POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN RURAL AREAS

European Commission POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN RURAL AREAS Final Report Annex I Country Studies country: HUNGARY author: Gabriella Vukovich ...
Author: Kristin Neal
1 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size
European Commission

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN RURAL AREAS Final Report

Annex I Country Studies

country:

HUNGARY author: Gabriella Vukovich

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 2. Main characteristics of rurality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 3. Main characteristics of rural poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 4. Rural poverty and policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5. Poverty and groups at risk: case studies on significant groups at risk . . . . . . . 144 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

This study is supported for under the European Community action programme to encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion (2002-2006). This programme is managed by the Directorate-General for Employment, social affairs and equal opportunities of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission may be held responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this publication. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi Contractor: Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini Contact person: Marilena Sacchetta www.fondazionebrodolini.it Authors of the Final Study: Paola Bertolini, Marco Montanari, Vito Peragine. National Corrispondents: Lilia Abadjieva (Bulgaria), Luc Behaghel (France), Paola Bertolini (Italy), Nikolaos Bouzas (Greece), Ruta Braziene (Lithuania), Patrick Commins (Ireland), Philomena De Lima (UK), Oana Gherghinescu (Romania), Elvira Gonzalez (Spain), Florindo Ramos (Portugal), Karen Refsgaard (Norway), Mateja Sedmak, Blaz Lenarcic (Slovenia), Elzbieta Tarkowska (Poland), Achim Vanselow, Claudia Weinkopf, Thorsten Kalina (Germany), Gabriella Vukovich (Hungary). Scientific Committee: Philomena De Lima, Marcello Gorgoni, Sabrina Lucatelli, Enzo Mingione, Karen Refsgaard, Annamaria Simonazzi, Francesca Utili © European Communities, 2008 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

122

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Executive Summary

The definitions of rural areas in Hungary are not always consistent with each other and there is no single definition for rurality. The most widely accepted interpretation is based on the types of settlements. Although the categories of villages and towns do not exactly cover urban and rural areas, lacking exact delineations and especially because there are no statistical breakdowns according to the urban or rural nature of the settlements (but sample surveys do provide data on poverty and social exclusion in a towns/villages breakdown), we mainly used in the study the village/town breakdown as a proxy of urban/rural. This is widely accepted in the Hungarian literature. This is the case in the National Development Plan, as well as in the Rural Development Plan and the National Action Plan on Social Inclusion and the National Report on Social Protection. There was a need to use a geographical approach for some indicators, i.e. for those where NUTS 2 (7 regions) or NUTS 3 (19 counties) level data are available. The Central Statistical Office developed 5 categories of development of the NUTS 4 level micro-regions (157). The basis of the classification is a set of indicators (proportion of foreign owned enterprises, household income estimated from personal income tax files, number of enterprises per population, unemployment rate, net migration, number of telephone subscriptions per population number of cars per population) related to the level of development: a) dynamically developing regions (the majority of the indicators is more than 10 % higher than the nonurban average) b) developing regions (the majority of the indicators is less than 10 %higher than the non-urban average) c) upward moving regions (the majority of the indicators is close to the non-urban average and there are signs of improvement) d) stationary regions (the majority of the indicators is more than 10 % below the non-urban average) e) declining regions (the majority of the indicators is more than 15 % below the non-urban average). Generally speaking, the Eastern part of the country is less developed than the Western and Central part. The risk of poverty is also larger in the less developed regions. Development policies in general declare the aim of improving the situation of less developed regions or settlements. Accordingly, some tender specifications, especially in social protection programmes and in the SAPARD plan 2000-2006, give preference to the less developed or declining regions. The most recent Rural Development Strategic Plan, for 2007-2013 will also focus mostly on activities carried out in villages, i.e. in rural areas. The RDSP 2007–2013, besides the usual definition of villages as rural settlements also identifies Less Favoured Areas. One of the 3 priorities in the National Strategy Report on Social Protection and Social Integration for the years 2006-2008 is to decrease the spatial–regional disparities, to improve the living circumstances of the population residing in the least developed micro-regions or settlements of the country. Inhabitants of villages are more at risk of poverty than inhabitants of towns and cities (The difference between the capital and villages is almost threefold). The smallest settlements have larger proportions of risk groups, which have implications for income poverty and deprivation. Poverty is strongly influenced by household structure. Poverty and social exclusion is more likely in larger families and especially among Gypsies. The risk of poverty in families with more than 3 children is 2.5 times higher than in childless families. There are other factors, such as: level of education, activity status which have a strong influence on the poverty rate 123

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Roma ethnicity means a much higher risk of poverty and social exclusion. Besides higher income poverty percentages (estimates vary between 35–55 %), the Roma live under worse housing conditions, their health status is worse and life expectancies are lower, activity rates among the Roma are low, child poverty is especially high because of larger numbers of children in Roma families. The main groups at risk or vulnerable groups identified in the scientific literature and also identified in the official policy documents are: large families, single parent families, people with lower education, the unemployed, inactive persons of working age, Roma/Gypsy population, aged persons especially in one-person households, people living in smaller villages, especially in the eastern part of the country Social policies, including welfare policies, and rural policies are mostly centralized. Social policy implementation, however is mostly decentralized, most social policy measures are implemented at the local community level, with normative funding from the central government. Rural development is implemented at central or NUTS 2 regional level. The welfare system is generally institution oriented rather than problem oriented. Rural development policies, on the other hand, do not include welfare elements; their focus is on agriculture, on economic development and the infrastructure in rural areas. There is little overlap and synergy between social policy and rural development policy. There are currently three solutions in welfare policy that could be included into rural development policy: the special development programmes of backward regions, the village janitors and the welfare plot programmes. The smallest villages, those of a population of 600 or fewer inhabitants receive a normative financial provision from the central government budget to maintain the services of the village janitor, villages larger than that maintain these services from their own resources if they choose to do so. The essence of the agricultural welfare plot programme is that poor and/or socially excluded families who have no assets of agricultural production or cannot operate such assets effectively are provided agricultural plots and/or other means of production under preferential circumstances to enable them to grow crops or other produce or have animals thus creating subsistence farming opportunity or possibly even market presence, through activating private, community and local resources. A large proportion, around 40 per cent of the beneficiaries (10 thousands) of the programmes are of Roma ethnicity.

124

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

1. Overview

The national review contains definitions that are commonly used in Hungarian scientific literature and in official documents. The OECD definition is not used widely, the dichotomy villages vs. towns and cities are used rather than urban vs. rural in Hungarian documents. Another approach is to analyse characteristics of settlements of various size categories. This is sometimes more useful because the conditions for a village to become a town are not defined in quantitative terms. The geographic location of the settlements or micro-regions, although not decisive has an influence on the development level. Regions and settlements in the Eastern part of the country are more likely to be underdeveloped, to have larger proportions of poor, undereducated, unemployed people, of larger families. Similarly, smaller settlements are more likely to be less developed, and have larger proportions of poor, undereducated, unemployed people, socially excluded groups and larger families. During the 1990ies long-term poverty and social exclusion have been concentrated in the less developed regions of the country and in villages. Development strategies address the situation of small settlements and of less developed regions. Some programmes target special resources and funding conditions to development projects in general and to social protection projects that aim at improving the living conditions and quality of life in less developed areas. Social policy decision making is mostly at central, national level, and the resources of implementation are also mostly provided from the central government budget. In recent years, however, with the opening of EU programmes and funds, local settlements or groups of settlements can apply for grants or other development funds to fulfil, among others, their social policy needs. The problem is that especially in the communities where such resources would be most needed, the contributing capacity of the community to co-funding is inadequate. Around 14 % of the total population lives in poverty, i.e. below the threshold of 0 % of the median equivalent income. The poverty rate in villages is 20 %. Other dimensions of deprivation (access to health care, to education, especially higher education, access to information, internet penetration etc.) also show that village dwellers face more challenges in terms of social exclusion than city dwellers). The main risk groups are:

• • • • • • • •

Large families Single parent families Lower education Unemployed Inactive persons of working age Roma/Gypsy population Aged persons in one person households People living in villages, especially in smaller villages or in the less developed areas of the country (especially in the eastern part of the country)

125

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

2. Main characteristics of rurality in Hungary

2.1. Definition of rural areas The definition of rural areas in Hungary is not very consistent and there is no single definition for rurality. The definitions described below are used across the country, there are no regional differences in definitions. The most widely accepted interpretation is based on the types of the settlements. Hungarian settlements (communities, NUTS 5) are grouped in 4 legal categories:

• the Capital, Budapest • cities that are the seats („capitals”) of counties and other cities which although are not county seats have the same legal status (the latter are cities of more than 50 thousand inhabitants)

