working groups with experts
from Hungary, Romania and Serbia. Compared to the previous phase of planning,
the new elements were: the wider harmonisation process in member regions, the
more precise links to national and regional development plans, and the existence of
possible funds for regional development.
The weak points of planning were similar in the two parallel processes: the lack
of participatory planning. The collation phase of planning was limited, the circle of
the partners was moderate, and there were no new actors in the scene between the
two phases. The delegation system of Councils, the key actors and lobbying for
development actions had great influence to define priorities and programmes.
There was a major problem that needs were far stronger than opportunities because
of the lack of resources and missing borders between regional and sectoral compe-
tencies (see ÚMFT). Policy was not effective enough in the division of funds; the
major goal was to support a larger number of small projects all around the region
instead of the ‘concentration’ of resources (see EU Regional Policy documents) in
larger development programmes with measurable territorial effects.
In the second planning process of the DKMT Euroregion, the bottom-up lobby
was weaker and the planners got a broader role in forming priorities and defining
programmes. The major problem of the process was the lack of a unified legal
background; Hungary was the member of the EU, Romania had applicant status
and Serbia began the convergence process at that time. The missing own sources
for regional development on the level of the Euroregion highlighted the need of

Nagy, Gábor : Regional Planning and Co-operation in Practice in the Danube-Cris-Maros-Tisa Euroregion.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 51-59. p. Discussion Papers, Special

58
GÁBOR NAGY
Sources of regional planning and the new phase of regional
development, after 2007
In the 2007–2013 financing period, Hungary has a chance to use 22.5 billion Euros
for regional development. The Dél-Alföld region may apply for appr. 3 Billion
Euros, including the large-scale programmes in sectoral chapters of ÚMFT. The
decentralised part of the sources is appr. 800 million Euros, ten times higher than
the sources were in the 2004–2006 financing period. Romania’s share from Struc-
tural Funds accounts for appr. 32 billion Euros, while the West region will apply
for 2–2,2 Billion. The level of INTERREG and CARDS (for Serbia) sources seems
minimal. However, the planning, application and monitoring is decentralised into
the NUTS2 level, and the competencies of regions are increasing in both Hungary
and Romania, and the legal frame of Vojvodina has strengthened inside Serbia.
Whilse the regional level’s importance is rising, the Euroregion’s playground is
rather limited. They have no own resources, no opportunity to apply for
development sources, creating application for local agents, which means a high
level of risk in the implementation of planning documents (Nagy in Timár, 2007).
References
Planning documents
Békés megye területfejlesztési koncepciója [Regional development plan of Békés County]. MTA RKK
ATI Békéscsabai Osztály, 1997.
Csongrád megye területfejlesztési koncepciója [Regional development plan of Csongrád County].
MTA RKK ATI Békéscsabai Osztály, 1998.
A Dél-alföldi régió területfejlesztési koncepciója [Regional development plan of Dél-Alföld Region].
MTA RKK ATI Békéscsabai Osztály, 1999.
Csongrád megye területfejlesztési programja [Strategic development plan of Csongrád County].
MTA RKK ATI Békéscsabai Osztály, 2001.
A Dél-alföldi régió területfejlesztési koncepciója – felülvizsgálat [Regional development plan of Dél-
Alföld Region – Revised]. MTA RKK ATI, 2003.
A Dél-alföldi régió területfejlesztési stratégiája – felülvizsgálat [Strategic development plan of Dél-
Alföld Region – Revised]. MTA RKK ATI, 2003.
Csongrád megye területfejlesztési koncepciója – felülvizsgálat [Regional development plan of
Csongrád County – Revised]. MTA RKK ATI Békéscsabai Osztály, 2006.
A Magyar–román határtérség fejlesztési stratégiája [Regional development plan of Hungarian-
Romanian border zone]. Budapest, Terra Kft. 2000.
A DKMT eurorégió fejlesztési stratégiája [Regional development plan of DKMT-Euroregion]. MTA
RKK ATI Békéscsabai Osztály, 2005.
Dél-Alföld fejlesztési regionális operatív program (ÚMFP 2007–2013) Egyeztetési változat [Regional
Operative Program for Dél-Alföld Region – ’New Hungary’ Development Plan for 2007–2013
period]. Szeged, DARFÜ. 2006.
Szeged Biopolisz Fejlesztési Pólus Program. Egyeztetési változat [Szeged city – Biopolis
Development Programme]. Szeged, Biopolisz Kht. 2006.

