Hungary/ 1. Historical perspective: cultural policies and instruments  

The Kingdom of Hungary was established in 1000. Following Ottoman expansion (1526 to 1686) and subsequent Austrian domination, it was doubtful whether the Hungarians would be able to retain their identity and autonomy. The 19th century, however, brought about a successful national revival, in which culture played a significant role. A considerable part of Hungary's current cultural institutions and traditions is rooted in the nineteenth century.

Hungary's typical East European social structure was also inherited from that period. A highly developed upper class strata of society, with high cultural standards comparable to most developed countries, was opposed by a majority that was captured in backwardness. While a stable middle class formed the basis of democracy, economic and cultural development in Western Europe, more than half of the Hungarian society was constituted by peasantry up until the middle of the twentieth century. Compared to the West, the size of the working class and the intelligentsia remained small and the bourgeoisie was weak. At the same time, being a Central European country, Hungary constituted a "western" kind of entity as opposed to the Balkans and the East.

After the First World War, cultural policy played a strategic role in helping the country overcome its national trauma, with just a fragment of its former territory left. After the Second World War, cultural policy was focused on physical and political reconstruction. At the same time, the bourgeois, conservative, national and civic traditions were increasingly liquidated. By the late 1940s, the progressive element was eliminated from a Bolshevik kind of cultural policy. Up until the revolution of 1956, a crude, schematic course, slavishly imitating the Soviets, dominated the scene.

After the suppression of the revolution, cultural dogmatism began to melt away in the early 1960s. Up until 1989, similar to other areas of life, a rather protracted process of revision was in progress and the most gradual transition of the entire Communist bloc had taken place. As a consequence of the weakening of the Communist system, public resources were gradually depleted and, parallel to the withdrawal of political control, the state pulled out resources to subsidise culture. In the 1980s, the commercialisation of culture moved ahead, and the Soros Foundation in Hungary obtained an important role in the emerging vacuum of finances.

As a result of state subsidies, culture was accessible at low cost in the decades of socialism, and cultural consumption was growing (reading of books, attendance at the theatre, cinema, concerts, museums and exhibitions). Under dictatorship, art acquired a specific political significance; its end also contributes to the view of many that culture has been one of the losers in the transition.

After the political turn of 1989-1990, the shaping of cultural policy was based on two main sources: the national traditions from before Communism and modern western examples. During the first few years, this transition took place amidst great economic difficulties. By the time the change of system had been completed and the new setup was consolidated, world-wide recession prevented the government from spending more on culture. The protracted process of joining the European Union - which actually took place in May 2004 - was a major factor in shaping cultural policy in Hungary.

The political system has been relatively stable: the five parties that are in the Hungarian Parliament have been there since 1990. Also, there has been sustained economic growth, which propelled per capita GDP to slightly above 60% of the EU-25 average by 2004 (purchasing power parities, PPP). During the past decade, public cultural spending was usually above the European average. The continued marked trend of decentralisation was manifested with growth in the cultural spending of local governments; between 2002 and 2007, it grew by about 78%, when the cumulated inflation was less than 30%. Within public spending on culture, the proportion between central and local governments became 1:3.

Against this favourable background, however, a huge deficit accumulated in the state budget (as well as in the balance of trade and payments). This led to a set of revisions from 2006. As one of the first steps, the culture ministry, which was a separate entity between 1998 and 2006 (the Ministry for National Cultural Heritage), merged once again with the Ministry of Education. Reorganisation and fusion of institutions, as well as staff cuts took place in the entire public system of culture. The records of the State Treasury indicate a slight relative decrease in the share of the state budget allocated to culture.

On the other hand, after modest investments in culture through the Phare programme, devised for financial assistance by the European Union to would be member countries; as well as from the EU-supported 1st National Development Plan in 2004-2006, the New Hungary Development Plan - the national framework programme for 2007-2013 - financed through the European Structural Funds, contains important cultural investment and human development components. By the end of 2009 most of these projects were under way (for more see  chapter 4.1).