1. Cultural policy system
Hungary
Last update: March, 2025
Objectives, main features and background
Hungary (like most EU countries) fits into the ‘architect model’ of cultural policy, in which an intervening state actively supports cultural production. Markets play a weak role in many cultural areas, given the small size of the Hungarian-speaking audience and a low level of internationalisation. Like in other Eastern European countries, no strong system of private investment in the arts emerged in the post-communist period, and they strongly rely on state support.
Hungarian cultural policy from 1990 to 2010 could be classified as belonging to the ‘democratic elitist’ paradigm. By providing forms of institutional autonomy for key actors, competing elite groups establish a situation where particular forms of expertise are seen as the basis for making policy choices. This type of cultural policy model operates through arm’s-length governmental organisations and through forms of governance arrangements.
After 2010, when Fidesz, the governing party gained constitutional power at the elections, the accent from European integration and values moved towards national traditions and conservatism. This included, among others, increased care about the culture of the altogether about two million ethnic Hungarians in the neighbouring countries. The objectives of cultural policy have nevertheless not been enacted in official policy declarations. The statements of the Prime Minister suggest the main clues to the subsequent priorities also in the cultural arena.
The conventional starting point of the Orbán government’s cultural policy is his 2009 speech given at the exclusive annual meeting for his loyal cultural and economic elite. Here, he argued that culture is not a distinct sphere separated from politics and described the function of cultural policy as creating and maintaining the political community. Therefore, cultural policy under the Orbán-governments represent the ‘cultural diffusion’ model, which focuses on the role of culture in strengthening national identity.
Nationalist ideology goes along with religious (Christian) allusions, an anti-LGBT agenda, However, this does not mean that cultural policy is ideologically coherent. Rather, a double structure can be observed, with a certain division of tasks inside the government structures of policy implementation: while the ministerial structure is responsible for the general management of cultural issues and maintaining institutions, ideological issues and ‘culture wars’ have been assigned to the Prime Minister’s own loyal intellectuals.
One of the most conspicuous institutional features of Hungarian cultural policy is the weakness of formal structures. No written document could be found to determine the principles of and governmental priorities for cultural policy. There had not been an independent Ministry of Culture in the governmental structure between 2010 and 2022, although it had existed before 2010 under the Socialist-Liberal governments. Prime Minister Orbán merged it into a broad Ministry of Human Resources, along with education, health and employment affairs. In that period, the highest position connected to cultural policy was a State Secretary in this ministry. Cultural State Secretaries were changed every two years on average and did not announce articulated vision or profile of cultural policy. Their main task was to run the cultural infrastructure. Real policy-shaping actors could be found outside the ministerial structure, directly controlled by the Prime Minister.
There have been periods when culture was one of the top priorities in the evolution of the System of National Cooperation (Nemzeti Együttműködés Rendszere – NER), as the current political power identifies itself. A new era began in 2018, when the Prime Minister pronounced to focus on the cultural transformation of the country, in the political sense ot the term. From the ideological content the emphasis shifted towards competitiveness: the programmes and institutions connected to the ruling power are expected to achieve and exhibit excellence.
In 2022, a new Ministry of Culture and Innovation was established, led currently by Balázs Hankó. The state secretary responsible for culture is currently Magdolna Závogyán.
The Hungarian cultural policy system does not operate along the conventional algorithm of defining cultural policy priorities, preparing, and executing implementation. A politicised culture without policies. Participatory planning and negotiated decision-making are almost entirely absent. The state secretariat for culture in the Ministry for Culture and Innovation, or the Committee for Culture of the Parliament have negligible roles, and the same applies to the own bodies of the system: the Hungarian Arts Academy – Magyar Művészeti Akadémia, MMA, or the National Council for Culture. Fundamental changes occur overnight and are often linked to influential personalities.
Continued centralisation is an important feature of the system. Mandates and resources of local governments are limited, social and professional partners are little consulted. Annual budgets reveal little of next priorities as their provisions are significantly overwritten by ad hoc government decisions during the year. The lack of detailed manifest strategies does not mean financial neglect: on the contrary, the public cultural spending of the government is among the highest in the continent. Particularly much is spent on preservation and reconstruction of built cultural heritage and new buildings.