• towns • villages Whether a settlement is a village or a town depends on an administrative decree. Villages can be decreed to become towns by the President of the Republic. The conditions are rather broadly specified: a village can be decreed to be a town if the development and the regional role of the settlement justifies it. The development criteria are not quantified in the law, only qualitatively cited (adequate economic development and infrastructure, the existence of institutions like educational, public health institutions and the organisational and governing capacity of the self-governing body.) In principle, villages should be rural areas and the different categories of towns should be urban areas. In practice, there are many towns that were awarded the title of town by merits other than urban characteristics (for instance, historical importance). Also, there is a large variation of settlement sizes, among both villages and towns. Hungary had 3145 settlements on January 1st 2006, of these 2856 were villages, besides the Capital 22 had the legal status of county seats and 266 were towns. (CSO, 2006a.) The population size of both towns and villages varies greatly: there are towns of around or even less than 2 thousand inhabitants and villages of more than 10 thousand. (CSO, 2006a.) Although the categories of villages and towns do not exactly cover urban and rural areas, lacking exact delineations and especially because there are no statistical breakdowns according to the urban or rural nature of the settlements, we shall mainly use in the study the village/town breakdown as a proxy of urban/rural. This is widely accepted in the Hungarian literature. There are seven NUTS 2 regions in the country, 6 of them consist of 3 NUTS 4 level counties (Western Transdanubia /I/, Southern Transdanubia /II/, Northern Transdanubia /III/, Southern Great Plain /V/, Northern Great Plain /VI/, Northern Hungary /VII/,) and Central Hungary (/IV/, Budapest and Pest county surrounding the Capital). There are differences between the development of the regions. The Eastern part of the country is, in general, less developed than the western part, consequently many villages in the Western regions are far more prosperous than some towns in the Eastern regions. It should also be noted that 3 of the 7 Hungarian NUTS 2 regions (Northern Hungary, Northern Great Plain, Southern Great Plain) are among the 10 least developed of the 254 regions of the EU (EU-25). At the NUTS 4 level there 157 micro-regions. The Central Statistical Office developed 5 categories of development of the NUTS 4 level micro-regions, mainly for analytic purposes. The basis of the classification is a set of indicators (proportion of foreign owned enterprises, household income estimated from personal income tax files, number of enterprises per population, unemployment rate, net migration, number of telephone subscriptions per population number of cars per population) related to the level of development.

126

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Figure 1. The regions and micro-regions of Hungary

The micro-regions are classified as

• dynamically developing regions (the majority of the indicators is more than 10 % higher than the nonurban average)

• developing regions (the majority of the indicators is less than 10 %higher than the non-urban average) • upward moving regions (the majority of the indicators is close to the non-urban average and there are signs of improvement)

• stationary regions (the majority of the indicators is more than 10 % below the non-urban average) • declining regions (the majority of the indicators is more than 15 % below the non-urban average). Figure 2. Micro-regions by development level Legend:

Legend:

Dinamikusan fejl = d = Dinamikusan fejlödö Dynamically Dynamically developing; 22 developing; 22 microregions microregions Fejlödö = Developing; 40 microregions Fejl d = Developing; 40 microregions Felzárkózó = Underdeveloped but upward moving; 45 microreFelzárkózó = gions Underdeveloped but Stagnáló upward= Stationary; moving; 3745 microregions microregions

Lemaradó = Declining, 24 Stagnáló = Stationary; microregions 37 microregions Lemaradó = Declining, 24 microregions

Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, www.ksh.hu

127

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

There is a further distinction as regards the development of micro-regions: the category of Less Favoured areas, as defined in the Council Regulation 1257/1999., Article 19. (06. July, 2004.) and Article 20. (13. July, 2004.) is sometimes applied. 2.2. The different typologies of rurality in Hungary The urban/rural distinction and the usual assessment of regional development are used in all types of development policies. Definitions are similar in various types of policies. Development policies in general declare the aim of improving the situation of less developed regions or settlements. Accordingly, some tender specifications, especially in social protection programmes, give preference to the less developed or declining regions. Rural development programmes are more focused on agricultural activities or the agricultural population, consequently their scope of activity is mostly in villages. The measures intended to enhance the adaptation of rural areas in the SAPARD Plan 2000–2006 were envisaged to apply to areas classified as rural, subject to defined conditions. The criteria for rurality were the following:

• adverse demographic situation (natural growth, population density); • aging and permanent outward migration (vitality index, migration balance); • areas that are average or below the average in terms of economic development (number of business enterprises and sole entrepreneurs per 1000 residents);

• areas that are average or below the average in terms of infrastructure (length of sewerage canals per length of water pipe network, number of passenger cars and main telephone lines per 1000 residents);

• areas that are average or below the average in terms of relative wealth (personal income tax per permanent resident);

• in general the area is average or below the average (complex indicator), (rate of unemployment, proportion of active employees in agriculture). A recapitulation of indicators of rurality examined has shown that the regions defined by the complex indicator of rurality were the same as those belonging to settlements having a population density of or below 120 capita / km2. Thus the indicator of population density was adopted as an appropriate one to indicate rurality. Therefore, applying the principle of concentration, from the fundamentally and typically rural areas with a population density of or below 120 capita / km2 were selected. Hungary’s SAPARD Plan concentrated on these areas as far as measures aiming at the adaptation of rural areas were concerned. The totality of the surface of these areas is 77 921 km2 (83.7% of Hungary’s surface). The population of these areas was 3 883 212 people, 38.3 % of the whole Hungarian population. The most recent Rural Development Strategic Plan, for 2007-2013, in line with the general objectives of improving the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry, improving the environment in the countryside and improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of economic activity, will also focus mostly on activities carried out in villages, i.e. in rural areas. The RDSP 2007–2013, besides the usual definition of villages as rural settlements also identifies Less Favoured Areas. Agricultural production on Less Favoured Areas contributes to sustaining the agricultural employment, to the increase of the income-generating ability of rural areas, to the improvement of the quality of life in rural regions and to the sustainability of local communities. Support for LFA contributes to the utilisation of abandoned lands and ensures an income supplement for farmers pursuing agricultural activities in less favoured areas. It promotes the restructuring of production and the extensive keeping of (often endangered) animal species that adjust to the disadvantageous conditions. The compensation contributes to the preservation of farms in the affected areas and to the improvement of their viability. Within the framework of the RDSP 2007–2013, Hungary implements the “Support of Less Favoured Areas” programme with respect to the criteria laid down in Articles 19 and 20 of Council Regulation 1257/1999/EC. Areas falling under Article 19 are uniform as regards natural production conditions, and complying with all the three conditions determined in the Article. The total area of such areas is 395,402 hectares, which is 6.3% of the total cultivated area and 4.25% of the total area of Hungary. Less favoured areas according to Article 20 are areas affected by specific disadvantages, in which farming should be continued according to needs and subject to certain conditions, in order to conserve or improve the environment, 128

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

maintain the countryside and preserve the tourist potential of the area. The requirements set out in Article 20 are met by a total area of 488,156 hectares, which is 7.77% of the total cultivated area and 5.24% of the total area of the country. The total surface of LFAs is 883,558 hectares that is 9.5% of Hungary’s total area, and 14% of the total cultivated area. One of the 3 priorities in the National Strategy Report on Social Protection and Social Integration for the years 2006-2008 is to decrease the spatial–regional disparities, to improve the living circumstances of the population living in the least developed micro-regions or settlements of the country. The instruments proposed are financial support to these settlements through the National Development Plan for the years 2007-2013, the expansion of current pilot programmes, the introduction of complex programmes encompassing economic development, employment, training, community development and infrastructure development. Another strategic direction is to improve the accessibility and availability of services in these regions and settlements, through multi purpose micro regional cooperation in the field of health, social protection, education, libraries, information centres and through the development of public transport, community infrastructure and IT services in order to diminish geographical differences.

2.3. Comparison with the international classification proposed by the OECD The application of the OECD classification is not really used in Hungary. Average population density is 108 inhabitants per square kilometre (the OECD’s first criterion interprets rural area below 150 inhabitants per square kilometre; only the central region’s density (408) exceeds this limit due to the large weight, 1,694 million inhabitants, of the Capital, Budapest). Also the concept of “urban centre with more than 200 000 inhabitants” as described in the third criterion is difficult to use, because besides the capital there is only one city (Debrecen, 211 thousand inhabitants) where this definition can be applied. So, the use of the OECD definition is not very effective in Hungary. The national approach focusing on the administrative status of town or village also has some shortcomings: the most important is that the population size of both towns and villages varies greatly: there are towns of less than 2 thousand inhabitants and villages of more than 10 thousand. Table 1. Population by settlement type and settlement size, 1st January 2006 Settlement size (population size categories)

Budapest

Settlement type Other towns Villages

Total

< 499





281 346

281 346

500 – 999





489 353

489 353

1 000 – 1 999



5 855

935 027

940 882

2 000 – 4 999



193 774

1 281 494

1 475 268

5 000 – 9 999



685 534

283 595

969 129

10 000 – 49 999



2 257 482

54 266

2 311 748

50 000 – 99 999



758 508



758 508

100 000 +

1 698 106

1 152 241



2 850 347

Total

1 698 106

5 053 394

3 325 081

10 076 581

Source: Statistical Yearbook 2006. Central Statistical Office, Budapest, 2006 (CSO, 2006a.)

However, cities and towns can usually be described as urban settlements and villages as rural.

