1. Cultural policy system
Hungary
Last update: November, 2021
Objectives:
After 2010, when Fidesz, the governing party gained constitutional power at the elections, the previous focus on European integration and values moved towards national traditions and conservatism. This included, among others, increased attention on the culture of the approximately two million ethnic Hungarians in neighbouring countries. However, the objectives of cultural policy have not been enacted in official policy declarations. The statements of the Prime Minister suggest the main clues to the subsequent priorities in the cultural arena.
Until recently, culture did not figure among the top priorities in the evolution of the System of National Cooperation (Nemzeti Együttműködés Rendszere – NER), as the current political power self-identifies. A new era began in 2019, when the Prime Minister announced a focus on the cultural transformation of the country, in the political sense ot the term. From the ideological stance the emphasis shifted towards competitiveness: the programmes and institutions connected to the ruling power are expected to achieve and exhibit excellence.
Main features:
The 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 Human Resources or the Committee for Culture of the Parliament have negligible roles, and the same applies to the main bodies of the system: the Hungarian Arts Academy – Magyar Művészeti Akadémia, MMA, or the National Council for Culture. Fundamental changesoccur 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 and social and professional partners are seldom consulted. Annual budgets reveal little of the next priorities as their provisions are significantly overwritten by ad hoc government decisions during the year. The lack of detailed clear strategies does not mean financial neglect: on the contrary, the public cultural spending of the government is among the highest in the continent. In particular, a significant amount is spent on preservation and reconstruction of built cultural heritage and new buildings. An eminent example of the latter is the Eiffel Forum: a vast complex of locomotive repair shops turned into high quality concert halls, rehearsal rooms, warehouses, and workshops of the State Opera, inaugurated in September 2021.
Latest developments:
Hand in hand with the accelerated reorganisation of the institutional structures of higher education, research and media, the past few years have seen a basic overhaul of the cultural arena. An iconic step was the establishment of the Foundation for Hungarian Culture (Magyar Kultúráért Alapítvány) in April 2021, a “Public Interest Foundation Performing Public Functions”, as a new kind of institution introduced by the Parliament on the same day. Sizeable assets and competences as well as huge current and prospected financial resources and properties have been donated to the new Foundation.
Background:
1918- 1945: Hungary was 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 had 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 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 from 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: November, 2021
The single-chamber Parliament produces legislation. In addition to its role in preparing laws, the Committee for Culture and Press also fulfills supervisory functions by occasionally putting various issues related to culture on its agenda. Overall, however, since spring 2010 when Fidesz gained 2/3 of the parliamentary seats – a feat that was repeated in 2014 and 2018 – in the NER era, the Parliament and its Committees have limited autonomy, and reflect the will of the government or the dominant party.
Since 2010 there has not been a separate ministry for culture. Administering issues of culture is dispersed between various governmental organs.
Among the nine state secretaries in the composite Ministry of Human Resources, one is responsible for culture; among the fourteen deputy state secretaries one overlooks issues of culture, and another is in charge of development and financing in culture. In the same Ministry, there are—as of 2021—thirteen ministerial commissioners, whose respective remits include the regeneration of the Budapest City Park, the reconstruction of the Hungarian State Opera House, the integrated development of the national library and literary collections, the upgrading of circus arts, the coordination of basic cultural services, music education, as well as the integrated development of national museums.
The respective ministries appear as chapters of the united government web portal. Apart from news, the top official’s introduction and a contact list of subordinate institutions, the site does 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.
Built heritage and archaeology – their development, protection, and regulation – are the remit of a Deputy State Secretary who reports to the Minister of the Prime Minister's Office. His work is helped by a Ministerial Commissioner who coordinates cultural heritage tasks. Another Ministerial Commissioner administers the national castle programme.
In the Ministry for Innovation and Technology a Ministerial Commissioner oversees the creative industries.
After intermediate changes during the past decade, cultural institutions abroad are now supervised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade.
A Government Commissioner administers the film sector (“in charge of the development of the national audio-visual industry”), and another coordinated the preparations for the European Capital of Culture in 2013 in Veszprém.
Government and ministerial commissioners have staffs of various sizes and fulfill functions of public administration.
The constitution and various laws also prescribe the involvement of the Hungarian Arts Academy – MMA into all major cultural policy decisions.
The National Cultural Fund is a semi-autonomous institution and remains in charge of financing projects.
Last update: November, 2021
The elected assemblies and self-governments of the 19 counties (“megye“) have no mandate on culture.
Last update: November, 2021
There are 3 178 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 not well defined and on account of the centralising policies of 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: November, 2021
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 in 1827 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 national representative entities:
- Hungarian Theatre Association / Magyar Színházi Társaságvs Hungarian Theatre Society / Magyar Teátrumi Társaság
- Hungarian Writers association / Magyar Írószövetségvs Society of Hungarian Authors /Szépírók Társasága
Last update: November, 2021
In a conventional setup, transversal co-operation implies the collaboration of the cultural ministry with other governmental bodies. In the current framework of horizontally distributed competences a considerable part of the co-operation occurs between the high offices in charge of a cultural policy segment and the other departments of the same ministry. This applies particularly to the state secretariat for culture which is bound to maintain daily working relations with the state secretariats for education or social matters within the same Ministry for Human Resources. In the absence of structured communication about the operations of these high offices 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.