Background:
1918- 1945
A relatively small East-Central European country, whose cultural performance reflected the legacies of a once momentous middle power of a thousand-year-old kingdom, and the features of a semi-feudal societal arrangement.
1945-1956
Up until the revolution of 1956, a crude, schematic political course prevailed, slavishly imitating the Soviets, oppressing every kind of autonomy in the cultural life, applying nevertheless important measures in the democratisation of culture.
1960-1989
Cultural dogmatism began to melt away in the early 1960s. Up until 1989, in culture, like in other areas of life, a protracted process of revision was in progress and the most gradual transition within the entire communist bloc had taken place. As a result of state subsidies, culture was accessible at low cost, and cultural consumption (reading of books, attendance at the theatre, cinema, concerts, libraries, museums, and exhibitions) was growing. Under dictatorship, art acquired a specific political significance, which contributes to the view of many that culture has been one of the losers in the transition.
1990-2010
Transition from communism took place amidst great economic difficulties. The national objective of European integration defined the priorities and modalities of cultural policies. Nevertheless, a fatigue of the decades of reforms and expectations led to increasing economic and social crisis in Hungary – aggravated but not really caused by the 1998 world crisis. Those years did not favour concerted action for culture.
Since 2010
The System of National Cooperation (Nemzeti Együttműködés Rendszere – NER) has prevailed.
Last update: November, 2021
Within the circumstances of the atypical distribution of cultural policy competences in the country, described in the next section, it would be misleading to present the organigram of the State Secretariat for Culture in the Ministry for Human Resources, with or without the presentation of the structural features of the other institutions with competences in cultural policy decisions and implementation.
Last update: March, 2021
The single-chamber Parliament does legislation. In addition to its role in preparing laws, the Committee for Culture and Press also fulfils supervisory functions by occasionally putting various issues related to culture on its agenda. Overall, however, since spring 2010 when Fidesz gained 2/3 of parliamentary seats, the Parliament and its Committees have limited autonomy, and reflect the will of the government or Fidesz, which is dominated by its leader, the Prime Minister.
The Ministry of Culture and Innovation (since 2022) is responsible for government science policy, science policy coordination, vocational training, higher education, family policy, children and youth policy, culture, cultural diplomacy and Hungarian cultural institutions abroad, and adult education. It is important to note however, that public education, as a problematic policy area remained under the supervision of the Ministry of Inner Affairs. Instead of full-range education affairs, family, children and youth policy is paired with culture under the umbrella of the Ministry of Culture and Innovation. In the ministry, there is a separate State secretariat responsible for culture.
There are also some government commissioners with ministerial rank directly under the Prime Minister, with temporary/specific responsibilities, who are responsible for cultural tasks. Currently these are:
- Government Commissioner responsible for certain tasks relating to government investments in cultural heritage sites: the Buda Castle District, the Citadel at the top of Gellért Hill and the Visegrád Monument Complex.
- Government Commissioner for the Development of the Hungarian National Cinematographic Industry.
- Government Commissioner responsible for the preparation and implementation of the Hungarian programmes of the Hungarian-Turkish Year of Science and Innovation.
The Ministry of Construction and Transport is responsible for the protection of cultural heritage. The tasks relating to the protection of monuments, world heritage sites and archaeological sites, i.e. immovable cultural heritage, are carried out by the Deputy State Secretariat for Architecture and Monument Protection within the State Secretariat for Architecture. Within the State Secretariat for Architecture, the Department for Cultural Heritage is responsible for the protection of artefacts and works of art, i.e. movable cultural property. This ministry also supervises the National Castle Programme.
In the Ministry for Economic Affairs a ministerial commissioner oversees the creative industry.
It is not an easy task to get information about the structure of cultural government. The respective ministries appear as chapters of the common government web portal. Apart from news, the top official’s introduction, and a contact list of subordinate institutions the sites do not contain further information about policies, plans and statistics. Decisions and new pieces of legislation are presented as news items but are not stored in a structured fashion. A separate service portal displays official communication and management issues. The official government web portal is only in Hungarian, English version is not available. Clicking on the icon of ‘English version’ takes the reader to abouthungary.hu, which is a completely different website presenting the achievements of the government.