129

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

3. Main characteristics of rural poverty in Hungary

3.1. Measurement of poverty in Hungary Hungarian measures are similar to EUROSTAT measures. For income poverty rate the threshold of 60% of the equivalent median income is used as poverty line. The Laeken indicators are available from Hungarian surveys. The Hungarian statistical office also produces the threshold of subsistence minimum. this is the level of income which is enough to provide the basic nutrition and housing needs which are necessary for subsistence. This level is higher than the 60 % poverty threshold, but does not allow more than basic subsistence. The main data sources are the Hungarian Survey on Income and Living conditions (SILC), the Household Budget Survey, and the Labour Force Survey, the Time Use and Lifestyles Survey. Whenever applicable, the 2001 Population and Housing Census data is also used. Of the administrative data sources the unemployment register provides employment and unemployment data for each settlement, and for NUTS 4 micro-regions. In the equivalence scale used in the Hungarian publications of the SILC data the first adult equals 1, subsequent adults equal 0,7, children under age 15 equal 0,5.

3.2. Rural poverty in Hungary In national statistics on poverty data are available

➣ for 3 categories of cities and towns (Budapest, cities of county seat status, other towns) and ➣ for villages. Poverty in large cities is far below the average, smaller towns are around the national average, while villages are much more affected by poverty than any other settlements. The difference between the capital and villages is almost threefold. (CSO, 2006b.) Table 2. Poverty rates by settlement type (2004) Settlement type

Poverty rate

Budapest

7,6

Cities of county seat status

8,5

Other towns

14,8

Villages

20,1

Total

14,3

Source: Hungarian Survey of Income and Living Conditions, 2005. Income data refer to 2004.

The distinction (and the data) exists on the basis of the different types of settlements. Inhabitants of villages are more at risk of poverty than inhabitants of towns and cities. The smallest settlements have larger proportions of risk groups, which has implications for income poverty and deprivation. Poverty is strongly influenced by household structure. The number of children under 18 years of age have a substantial effect on income poverty. While the poverty rate of households without children is 7%, those living in households with one or two children are more likely to be poor. The poverty rate is extremely high among households with at least three children under 18: the risk of poverty is three times higher than the average. (CSO, 2006b) Income poverty is relatively low among the elderly, but there are some vulnerable groups (for instance aged people in rural areas or living alone with low pension). According to the deprivation approach the households with at least three children and the elderly have a considerably higher risk of poverty than the average. The level of education also has a significant effect on the incidence of poverty. The higher the educational attainment, the lower the probability of living in poverty. The income poverty rate is 23% among people who have not

130

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

completed primary education, and 18% among those who completed only eight years of primary school. These values are significantly higher than the average rate. (CSO, 2006b) The proportion of people with low educational level is higher in the villages than in the towns which is one of the most important factor behind the urban-rural differences of poverty. There is a similarly strong association as regards the activity status of persons. The income poverty rate is around three times higher than the average among the unemployed and among temporary workers. People with disability pension, or on maternity leave receiving maternity benefits have also higher risks to be poor. (CSO, 2006b) The unemployment and inactivity rate are substantially higher in the rural areas than in urban settlements. Furthermore the income in the same activity and employment categories is smaller in villages than in towns and especially smaller than in the capital. To sum up, the household structure, the educational attainment, and the activity status are important factors determining poverty. The population of villages in all these factors is less favoured which leads to a higher poverty risk among the population in rural areas.

3.3 Multi-dimensional analysis of poverty and social exclusion in Hungary Geographical location Geographical location is also pertinent: disadvantages and risk factors often are cumulated in underdeveloped settlements or backward regions of the country. Also, access to factors of development and to services and institutions of human capital development (e.g. education and health) and other public services is worse in villages and in less developed areas than in most of the cities and towns and in more developed areas. Geographical location has a clear impact on poverty and social exclusion. Regions and settlements in the Northern and Eastern parts of the country are in general less developed. This can be illustrated, among others by the number of tax payers and the rate of registered unemployed. (See maps below at NUTS 3 level. Figure 3. Number of tax payers per 1000 population, 2004

Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, www.ksh.hu

131

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Figure 4. Registered unemployment rate, December 2004

Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, www.ksh.hu

Generally speaking, the Eastern part of the country is less developed than the Western and Central part. The risk of poverty is also larger in the less developed regions. Physical infrastructure, accessibility (roads, railways, etc..), housing quality and utilities Physical infrastructure, accessibility (roads, railways, etc..), housing quality and utilities show varied pictures in rural areas. Rural areas in general have more limited accessibility than larger cities, though all settlements are accessible by public road. The railroad network, naturally, does not reach all settlements, but bus transport is available in settlements that are not along the railroad lines. Small villages, however, although accessible by rail or bus transport may not have employment friendly timetables, i.e. commuting from some of these villages is difficult. Housing quality in terms of dwelling surface/inhabitant or number of rooms is better in villages than in large cities. Water supply is almost universal, electricity supply even more so. However, some districts or settlements, espeFigure 5. Length of sewerage system per 1 kilometre water pipe system, 2004

Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, www.ksh.hu 132

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

cially of small villages in underdeveloped areas may not be connected to the sewerage system. Recent development projects, however, resulted in improvements in this area, as many villages have been able to rely on EU funding to build sewerage systems. The housing quality of the most vulnerable groups in rural areas (Roma population, aged persons) is very poor. Access to health care and long term care Health care in principle is accessible to everyone. Some of the small and underdeveloped villages or even towns, however, have difficulties in finding general practitioners or paediatricians. The number of patients per doctors is higher in the less developed regions of the country. Figure 6. General practitioners and paediatricians per 1000 population, 2004

Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, www.ksh.hu

The number of patients per doctors and, consequently, waiting times are larger and longer in these settlements. Alternatively, patients have to travel longer distances to have medical treatments. The length of time needed for patients to reach the closest hospital or general practitioner is longer for people with lower income. Urban/rural differences also exist, as hospitals and specialised outpatient care centres are located in cities and towns. This mainly causes problems for poorer people who seldom own a car and for inhabitants of smaller villages, who have less access to convenient transportation. The current restructuring of health care will deteriorate this situation. There is a shortage in log-term care, but the situation may improve some time in the future, after the restructuring of health care services, which aims at reducing the capacity of active inpatient care and increasing the capacity of long-term care. Environment In Hungary, biodiversity is rich in natural or semi-natural habitats, but poor in intensive large-scale arable crop production areas. The species of wild fauna and flora of Hungary and the native animal stock represents outstanding genetic value, the game stock and the rare agricultural plant species of Hungary attest high genetic diversity. Hungary is characterised by natural values of significant size and extent. More than 9% of the country’s territory (857 thousand hectares) is under nature protection. 837 thousand hectares of this area are of national importance, out of which 110 thousand hectares are highly protected areas. Territories under natural protection can be categorised as follows.

133

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

➣ National Park (485 thousand ha) ➣ Landscape Protection Area (324 thousand ha) ➣ Nature Conservation Area (27 thousand ha) ➣ Natural Heritage (1 pcs) On another level of protection, but with national importance there are the territories of the Nature 2000, the natural areas, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas and the ecological corridors. The approximately 40% of the nationally protected acreage that is under agricultural cultivation is characterized by less fertile soils and conditions are generally less amenable to farming. In such areas, extensive forms of agriculture coupled with respect to environmental assets could be a solution for local farmers. 467 special protection areas and 55 special bird protection areas have been designated. The overlap of the two types of areas is about 41%. According to preliminary estimations, agricultural areas marked out as Natura 2000 areas cover 483.4 thousand hectares of grassland and 522.6 thousand hectares of arable land, 773.4 thousand hectares of forest, of which 207 hectares are in private hands. The Natura 2000 network partly overlaps with the natural areas protected by domestic law: this is 39% of the designated Natura 2000 areas. In line with the objective of the preservation of natural heritage, the realisation of the Natura programme will be based on the Natura management plans elaborated within the framework of the protection of natural heritage. Types of activities and labour market structure In the national economy, the services sector accounts for 62 % of employment, industry employs 33 %, and agriculture it is 5 %. Although most of agriculture and farming is in villages, the decline of the contribution of agriculture to the economic performance of the country has led to the diversification of economic activities in villages, too. The diversification in villages, however is not yet adequate, development plans therefore aim at growing diversification, in order to provide higher quality of life in villages. Farming, farmers and agricultural employees The conditions of agricultural production (soil conditions, climate and geographical conditions) are favourable in international comparison. 83% of the country’s territory (9.3 million hectares) is suitable for various agricultural and forest management activities, depending on the productivity of the soil, thus arable land is a resource of utmost importance and a key factor in production in Hungary. As compared to the other sectors of national economy, the share of agriculture is decreasing. In 2005 the contribution of agriculture to the gross domestic product (GDP) was 3,7 %, together with food industry approximately 6,1 %. The share of agriculture and food industry in exports amounted to 7,2 %. As to investments the agricultural sector contributed to the total of investments in the national economy by 4,4 % in 2005, and as to gross output the share of agriculture and food industry accounts for 8,8 % of the total; both figures indicate a slight increase compared with the figures of the last years. In 2004 and 2005 agricultural activities were pursued on 63 % of the country’s 9.3 million hectare territory, with 48.5 % used as arable land, 11.4 % as grassland and 3.1 % as , vineyards and orchards. 19.1 % of the total area is covered by forest (the EU-25 average ratio of forest cover is 35,7 %) and 1,02 % is covered by reeds and fishponds. The average ratio of agricultural land in the countries of the EU is significantly lower than in Hungary (EU25: 37,3 %). No major change had occurred from 2000 to 2005 in the method of land use and in the structure form of cultivation. 54.8 percent of total agricultural land is used by economic organisations, while 45.2 percent is used by private farms (2005 data). As the overwhelming majority of land is used as arable land, this determines the structure of agricultural production and the diversification possibilities. Subsistence economy is not important in a macro-economic perspective. About 3 % of total household consumption is from own production. Family composition Average household size has decreased over time, due to declining fertility, while the number of households has increased, associated with the increase in one-person households. Some social groups and some regions, however, are characterised by larger families. This is more frequent among the groups with lower education, lower income, the Gypsy population. Average family sizes are larger in the less developed regions of the country. 134