Nagy, Gábor : Regional Planning and Co-operation in Practice in the Danube-Cris-Maros-Tisa Euroregion.
In: Old and New Borderlines /Frontiers/ Margins.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 51-59. p. Discussion Papers, Special
REGIONAL PLANNING AND THE CO-OPERATION IN PRACTICE…
59
Új Magyarország Fejlesztési Terv. Foglalkoztatás és Növekedés – 2007–2013. MEH, NFÜ.
Egyeztetési változat [’New Hungary’ Development Plan for 2007–2013 period – Employment and
Economic Growth]. Budapest, A Magyar Köztársaság Kormánya 2006.
Országos Fejlesztéspolitikai Koncepció (2007–2020). MEH, NFH. A Magyar Köztársaság Kormánya,
Budapest, 2005. (National Concept for Development Policy – 2007–2020)
Országos Területfejlesztési Koncepció [National Concept for Regional Development]. Budapest,
VÁTI Kht. 1997.
Országos Területfejlesztési Koncepció [National Concept for Regional Development – Revised
version]. Budapest, VÁTI STI. 2005.
Békéscsaba Városfejlesztési Koncepciója és Stratégiája. MTA RKK ATI, Békéscsabai Osztály, 2004.
(Békéscsaba Development Plan and Strategy)
Békéscsabai Kistérség Feljesztési Konceciója és Progrmaja [Development Concept and Plan of
Békéscsaba Small Region]. MTA RKK ATI, Békéscsabai Osztály, 2005.
Orosházi Kistérség Gazdaságifejlesztési Strégiája. MTA RKK ATI, Békéscsaba, 1999. (Economic
Development Strategy of Orosháza Small Region)
Békés Megye Gazdaságfejlesztési Programja [Economic Development Strategy of Békés County].
MTA RKK ATI, Békéscsaba, 2001.
Scientific literature
Benedek, J. 2006: Területfejlesztés és regionális fejlődés [Regional development and its effect on
spatial processes]. Cluj Napoca, Universitatea Babes-Bolyai, Presa Universitara Clujeana.
Csatári, B. – Timár, J. (ed.) 2002: Területfejlesztés, rendszerváltás és az Alföld [Budapest. (Regional
development, transition and the Alföld – Hungarian Great Plain]. Budapest, MTA
Társadalomkutató Központ, pp. 29–58. (Magyarország az ezredfordulón. Stratégiai kutatások a
Magyar Tudományos Akadémián. IV. A területfejlesztési program tudományos megalapozása).
Faragó, L. 2005: A jövőalkotás társadalomtechnikája. A közösségi tervezés elmélete [Social
techniques for creating the future. The theory of participatory planning]. Budapest–Pécs, Dialóg
Campus Kiadó.
Illés, I. 2002: Közép- és Délkelet-Európa az ezredfordulón. Átalakulás, integráció, régiók [Central-
and Southeast-Europe in the New Millenium. Transformation, integration, regions]. Budapest–
Pécs, Dialóg Campus Kiadó.
Nagy, I. – Kugler, J. (ed.) 2004: Lehet-e három arca e tájnak? Tanulmányok a délkeleti határrégió
újjászerveződő kapcsolatairól [Is it possible to be three faces of one region? Essays on newly
forming connections along the Southeast border region]. Békéscsaba–Pécs, MTA Regionális
Kutatások Központja.
Nárai, M. – Rechnitzer, J. (eds.) 1999: Elválaszt és összeköt – A határ. Társadalmi-gazdasági
változások az osztrák-magyar határ menti térségben [The border – divide and connect]. Győr–
Pécs, MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja.
Pálné Kovács, I. 1999: Regionális politika és közigazgatás [Regional policy and public
administration]. Budapest–Pécs, Dialóg Campus Kiadó.
Rechnitzer J. 1998: A területi stratégiák [Regional strategic plans]. Budapest–Pécs, Dialóg Campus
Kiadó.
Rechnitzer, J. – Lados, M. 2004: A területi stratégiáktól a monitoringig. (Módszertan, gyakorlati
praktikumok) [From regional strategies to monitoring process – Methods and practice]. Budapest–
Pécs, Dialóg Campus Kiadó.
Timár, J. 2007: Határkonstrukciók magyar–szerb vizsgálatok tükrében [Border-constructions – results
of a Hungarian-Serbian research project]. MTA RKK ATI Békéscsabai Osztály.