The National Cultural Fund is a semi-autonomous institution since 1993 and is in charge of financing projects. The Fund is chaired by the Minister of Culture and Innovation. The Vice-President of the Fund is appointed by the Minister, after consulting the President of the Hungarian Academy of Arts (MMA), for a maximum term of four years. In order to achieve the objectives of the Fund, a National Cultural Fund Committee is established by the Minister. One third of the members of the Committee are appointed by the Minister on his or her own authority, one third by the MMA and one third based on proposals from the professional organisations concerned. The Minister, with the participation of the MMA, also sets up permanent colleges of experts in the field of the arts and other cultural fields to use the resources of the Fund.
The implementation of the state cultural strategy is the task of the Petőfi Cultural Agency, owned by a public interest trust (Foundation for Hungarian Culture, founded in 2021). The agency owns significant real estate assets and coordinates and finances several cultural institutions. The mission of the Agency is: “to ensure access to Hungarian culture. The aim of the Agency is to convert Hungarians from being consumers of culture to becoming bearers of culture. To this end, it emphasises the community-building function of culture.” Various cultural brands of the agency include among others:
- kultura.hu, the main brand of the Petőfi Cultural Agency. It is an online cultural portal that presents the cultural values of the whole of Hungary in the fields of literature, music, film, theatre, visual arts and pop culture.
- HOTS (Hungarian Oncoming Tunes) is to promote Hungarian productions in the international popular music market
- Carpathian Basin Folk Network’s aim is to present, promote and incorporate the useful knowledge of folk traditions into daily practice.
- The mission of Fairy Tale Centrum is the promotion of contemporary children's books and literature in Hungarian and the education of reading.
Unlike the National Cultural Fund, Petőfi Cultural Agency distributes public grant money directly, without professional boards of trustees.
Last update: March, 2025
The elected assemblies and self-governments of the 19 counties (“vármegye“) have no mandate in culture.
Last update: March, 2025
There are 3178 local governments with mayors and elected bodies in Hungary. The list of their obligatory tasks includes cultural services, especially securing access to public library services, the support of art organisations and community cultural activities, as well as the protection of local cultural heritage. The content of these tasks is little defined and on account of the centralising policies the current government, the relevant competences and resources of local governments have been reduced. Libraries, museums, theatres were transferred to the towns with county rank.
Last update: March, 2025
The current constitution (The Fundamental Law of Hungary), which entered effect in 2012, positions the Hungarian Arts Academy (Magyar Művészeti Akadémia – MMA) at the same level as the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. This latter was founded in1827 while MMA was upgraded to the rank of a public foundation by Act CIX in 2011 from a non-governmental association which had been in existence since 1992.
Main professional bodies:
- Hungarian Music Council / Magyar Zenei Tanács
- Association of Hungarian Filmmakers / Magyar Filmművészek Szövetsége
- Association of Hungarian Librarians / Magyar Könyvtárosok Egyesülete
- Association of Hungarian Fine and Applied Artists / Magyar Képzőművészek és Iparművészek Szövetsége
- Association of Hungarian Dancers / Magyar Táncművészek Szövetsége
- Hungarian Publishers and Booksellers Association / Magyar Könyvkiadók és Könyvterjesztők Egyesülése
- Association of Hungarian Orchestras Magyar / Szimfonikus Zenekarok Szövetsége
- Hungarian Festival Association / Magyar Fesztivál Szövetség
In two important fields the political dividedness of the country led to the existence of two nationally representative entities:
- Hungarian Theatre Association / Magyar Színházi Társaság vs Hungarian Theatre Society / Magyar Teátrumi Társaság
- Hungarian Writers association / Magyar Írószövetség vs Society of Hungarian Authors / Szépírók Társasága
Last update: March, 2025
As described above, different cultural affairs are under different ministries. In particular, the management of cultural heritage is separate from the rest. It is typical that the Prime Minister himself creates government commissioners, public foundations and agencies to distribute funds for the management of what he considers to be important issues. This can have the advantage of efficiency, but the disadvantage of unpredictability and lack of transparency. Of the non-governmental organisations, the government only cooperates with those over which it has control. In the absence of structured communication about the operations of the cultural government, the details of the co-operation are not transparent.