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Figure 7. Average number of family members (2001)

Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, www.ksh.hu

Poverty and social exclusion is more likely in larger families. The risk of poverty in families with more than 3 children is 2.5 times higher than in childless families. Age structure Hungarian population has, since long decades, been characterised by declining fertility. Natural decline of the population started in 1981, and has been continuous since then. In association with fertility decline, the ageing of the population is also observed. Figure 8. Proportion of population aged 60+

Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, www.ksh.hu

135

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Figure 9. Proportion of population aged 0-14

Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, www.ksh.hu

Both population decline and ageing will continue in the future. The old age dependency ratio is 22,6 (in 2004) and is expected to increase to over 35 by the year 2030. Regional (NUTS 2 regions) values of the old age dependency ratio are expected to be between 33 and 38. Access to education Access to education is, in principle available to everyone. This however is not the case in practice. While kindergartens and the first 4 years of primary education are available in most, although not all villages, 5th to 8th grades of compulsory primary education have been discontinued in many smaller villages. 9th grade and higher years of education are almost exclusively available in towns and cities. Secondary and higher education is, therefore, more difficult to access from small villages. Even if access to education is available, there is a certain amount of transmission of unfavourable circumstance between generations: the children of parents who have low educational levels are more likely to have low educational levels themselves. This is especially the case in small villages and underdeveloped regions. Gender The situation of women in villages is worse among rural women in those dimensions where the rural population is less favoured than the urban population. The gender pay gap is not excessively large but it is persistent: women earn about 15% less than men in the same types of jobs. Income in general is, however much lower in villages than in cities and towns, and especially than in Budapest. Consequently women in villages have lower disposable income than in towns, but that is true for the rural population in general. Old women in villages, however are a specially disfavoured group as their pensions are much lower because in the past the labour force activity and consequently the social security contribution period of rural women was much lower than of urban women. Ethnicity The 2001 population and housing census registered that 3.3 % of the population was of non-Hungarian ethnicity, 1.9 % in Budapest, 2.6 % in other cities and towns and 4.8 % in villages. The Largest non-Hungarian ethnic group is the Roma population, 190 thousand in 2001, according to the census. Other estimates, however, conclude that the number of Roma is around 500 thousand. Of the 190 thousand Roma, 57 % lived in villages in 2001, while of the total population only 33 % did. Roma ethnicity means a much higher risk of poverty and social exclusion. Besides higher income poverty percentages (estimates vary between 35–55 %), the Roma live under worse housing conditions, their health status is worse and life expectancies are lower, activity rates among the Roma are low, child poverty is especially high because of larger numbers of children in Roma families.

136

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Migration (inflows and outflows) The migration balance of the capital is negative, although the population loss due internal migration has decreased in recent years. Other cities and towns also experience an excess of out-migration over in-migration. Villages, on the contrary, have more in-migrants than out-migrants, although their positive balance is on the decrease. Figure 10. Balance of internal migration Balance of internal m igration by settlem ent types, 2005 30 000 25 000 20 000 15 000 10 000 5 000 0 -5 000 -10 000 -15 000 -20 000 1990

2000

2001

Budapest

S

D

hi Y

2002

2003

2004

Other cities and tow ns

b

k HCSO B d

Source: Demographic Yearbook, HCSO, Budapest, 2005.

2005 Villages

2005

Commuting In 2001, 30 % of employed persons commuted daily to their workplace. Commuting is more intense in regions that have a larger city as centre and especially from the villages and smaller towns around the capital, Budapest. Figure 11. Proportion of commuters (%) among employed persons, 2001

Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, www.ksh.hu

137

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Child poverty The last European Council (8-9 March 2007) stressed the need to fight poverty and social exclusion, especially child poverty, and to give all children equal opportunities. The issue is relevant in Hungary, too. The number of children aged under 18 is 2,06 million. Families with children are more likely to be poor than other families. While around 13 % of the total population falls below the poverty level of 60 % of the median income, this proportion s 19 % among children i.e. 420 thousand children live in poverty. Considering the subsistence minimum as poverty threshold, 28 % of the total population and 40 % of children (850 thousand children) fall below this level. A strategic document on the fight against child poverty was submitted to the Parliament in April 2007, focusing on the labour market integration of parents, on the upward mobility of children through education opportunities, as well as on welfare provisions and on the fight against regional disparities. Among the aims of the strategy the situation of children in villages and in underdeveloped regions is also addressed. According to the strategy, a series of two-year action plans will be elaborated identifying concrete targets and measures for each two-year period, the first two year action plan will be presented by the Government in Autumn 2007.

138

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

4. Rural poverty and policies

The main groups at risk or vulnerable groups identified in the scientific literature and also identified in the official policy documents are:

• • • • • • • •

large families single parent families people with lower education the unemployed inactive persons of working age Roma/Gypsy population aged persons especially in one-person households people living in villages, especially in smaller villages or in the less developed areas of the country (especially in the eastern part of the country)

The risk of poverty has increased in the 1990ies along a new dimension, namely geographic location. Although the settlement type (villages) and/or the settlement size (small settlements) have always been risk factors for poverty, the risk of poverty and social exclusion in rural areas has increased dramatically during the 1990ies. By now it turns out that long-term poverty is mostly concentrated in rural areas and in the North-Eastern regions of the country. The reasons for this are manifold. Agriculture has lost its economic importance to a large extent. Currently, the contribution of agriculture to the GDP is around 5 per cent, and to employment about 3 per cent. Consequently a very small proportion of the rural population find their livelihood in agriculture. During the economic transformation, since 1990, more than 1.5 million jobs disappeared, the number of employed persons has decreased by around 30 per cent, from around 5.5 million to the around 3.9 million. City dwellers fared better in this process than village dwellers. The rapidly increasing service sector provided jobs to large numbers of the urban population and to much smaller numbers of the rural population, industrial development mostly took place in or around cities, moreover, the urban population had an important initial advantage in terms of educational attainments. Consequently Figure 12. Per capita income in rural and urban areas Per capita incom e by sources in urban and rural settlem ents, 2004 (HUF per annum )

1 100 000 12 386 60 257

1 000 000

100% Other income

900 000 800 000 700 000 600 000

5 981 66 395

193 468 16 504

178 036

80%

21.7

Other f inancial welf are benef its

70%

3.2

Pensions

50%

26 216 Agricultural activ

300 000

726 036 542 806

100 000

30%

66.2

1.2

19.2 1.6

72.0

10% 0% Villages

0 Villages

6.0

20% Work in employ or own enterpris , outside agricultu

200 000

0.7

60% 40%

500 000 400 000

90%

8.1

Total Hungary

139

Total Hungary

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

the jobless population of urban areas had much better chances to find employment than jobless persons in rural areas. Under these circumstances, the income of the population in villages is much lower than the national average and especially lower than in larger cities. The composition of income sources is also different in villages: both the amount and the weight of income related to work is lower and the weight of social transfers is higher in villages in per capita incomes. The diminishing role of agriculture is reflected in the low proportion (3,2 per cent) of agricultural income in the total income of the population living in villages. Social policies, including welfare policies, and rural policies are mostly centralised. Social policy implementation, however is mostly decentralised, most social policy measures are implemented at the local community level, with normativee funding from the central government. Rural development is implemented at central or NUTS 2 regional level. On the whole, there is little scope for decentralised action, because the resources are scarce at the local level. While local communities have locally elected self-governing bodies which, in principle can bring majority decisions in almost every sphere of life, their hands are bound because they have very hardly any own resources. Communities have revenue from local taxes, these, however constitute, on the average only around 10 per cent of their revenues. The enterprises situated in the settlement pay a 2% tax on turnover and the communities can levy real estate. this however increases the gap between backward and more developed regions and settlements. The less developed regions and settlement have few enterprises and especially few enterprises with large turnover. These are also the regions where the inhabitants are in much worse financial situation than in better developed and larger settlement, therefore the tax-paying capacity of their population is very low, for which reason many communities cannot increase the burden by real estate tax. The majority of local revenues are from central government sources to cover the cost of central policies and programmes implemented locally. The amounts transferred to the local communities are regulated on a normative basis, e. g. per head of students for education, per head of population for social transfers etc. The amounts transferred cover the expenses of the services, and leave little or no margin for resource reallocation locally. Indeed, communities often have to top-up the central transfers from own resources to maintain the institutions or to maintain the quality of services. Recently, since the availability of EU development programmes and funds, communities (or associations of communities) can apply for various grants and other development funds, but the less developed regions and settlements are, again, in a disadvantageous position because they cannot raise the amounts needed for co-funding. On the whole, the fact that social policy decisions are taken at the central level, means that there is little flexibility of programmes and that special local needs are difficult to meet, although the local actors, i.e. authorities, experts, care providers are in the best position to identify local needs. On the other hand, because the local authorities have little or no means of allocating resources to programmes they may draw up themselves, there is little incentive for local social policy thinking.