Last update: November, 2021
As a legacy of the communist period, the state is expected and indeed is performing as the main sponsor of cultural institutions. That applies also to those connected to local governments, including the vast network of houses of culture (művelődési houses). With the regime change, opportunities for private investments and initiatives opened up and they led to a fundamental overhaul of the cultural industries, such us publishing, design, art galleries etc. – festivals can also be added to this list.
Independent art groups have a decisive role in challenging the primacy of large public ensembles, particularly in drama and dance, since the late communist era. In the rock music scene, spontaneous bottom-up emergence and independent operation are the rule.
The changes in the last few years have been so substantial that the focus of genuine overviews should very much be on these latest developments (see chapter 1.3.3).
Last update: November, 2021
Table 1: Cultural institutions financed by public authorities, by domain
| Domain | Cultural institutions (subdomains) | Number (Year) | Trend (++ to --) |
| Cultural heritage | Cultural heritage sites (World Heritage List) | 8 (2021) | 0 |
| Museums (organisations) | 700 (2019) | 0 | |
| Archives (of public authorities) | 88 (2019) | 0 | |
| Visual arts | Public art galleries / exhibition halls | 1 167 (2021)* | + |
| Art academies (or universities) | 5 (2019) | 0 | |
| Performing arts | Symphonic orchestras | 16 (2019) | + |
| Music schools | 737 (2009)** | + | |
| Music / theatre academies (or universities) | 5 (2019) | 0 | |
| Dramatic theatre | 220 (2019) | + | |
| Music theatres, opera houses | 3 opera, 1 operetta and 1 music house (2021) | 0 | |
| Dance and ballet companies | 42 (2019) | + | |
| Books and Libraries | Libraries (including school libraries) | 6802 (2019) | - |
| Audiovisual | Broadcasting organisations | .. | |
| Interdisciplinary | Socio-cultural centres / cultural houses | 5974 (2019) | 0 |
Sources: http://www.ksh.hu except *: http://www.artportal.hu, ** https://mzmsz.hu
Last update: November, 2021
The years after the 2018 parliamentary elections that produced a 2/3 majority for the third consecutive time for Fidesz, and particularly after the 2019 local government elections with important gains by the opposition, are characterised by major changes in the structure of the public cultural institutions.
The short Act CXXIV of 2019 postulates the concept of ‘institutions of cultural strategy’, offering a list of 17 organisations that range from the National Theatre to the Film Institute. Besides 11 budgetary institutions, these include 4 nonprofit limited companies and 2 nonprofit shareholding companies (these two are the above mentioned first and last items on the list). Next to 16 customary cultural institutions, the newly founded Institute for Hungarian Studies (Magyarságkutató Intézet, in fact a research centre) belongs to the group of 17. They will be financed by the national budget based on five-year agreements with the government. The same Act established the National Cultural Council chaired by a minister and comprising the heads of the cultural strategy institutions plus the chairman of the Hungarian Arts Academy – MMA.
In July 2021 a government decision (1501/2021) raised the current annual subsidies of the ‘institutions of cultural strategy’ by about 10% and instructs the competent ministries to earmark about one billion euro of additional resources for the same purpose in the next five years.
Last update: November, 2021
In 2021, 26 Hungarian Institutes operate in 24 countries. Until 2016 they were outposts of the Balassi Institute (Balassi Intézet, named after a 16th century poet); since the closure of this public institution the Hungarian Institutes are managed directly by the Foreign Ministry. Without any consultation or prior news, the members of the network were re-baptised as Liszt Institute (after the composer) overnight in September 2021. The oldest one was established in Vienna in 1924, while the latest additions were Ljubljana in 2016, and Tokyo and Seoul in 2019. The common web portal of the network is https://culture.hu. It reflects the customary performance of foreign cultural institutes, which is primarily the display of national culture. Bearing the title of Collegium Hungaricum, the Institutes in Berlin, Rome, and Vienna also provide scholars with fellowships and residencies.
Bilateral cultural agreements, usually in conjunction with educational and scientific co-operation are managed by the cultural state secretariat of the Ministry of Human Resources. The exchange of experts is still of some importance in the agreements, especially in the heritage field. In the arts, most co-operation projects are realised through other channels.