4.1. Rural poverty and social policies in Hungary as reflected in EU-related policies The Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2004–2006 stresses that while initiating broad reforms, the strategy also shows continuity with the previous National Action Plan in focusing on children, disabled persons and the Roma. At the same time the main priorities of the strategy also build to a large extent on the previous strategic approach and interventions, especially in the area of access to employment (active inclusion) and tackling child poverty. In the priority of decreasing regional and territorial disparities the plan identifies the poorest areas of the country where all social disadvantages, especially in terms of poor access to services are concentrated. The complex problems of these areas and the focus groups is and will be addressed through programmes carrying out integrated policy mixes (so-called complex programmes) according to the NSR. The National Action Plan stresses that there is a special focus on regional labour market policies, as regional labour market differences are the second highest in the Union (the dispersion of regional employment rates was 9.4% in 2004), and are marked by even more serious sub-regional differences. The National Action Plan also emphasises the significant regional differences in terms of income and access to services and housing. The risk of poverty strongly correlates with growing segregation and the overrepresentation of Roma people in disadvantaged areas. However, interventions aimed at helping disadvantaged regions to catch up seem unable to overcome the immense regional differences in the country. 140

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

4.2 Rural poverty and main policies affecting rural areas as reflected in EU-related policies 4.2.1 SAPARD 2000-2006 The SAPARD Plan of Hungary 2000-2006 acknowledges that while in Western Europe the differences among the regions in terms of income production have gradually been decreasing since the 1980ies, in Hungary they have been increasing. On the other hand, while the regional concentration of the determining resources of economic growth (business and financial services, R & D) has become less pronounced in developed countries, in Hungary the century-long domination of the capital has not changed, actually, it has increased in the case of several activities. The SAPARD Plan identified a number of strengths and weaknesses of rural areas, both as concerns natural factors and economic and human factors, which are still mostly valid for rural areas in Hungary. Rural areas have very favourable natural characteristics such as complex landscape endowments high degree of biodiversity, relatively low load on the environment, the possibility of a healthier lifestyle, high number of sunny hours, waters and underground waters suitable for irrigation and recreation, rich thermal water resources. The main advantages for economic activities are supply of cheap labour force, raw materials (wood, stone, sand, gravel, clay, reed), the existence of unique and special regional products (breeds, fruits and vegetables, craftsmanship), outstanding tourism attractions and opportunities. The positive features of the human resources in rural areas are rich cultural heritage, living traditions, production experiences, traditional, regionally specific professional knowledge, the conditions are provided for manifold economic activity, traditional hospitality, settled culture of labour. Rural areas, however also have weaknesses, such as exposure to natural disasters (e.g. floods), erosion of the soil, drought, environmental threats because of unsolved sewage water and waste management, acidification of the soil, threatened drinking water bases. Among the weaknesses of the economic background isolation from the centres of economic processes, difficulties in access to information, outdated or abandoned industrial capacities, low level of infrastructure, low level of human services, one-sided agricultural structure, low level of income, low enterprising potential (low level of entrepreneurial incentive due to lack of capital) could be mentioned. Disadvantages in the human element in rural areas are depopulation, aging population, low qualification levels, high rate of persistent unemployment.

The SAPARD Plan concluded that the balance of the advantages and disadvantages of rural areas can be considered positive in the case of the natural factors. It is clearly negative in respect of the economic processes and less negative in respect of the human factors. Small regions with multiple disadvantages can be found in every region of the country. The SAPARD Plan aimed at reducing the disadvantages of rural settlements primarily through infrastructure development, the diversification of the scope of activity and that of agriculture, the expansion of vocational training designed to disseminate new skills. All these together serve the domestic application of the rural development principles of the EU, within that the consolidation of the economic base of the countryside, its expansion, the improvement of rural employment. The vision of the Plan is that the stable economic base and modern agriculture will enable the socially acceptable living standard of the rural population, the expansion of the work opportunities and the increase of income in rural areas. Thus the countryside would be able to fulfil its fundamental social functions. Among the special objectives of the SAPARD Plan were job preservation and job creation in rural areas through the diversification of the activities and the improvement of the skills of farmers, as well as enhancing the capabilities of rural areas to retain population. 4.2.2 ARDOP 2004-2006 The Agricultural and Rural Development Operative Programme for 2004-2006 (ARDOP 2004-2006) states that rural areas are disadvantaged compared to urban areas as regards all indicators. Demographic processes, employment opportunities, the resulting high rates of unemployment and the considerable (and increasing) income disparities are particularly unfavourable features. Moreover, low standards of rural production and residential infrastructure and services constitute a disadvantage for the rural population, but they also reduce the attractiveness of rural areas for capital investments and hinder diversification. The Priority of the ARDOP dealing with the development of rural areas (Priority 3.) addresses some of the main structural weaknesses of rural areas, such as the inadequate infrastructure and the dependence of rural settle141

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

ments on agricultural production. It contains three specific objectives: improving the economic potential of rural areas and increasing employment; making rural areas more attractive; developing and implementing integrated small regional pilot programmes (Leader+ approach). Such objectives were to be achieved by diversifying the agricultural activities and expanding the rural business activities, such as developing rural tourism (the latter includes on-farm tourism) and handicrafts and the marketing of quality products. Support was also envisaged to improve the quality and the conditions of life of rural population by the development of adequate rural infrastructure and the establishment of a more attractive residential environment, by strengthening rural communities and preserving and improving the natural and cultural heritage.

4.3 Significant measures affecting poverty and groups at risk in rural areas The rural population is by now one of the major groups at risk of poverty and social exclusion. Social policy and welfare policy strategies and programmes, as well as rural development strategies and programmes always identify this as a major challenge, but do not address the issue adequately. Social policy mostly uses general solutions and offers similar provisions across the country. Moreover, the provisions of the welfare system do not take the special nature of rural poverty into account, the welfare system is institution oriented rather than problem oriented. Rural development policies, on the other hand, do not include welfare elements, their focus is on agriculture, on economic development and the infrastructure in rural areas. There is little overlap and hardly any synergies between social policy and rural development policy. There are, however, currently three solutions in welfare policy that could be included into rural development policy: the special development programmes of backward regions, the village janitors and the welfare plot programmes. Village janitors Village janitors are an important factor of reducing social exclusion (though not poverty) in small villages. Their activities help the village to remain functional and village dwellers to be connected to the life of the whole society. The objective of initiating the programme, in 1992, was to prevent the decline of small villages, to decrease the disadvantages of small villages, to improve the living conditions of village dwellers, to improve access to public services and welfare services, to expand the functions of villages, the development of local communities, to increase the attachment of young people to the local society. The rationale behind the establishment of the post was that small villages did not have adequate resources to provide specialised institutional services to the population, whereas the village care provider delivers everyday non-specialised, general assistance to the population. Indeed, the village janitors, because of their proximity to the clients they service, their mobility and their equipment with vehicles may be and in many villages are the instruments connectedness for socially excluded groups in small villages and remote rural areas, where even the basic services are missing. The smallest villages, those of a population of 600 or fewer inhabitants receive a normative financial provision from the central government budget to maintain the services of the village janitor, villages larger than that maintain these services from their own resources if they choose to do so. Irrespective of the financial arrangement, the tasks are assigned by the municipal authorities, and the co-operation between the village janitor and other welfare providing institutions also largely depends on the municipal authorities. Village janitors work in small villages, their task is to assist village dwellers and those who live in remote areas in their everyday life. Their typical tasks are to help in obtaining health care, e.g. by transporting the prescribed pharmaceuticals to the home of those in need or by transporting them to and from health institutions, transporting young children to kindergartens, schools or extracurricular activities. They help in dealing with official matters but they also help in shopping, in carrying fuel into the dwelling etc. They can be an important source of information concerning welfare services, benefits, and in general transmitting information concerning needs and the instruments of relief between the municipal governing body and the population of the municipality. Depending on the programme identified by the municipality, some village janitors also organise cultural, sports and leisure time activities, organise shopping tours, help in obtaining maintenance for household appliances, in purchasing fodder or produce etc. Village janitors can be an important source of information for the community authorities in signalling unmet needs. Old people, especially in villages, for fear of stigmatisation or from natural shyness often do not apply for assistance even when in urgent need. The janitor, who moves around the community and is well trusted by the population, can find out personally or from conversations with the people he or she services if this occurs and can signal to the local authorities or can help himself or herself if the nature of the need falls under his defined scope of activities. Interestingly, families with children are less or not at all reserved about seeking assistance, it seems that ask-

142

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

ing for provision for the children is a stronger urge and socially more acceptable to poor and excluded people than seeking help for themselves. Although case studies have found that that some of the village janitors do not have sufficient equipment (the vehicle may not be large enough, some of them may not have a telephone or other office equipment) and that some of the smallest villages and a small proportion of the poorest and most excluded people are under serviced, the performance of village janitors is, on the whole, good and the population they service is, in general, satisfied by the quality of the services. The main problem is that many villages that are above the size limit of central government financial provision, cannot afford to employ village janitors, although there would be a great need for such services. Agricultural welfare programmes The agricultural welfare plot programme is an active, productive social policy tool. The programme is operated by the local municipality as an integral element of community policy. The essence of the programme is that poor and/or socially excluded families who have no assets of agricultural production or cannot operate such assets effectively are provided agricultural plots and/or other means of production under preferential circumstances to enable them to grow crops or other produce or have animals thus creating subsistence farming opportunity or possibly even market presence, through activating private, community and local resources. The beneficiaries receive assistance in obtaining access to the agricultural plot and/or other means of production but the production itself is the result of their own work input. Family farming can become a sustainable exercise that provides at least basic needs. The main eligibility criterion of participation is social neediness. In practice, the beneficiaries of the programmes are poor and socially excluded families. Two major dimensions of social exclusion are dominant among the beneficiaries: geographical and ethnic. The programmes are mainly implemented in the least developed regions of the country, and especially in microregions of small settlements that have serious lack of infrastructure, of capital and of job opportunities. Prior to the transformation in 1990, the local agricultural cooperatives were the main employer, these have disappeared leaving the majority of the population of the regions unemployed and/or inactive. The labour market reintegration in these regions has not succeeded until now. A large proportion, around 40 per cent of the beneficiaries of the programmes are of Roma ethnicity. The dimensions of poverty and social exclusion are cumulated in the group of Roma, income poverty, consumption poverty, low education, low cultural consumption, substandard housing quality, poor equipment with household appliances etc. The estimated number of beneficiary families is around 10 thousand, around half of them are Roma. The positive impact of the programmes is, besides the fulfilment of at least the basic alimentary needs of the beneficiary families, that they constitute a pathway to the world of work for people who have been excluded from the labour market for a long period. The programmes reactivate them and increase their responsibility for their own life. Participation in the programme has a beneficial influence on future employment or entrepreneurial opportunities through the introduction of regular activities and responsibilities. The content of the programme depends on the individual skills and capacities of the beneficiaries. However, an important feature of the programme is capacity and skills development through participation in the programme. Various levels of assistance can be implemented, the lowest level enables the beneficiaries to approach or achieve subsistence farming, but, depending on the skills and performance of the beneficiaries, market production can also be achieved. The amount of the benefits can also vary from provision of goods, assets and services at production price to free provision. In terms of rural development, the programmes have a number of advantages. Local policy has expanded with a new and flexible element, the path to social integration can be paved for excluded families, due to its productive nature, these programmes are much more accepted by the population at large than passive welfare transfers, the burden of long-term unemployment can be at least partially decreased, important human relation and interactions are maintained which are necessary for the social inclusion of disadvantaged families, important human and natural resources are activated.

143

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

5. Poverty and groups at risk: case studies on significant groups at risk

5.1 Roma/Gypsy population The 2001 Population and Housing Census enumerated 190 thousand persons who reported that they were of Roma ethnicity. However, because there is still a lot of prejudice towards the Roma, it is also widely thought that there is significant underreporting of Roma ethnicity at the Census. Romologists and sociologists studying the Roma population estimate higher numbers, the most likely estimate is that the size of the Roma/Gypsy population is around 500 thousand (i.e. e. 5 per cent of the total population) in Hungary. Their social situation, socio-economic status, living conditions, family size, income and income structure is markedly different from the majority population. The living conditions and quality of life of the Roma in rural areas is even worse. The Roma/Gypsy population in rural areas often lives in segregated colonies in remote areas of villages, under very poor housing conditions, whereas in towns and larger cities they live under somewhat more integrated circumstances. The following descriptions are based on the results of a survey entitled Turning Points of Life, carried out by the Demographic Research Institute of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office. This survey was part of a series of Generations and Gender Surveys initiated by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and co-ordinated by INED (Paris), NIDI (the Hague) and the Max Plank Demographic Research Institute (Rostock). Because of the sample size the scope of the analysis is limited to the most important variables of poverty and social exclusion of the Roma. The survey covered the population aged between 18 and 75. Some of the tables are to be found in the Annex. There is a significant difference between the urban/rural distribution of the Roma population and the total population. While only around 34% of the total population live in villages, more than half (52 %) of the Roma live in villages. The distribution of the Roma between settlements of various sizes is also different from the majority population: much higher proportions of the Roma live in small settlements than of the non-Roma, whereas much smaller proportions of the Roma life in larger settlements. The age distribution of the Roma is much younger than of the total population. Within the Roma population, those living in cities and towns seem to be of a younger age distribution (i.e. there is a larger proportion of young adults and a smaller proportion of middle aged and older people) than those living in villages. The proportion of cohabiting partners is highest among the Roma living in villages, but even in cities and towns their proportion is more than twice as high than in the majority population. Average family and household sizes are significantly higher among the Roma. Around 40 per cent of the Roma live in households of 5 or more members, while among the non-Roma only around 16 percent live in such large households. Since family size is one of the major risk factors of poverty and social exclusion, the predominantly large family and household size among the Roma has special significance for rural poverty. Table 3. Distribution (%) of the Roma and non-Roma population by household size in urban and rural settlements Household size (number of household members)

Cities and towns

Villages

Roma

Non-Roma

Roma

Non-Roma

1

9,1

11,1

6,7

9,3

2

10,9

28,0

11,3

24,3

3

17,4

25,0

16,8

21,7

4

24,7

24,5

21,9

26,7

5+

37,9

11,4

43,3

18,0

Total

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

Source: Own calculations from the Turning Points of Life Survey (Hungarian GGS) 2004 144

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

The very low educational attainments of the Roma population largely explain the poverty and social exclusion of the Roma in general and of the Roma living in villages in particular. The very few Roma who have completed their secondary education or achieved tertiary education are almost exclusively city-dwellers, and the proportion of Roma living in villages who have not completed the 8 grades of compulsory primary education is excessively high, more than two fifth of village dweller Roma. Figure 13. Educational attainments of Roma and non-Roma population Distribution (%) of the Roma and non-Roma population by educational attainments in urban and rural settlements 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

2,0 3,2 15,5

16,5

0,0 1,5 9,8

5,9

Tertiary education

20,2 34,0

Secondary school graduate (12 years)

45,2 32,7

56,5

Vocational training 28,0 31,7

43,5 22,8

17,7 9,4

3,8 Roma

Non-Roma

Roma

Cities and tow ns

Non-Roma Villages

8 grades of compulasory primary education Less than 8 grades of compulasory primary education

Source: Own calculations from the Turning Points of Life Survey (Hungarian GGS) 2004

Figure 14. Working Roma and non-Roma population Distribution (%) of the w orking Rom a and non-Rom a population by type of w ork All other types of w ork 100,0 Temporary: occasionally w orking as physical w orker Unskilled w orker

80,0 60,0 40,0

Semi skilled w orker

20,0 0,0

Skilled w orker Roma

Non-Roma

Source: Own calculations from the Turning Points of Life Survey (Hungarian GGS) 2004

The low performance of the Roma as concerns educational attainment is also the most important explanatory factor behind the low employment rates of the Roma. In the population aged 18 to 75 covered by the survey, 52.5 % of the non–Roma but only 27.4 % of the Roma were employed. Unemployment among the Roma was very high (27.4 %) compared to the 5.1 % unemployment at the time of the survey among the non-Roma population. Unemployment among the rural Roma was higher (23.8 %) than among the urban Roma (19.2 %). Among those inactive, the largest group in the non-Roma population is that of old-age pensioners (21 %), while among the Roma old-age pensioners are a very small group (6.6 %). The low proportion of old-age pensioners is partly explained by the poor employment record of the Roma, many of who do not qualify for old-age pensions. Among the Roma, those receiving maternity benefits and disability pensioners constitute a more important group. The former is associated with the high fertility of the Roma, the latter with the bad health status of the Roma. The Roma in villages are especially badly off in this respect, almost every fifth Roma in villages has the status of “other inactive dependent” which means that they have no regular income, their only source of income is occasional or 145

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

regular welfare benefits or aids. The low proportion of students among the Roma aged over 18 is closely related to the negligible proportion of Roma with higher than secondary education. Even among those who are working, the type of work is mostly low prestige and low paid among the Roma. Among the non-Roma, around half of the workers are non-physical workers, and among the physical workers around half are skilled workers. Among the non-Roma, 13 % are non-physical workers, and among the Roma physical workers the overwhelming majority, 80 % are semi-skilled, unskilled or temporary workers. (Figure 14) Household income largely depends on the number of employed persons in the household. 55 % of Roma live in households, where nobody is employed, and village dweller Roma are in a worse situation in this respect, too: 62 % of Roma in villages live in such households. In the city-dweller non-Roma population this proportion is only 24 %, only slightly higher than what can be explained by the proportion of pensioners in the population. Considering the low labour force participation and the type of work done by the low numbers of Roma who are employed, it is not surprising that the Roma are largely overrepresented in the lowest income group. In the total population aged over 18, around one fifth fall in the lowest income quintile, whereas 70 per cent of the Roma fall in the lowest income category. The Roma in villages are even more concentrated in the lowest income quintile: 74 % are in the 1st quintile. Figure 15. Per capita income of Roma and non-Roma population Distribution (%) of the Roma and non-Roma population by income quintiles in urban and rural settlements 100,0 90,0 80,0 70,0 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0