The earlier habit of running large scale “cultural seasons” in foreign countries has discontinued, mainly due to the Covid pandemic. Smaller Hungarian Days or Weeks are mainly held in the neighbouring countries with a sizeable Hungarian minority population (in 2021 in Bratislava and Cluj).
Before the pandemic, spectacular exhibitions organised by the Museum of Fine Arts and the National Gallery attracted masses of domestic and international visitors. These events required great efforts of international cultural co-operation. An exhibition of Gerhard Richter’s works was the latest in 2021, preceded by pre-Raphaelite masterpieces from the Tate Collection, Surrealism from Dali to Magritte (2019), and Bacon, Freud, and the London School (2018).
The International Department of the National Film Institute represents Hungarian films abroad and handles their festival and sales activity. The government fosters the shooting of films in Hungary – several studios receive large multinational productions regularly, which is a solid segment of the international cultural cooperation of the country.
The Petőfi Literary Fund offers grants to foreign publishers for the translation and the production of Hungarian authors abroad. It also runs the Hungarian Translators House for residencies.
The Ludwig Museum curates the country's exhibits at the Venice Biennale, where Hungary has had a pavilion of its own since as early as 1909. Hungarian galleries have enjoyed a limited presence at the leading world events which is improving slowly.
Attracting major sporting events is a top priority for the government, absorbing large amounts of public subsidy and related investments. These are sometimes accompanied by impressive cultural performances like the opening celebrations of the 2017 World Aquatics Championships in Budapest.
Last update: November, 2021
Hungary has been a member of UNESCO since 1948; its General Conference was presided by Hungarian women in 1974 and 2011. A staff of three operates the Secretariat of the Hungarian National Commission for UNESCO within the Ministry of Human Resources. In the cultural domain, among others, eight Hungarian sites were added to the World Heritage List between 1987 and 2002 (two of them are transborder sites). An international project on The Danube Limes, the line of the frontiers of the Roman Empire, was adopted as World Heritage in 2021 but the Hungarian government withdrew its involvement at the last minute.
Hungary ratified the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2006 and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in 2008. The body responsible for the implementation of the Convention in Hungary is the Hungarian Open-Air Museum in Szentendre; a national inventory was also set up. Currently, four items are inscribed on the UNESCO world list of Intangible Cultural Heritage, two of them with other countries. The national inventory of intangible cultural heritage contains 44 items.
Hungary is also party to the Memory of the World Register. In 2015, the 7th Hungarian item was added to the Memory of the World Register.
The European Folklore Institute is a regional centre for the safeguarding, revitalisation and diffusion of traditional culture and folklore in Europe: it was founded in 1996 by the Hungarian government and UNESCO.
The Structural Funds of the European Union finance a considerable number of cultural heritage projects, with the largest amounts going to built heritage restoration and upgrading.
Hungarian operations have been active in applying for European cultural grants since Culture 2000. In the latest seven-year period they coordinated 12 Creative Europe projects and participated in about 70 more. Winners can get matching funding from the National Cultural Fund (NKA) to cover part or all of their own contribution.
Hungary also takes part in the cultural co-operation programme of the Visegrad Fund, as well as of the Central European Initiative and the EU strategy for the Danube Region.
Following 2010 Pécs, in 2023 Veszprém will be European Capital of Culture. Preparations are under way with concerted efforts of the government, local authorities, and civic operations.
Last update: November, 2021
Most of the mainstream institutions (museums, galleries, theatres, symphonic orchestras, and especially large festivals) have rich programmes of international exchange. Outstanding venues attracting international artists and works of art are the Opera House, Müpa (also called the Palace of Arts, a concert hall which also houses the Ludwig Museum), the Modem in Debrecen, and the Kodály Centre in Pécs. Trafó, the A38 ship, and the MU theatre are popular and well-functioning spaces especially for innovative and experimental productions, both from Hungary and abroad, which regularly participate in EU projects and are financed by a variety of sources.
The pandemic has halted the international success of Sziget Festival for two seasons. Other pop festivals receive fewer foreign bands. Next to the pandemic, the art festival scene in Budapest faces division between the central and local governments: the latter stopped funding the Budapest Spring Festival and its autumn leg on contemporary art and attempts to create new successors instead.
Independent operations are well integrated into their respective international communities, and they are active in several European networks, both as individuals and as creative groups.