5th (highest) 4th 3rd

73,8

63,5

Roma

2nd

28,5

15,6 non-Roma

Roma

Cities and tow ns

1st (low est)

non-Roma Villages

Source: Own calculations from the Turning Points of Life Survey (Hungarian GGS) 2004

Figure 16. People incapacitated by illness or disability Are you incapacitated by illness or disability? 100,0 90,0 80,0 70,0 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0

39,2

60,8

Roma

28,8

71,2

non-Roma

Cities and tow ns

42,4

35,7

57,6

64,3

Roma

non-Roma

Yes

No

Villages

Source: Own calculations from the Turning Points of Life Survey (Hungarian GGS) 2004

Poor health status is among the important factors of low labour force participation in the country, but especially so among the Roma, and within the Roma population among the rural Roma. Excessively high proportions of the rural 146

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Roma, more than two fifths reported to be incapacitated by illness or disability. A slightly lower proportion, but still close to two fifths of urban Roma reported the same. In the total non-Roma population the proportion of those incapacitated by illness or disability was 31 %, which is also very high in a European comparison, but clearly shows much better health status than in the Roma population. The survey also enquired about some items of deprivation. We have selected two of those for this analysis: the equipment of the dwelling with WC and shower or bathroom and whether the respondent takes a vacation at least once a year. Around 94 per cent of non-Roma households was equipped with WC and shower or bath, but only around 56 per cent or Roma households was. The situation of the rural Roma is the worst, less than half of these households has WC and shower or bath. Taking vacations is also a privilege of the non-Roma, although the proportion of the non-Roma who can take a vacation annually is also very low, only about 34 %. Of the Roma living in villages only 7 % can go away for vacation Figure 17. Vacation Do you go away for vacation at least once a year? 100,0 90,0 80,0 70,0 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0

9,0 11,4

12,7 5,7

8,2 15,0

18,7 9,9

38,9 70,2

46,8

69,9

Roma

No, there is no need for it No, w ould like to but cannot afford it

42,7 9,4

No, for other reasons

24,7

Yes

6,9 non-Roma

Cities and tow ns

Roma

non-Roma Villages

Source: Own calculations from the Turning Points of Life Survey (Hungarian GGS) 2004

On the whole the data show that much higher proportions of the Roma live in poverty and are socially excluded than of the non-Roma population. Moreover, the most important predictors of poverty and social exclusion (low educational attainments, large family and household sizes, bad health status etc.) are concentrated in the Roma, and especially in the rural Roma population.

5.2 Aged population The aged population is, in general considered as a vulnerable group. However, during the 1990ies there has been a shift in the age distribution of poverty. Because of the possibly low, but still regular and guaranteed pension incomes which are the most important sources of income of the aged, the poverty rate of the older population has become much lower than the poverty rate of families with children. But poverty is still a risk for a number of groups within the aged population, especially for the aged living alone, and the aged in rural areas. On the other hand, other dimensions of social exclusion are also very important in the aged population. These issues will be highlighted through the results of the Hungarian SILC survey and the Time Use and Lifestyles Survey, both carried out by the Hungarian Central Statistical Office. In the analysis we consider the population above retirement age as aged population. In Hungary, the retirement age has been increased gradually to 62 years. However, because the retirement age of women was 55 and of men it was 60, the 62 year retirement age is already valid for men, whereas for women, it will only be the case in 2009. At the time of the SILC survey, women aged 60 and over, and men aged 62 and over fell in the age bracket of above retirement age. The age distribution of the aged population was almost similar in villages and towns at time of the survey. The survey did not have a large enough sample size to analyse the age distribution of the aged population by settlement size categories. Other data sources (census), however show that the smallest villages have much older population 147

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

than the larger ones, and that within the aged, the age distribution of older people is older in smaller villages. The educational attainments of the aged population, which is one of the most important explanatory variables of poverty and social exclusion clearly shows the vulnerability of the aged rural population. Figure 18. Educational attainments of older people Educational attainm ents of persons above retirem ent age in urban and rural settlem ents 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0

35,3

41,8

47,9 26,6

17,6

13,9

14,0 2,9

8 grades of Less than 8 grades compulasory of compulasory primary education primary education

Secondary (12 years) or vocational

Cities and towns

Tertiary education

Villages

Source: Own calculations from the Hungarian SILC 2005 survey.

Educational attainm ents of persons above retirem ent age living alone, in urban and rural settlem ents 60,0

43,1

50,0

41,1 43,2

40,0 30,0

24,4

21,8

20,0

12,4

10,0

12,6 1,3

0,0 8 grades of Less than 8 grades compulasory of compulasory primary education primary education

Secondary (12 years) or vocational

Cities and towns

Tertiary education

Villages

Source: Own calculations from the Hungarian SILC 2005 survey.

The educational attainments of the aged population in villages are significantly lower than in cities and towns. In villages, 83 per cent of the aged have at most 8 grades of education, while in cities and towns this proportion is 60 per cent. The proportion of secondary school graduates is almost double in cities and towns, and while tertiary graduates are only 3 per cent in villages, they constitute 14 per cent of the aged in cities and towns. The income distribution in the aged population is markedly different in urban and rural settlements. Among the urban aged much lower than 20 per cent of the population are in the first and in the second income quintile, and much higher than 20 per cent are in the 3rd, 4th and fifth quintile. Rural aged people are less favoured: while only 12% are in the first quintile, this is almost double of the urban aged, whereas only 9 per cent (i.e. 2.5 times fewer than in cities and towns) of the rural aged are in the 5th quintile. (Figure 19) The income distribution already predicted that the risk of poverty is higher among the rural aged than among the urban aged: 7.4% of the aged persons in villages are poor while 2.8% of the urban aged are. (Figure 20)

148

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Figure 19. Per capita income of older people Distribution (%) of the persons above retirement age by income quintiles in urban and rural settlements 100,0 90,0 80,0 70,0 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0

9,2

24,9

5th (highest)

18,1

27,8

28,3

28,7

29,9

4th

30,0

3rd

24,6

24,9

28,7

15,7 6,3

Cities and towns

7,2

20,6

21,6

20,2 6,8

11,9

Villages

14,8 2nd

Cities and towns

Villages 1st (low est)

All persons above retirement Persons above retirement age age living alone

Source: Own calculations from the Hungarian SILC 2005 survey.

Figure 20. Poor and not poor people Distribution (%) of the persons above retirement age by income quintiles in urban and rural settlements 100,0 90,0 80,0 70,0 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0

2,8

97,2

2,8

7,4

97,2

92,6

8,7

91,3 Poor

Not poor Cities and tow ns

Villages

All persons above retirement age

Cities and tow ns

Villages

Persons above retirement age living alone

Source: Own calculations from the Hungarian SILC 2005 survey.

Figure 21. Housing quality for older people Distribution (%) of the persons above retirem ent age by housing quality in urban and rural settlem ents 100,0 90,0 80,0 70,0 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0

91,7

8,3 Cities and towns

77,2

91,7

All persons abov e retirement age

Not substandard 26,1

22,8 Villages

73,9

8,3 Cities and towns

Villages

Persons abov e retirement age liv ing alone

Source: Own calculations from the Hungarian SILC 2005 survey.

149

Substandard

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Considering the index of serious deprivation, 27 per cent of the rural aged are deprived, compared to the 14.5 per cent of urban aged. Among the aged who live alone, 42.1 percent are deprived in rural settlements, while in urban settlements 23.9 per cent are. The deprivation index and the housing conditions of the aged show that although their poverty rate in terms of income poverty may be lower because of the stability and guaranteed nature of their main source of income, social exclusion in other dimensions may be very important. A large proportion of the aged, especially of the rural aged live in substandard housing. (Figure 21) Although the poverty rate of the aged may not be as high as for instance the poverty rate of large families, 10-11 per cent of the aged both in urban and in rural settlements reported that they have to face major financial difficulties. On the whole, the rural aged find their financial situation more difficult than the urban aged. Table 4. Distribution (%) of persons above retirement age by subjective perception of well-being in urban and rural settlements How does your household live on the household income? With major difficulties

All persons above retirement age

Persons above retirement age living alone

Cities, towns

Villages

Total

Cities, towns

Villages

Total

10,9

9,8

10,6

14,3

12,4

13,8

With difficulties

21,9

23,4

22,4

25,2

23,3

24,7

With minor difficulties

45,7

52,1

47,8

39,4

50,9

42,8

Relatively comfortably

16,9

12,3

15,4

16,1

10,8

14,6

Comfortably

4,0

2,3

3,4

4,1

2,2

3,6

Very comfortably

0,6

0,1

0,4

0,8

0,3

0,6

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

Total

Source: Own calculations from the Hungarian SILC 2005 survey.

The aged find that housing costs are a great burden, the rural aged face the most serious difficulties in the winter. Only 16 per cent of the urban aged and 11 per cent of the rural aged reported that housing costs were no problem for them. Table 5. Distribution (%) of persons above retirement age by perception of the burden of housing costs in urban and rural settlements How much burden does the cost of housing mean in your case?

All persons above retirement age

Persons above retirement age living alone

Cities and towns

Villages

Total

Cities and towns

Villages

Total

It is always a great burden

23,4

20,8

22,5

25,7

25,1

25,5

It is a great burden in the winter

37,1

41,6

38,6

36,4

40,4

37,6

It is a problem sometimes

23,6

27,1

24,7

21,4

23,9

22,1

It is no problem at all

15,9

10,5

14,2

16,5

10,6

14,8

Does not know

0,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

Total

100,0

0,0 100,0

100,0

Source: Own calculations from the Hungarian SILC 2005 survey.

As it was to be expected, very few of the aged reported that their health status was good, but on the whole it is alarming that more than 30 per cent of the urban aged and 54 per cent of the rural aged said that their health status was bad or very bad.

150

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Table 6. Distribution (%) of persons above retirement age by perception of health status in urban and rural settlements All persons above retirement age

Persons above retirement age living alone

Cities and towns

Villages

Total

Cities and towns

Villages

Total

Very good

1,8

0,5

1,4

2,1

0,7

1,6

Good

10,8

7,7

9,7

9,4

6,7

8,6

Appropriate

45,9

38,2

43,4

43,8

35,0

41,2

Bad

30,6

41,2

34,0

33,5

45,1

36,9

How is your general health status?

Very bad

10,9

12,4

11,4

11,3

12,6

11,7

Total

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

72,1

70,1

71,4

76,6

71,7

75,2

Do you have any chronic health problems? Yes No

27,9

29,9

28,6

23,4

28,3

24,8

Total

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,1

100,0

100,0

Source: Own calculations from the Hungarian SILC 2005 survey.

Having friends is an important aspect of the social inclusion of the aged. It turns out that 44 per cent of the urban aged and as high as 56 per cent of the rural aged have no friends at all. The situation in villages is especially bad, which is surprising, as the social network in villages is generally considered to be more traditional. Figure 22. Having and not having friends Per cent of persons above retirem ent age having and not having friends in urban and rural settlem ents 100,0 80,0

43,8 56,0

No

60,0 Yes

40,0 56,2

44,0

20,0 0,0 Cities and towns

Villages

Source: Own calculations from the Hungarian Time Use Survey 2000.

Another dimension of social exclusion is giving or receiving help from other households. It seems that the more traditional social networks in villages are tangible in this respect: aged persons in villages are more likely both to give help to other households and to receive help from other households than their urban counterparts. This was the case for all the types of help, except for receiving money.

151

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Table 7. Proportion of persons above retirement age giving help to or receiving help from other households Cities and towns Did you give or get help from others in the last 12 months …

Villages

Total

Received help

Gave help

Received help

Gave help

Received help

Gave help

in household work

27,5

22,6

42,9

28,6

33,5

24,9

in caring for children or sick family member

8,0

24,7

12,4

28,5

9,7

26,2

in maintaining things around the household

22,0

6,4

30,2

7,5

25,1

6,8

in agricultural work

15,1

9,6

43,3

26,9

26

16,3

in gifts of food or clothing

28,8

36,3

35,1

40,6

31,2

37,9

money for daily living

7,1

10,5

5,3

11,4

6,4

10,8

larger amounts of money for special purposes

4,6

12,1

3,8

19,2

4,3

14,9

Source: Own calculations from the Hungarian Time Use Survey 2000. Being a guest for a meal or receiving guest for a meal is an important social interaction in our society. Both receiving guests and eating at someone else’s house seems to be more frequent among the urban aged than among the rural aged. Eating at a restaurant is much less likely, and the proportion of those who do is almost similar among the urban and rural aged. Table 8. Proportion of persons above retirement age receiving guests or visiting as guest for a meal, or visiting restaurants in urban and rural settlements Cities and towns

Villages

Total

Yes

26,6

21,9

24,6

No

73,4

78,1

75,4

Total

100,0

100,0

100,0

Yes

25,8

23,0

24,7

No

74,2

77,0

75,3

Total

100,0

100,0

100,0

Yes

5,8

6,2

6,0

No

94,2

93,8

94,0

Total

100,0

100,0

100,0

Did you visit someone as a guest for a meal in the last 12 months?

Did you receive guests for a meal in the last 12 months?

Did you have a meal in a restaurant in the last 12 months?

Source: Own calculations from the Hungarian Time Use Survey 2000.

152

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

6. Conclusions

Hungarian measures are similar to EUROSTAT measures. For income poverty rate the threshold of 60% of the equivalent median income is used as poverty line. Poverty in large cities (8,5%) is far below the average (14,3%), smaller towns (14,8%) are around the national average, while villages (20,1%) are much more affected by poverty than any other settlements. The difference between the capital (7,6%) and villages is almost threefold. Poverty is strongly influenced by household structure. The number of children under 18 years of age has a substantial effect on income poverty. While the poverty rate of households without children is 7%, those living in households with one or two children are more likely to be poor. The poverty rate is extremely high among households with at least three children under 18: the risk of poverty is three times higher than the average. The level of education also has a significant effect on the incidence of poverty. The proportion of people with low educational level is higher in the villages than in the towns, which is one of the most important factor behind the urban-rural differences of poverty. There is a similarly strong association as regards the activity status of persons. The unemployment and inactivity rate are substantially higher in the rural areas than in urban settlements. Furthermore the income in the same activity and employment categories is smaller in villages than in towns and especially smaller than in the capital. Geographical location has a clear impact on poverty and social exclusion. Regions and settlements in the Northern and Eastern parts of the country are in general less developed. Disadvantages and risk factors often are cumulated in underdeveloped settlements or backward regions of the country. Rural areas in general have more limited accessibility than larger cities, though all settlements are accessible by public road. The railroad network, naturally, does not reach all settlements, but bus transport is available in settlements that are not along the railroad lines. Small villages, however, although accessible by rail or bus transport may not have employment friendly timetables, i.e. commuting from some of these villages is difficult. Housing quality in terms of dwelling surface/inhabitant or number of rooms is better in villages than in large cities. Water supply is almost universal, electricity supply even more so. The housing quality of the most vulnerable groups in rural areas (Roma population, aged persons) is very poor. Health care in principle is accessible to everyone. Some of the small and underdeveloped villages or even towns, however, have difficulties in finding general practitioners or paediatricians. The number of patients per doctors is higher in the less developed regions of the country. Although most of agriculture and farming is in villages, the decline of the contribution of agriculture to the economic performance of the country has led to the diversification of economic activities in villages, too. The diversification in villages, however is not yet adequate, development plans therefore aim at growing diversification, in order to provide higher quality of life in villages The situation of women in villages is worse among rural women in those dimensions where the rural population is less favoured than the urban population. Women in villages have lower disposable income than in towns, but that is true for the rural population in general. Old women in villages, however are a specially disfavoured group as their pensions are much lower because in the past the labour force activity and consequently the social security 153

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

contribution period of rural women was much lower than of urban women. Roma ethnicity means a much higher risk of poverty and social exclusion. Besides higher income poverty percentages (estimates vary between 35–55 %), the Roma live under worse housing conditions, their health status is worse and life expectancies are lower, activity rates among the Roma are low, child poverty is especially high because of larger numbers of children in Roma families. On the whole the data show that much higher proportions of the Roma live in poverty and are socially excluded than of the non-Roma population. Moreover, the most important predictors of poverty and social exclusion (low educational attainments, large family and household sizes, bad health status etc.) are concentrated in the Roma, and especially in the rural Roma population. On the whole, the fact that social policy decisions are taken at the central level, means that there is little flexibility of programmes and that special local needs are difficult to meet, although the local actors, i.e. authorities, experts, care providers are in the best position to identify local needs. On the other hand, because the local authorities have little or no means of allocating resources to programmes they may draw up themselves, there is little incentive for local social policy thinking. The enterprises situated in the settlement pay a 2% tax on turnover and the communities can levy real estate. This however increases the gap between backward and more developed regions and settlements. Village janitors work in small villages, their task is to assist village dwellers and those who live in remote areas in their everyday life. Although case studies have found that that some of the village janitors do not have sufficient equipment (the vehicle may not be large enough, some of them may not have a telephone or other office equipment) and that some of the smallest villages and a small proportion of the poorest and most excluded people are under serviced, the performance of village janitors is, on the whole, good and the population they service is, in general, satisfied by the quality of the services. The main problem is that many villages that are above the size limit of central government financial provision, cannot afford to employ village janitors, although there would be a great need for such services. In terms of rural development, the agricultural welfare plot programmes have a number of advantages. Local policy has expanded with a new and flexible element, the path to social integration can be paved for excluded families, due to its productive nature, these programmes are much more accepted by the population at large than passive welfare transfers, the burden of long-term unemployment can be at least partially decreased, important human relation and interactions are maintained which are necessary for the social inclusion of disadvantaged families, important human and natural resources are activated

154

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

7. References

CSO (2004) A szegénység és a társadalmi kirekesztödés folyamata. (The process of becoming poor and socially excluded). Central Statistical Office, Budapest CSO (2005a ) A népesség és a lakások jellemzöi (Characteristics of the population and of dwellings). Microcensus 2005. Central Statistical Office, Budapest CSO (2005b) Demographic Yearbook of Hungary. Central Statistical Office, Budapest CSO (2006a) Statistical Yearbook of Hungary. Central Statistical Office, Budapest CSO (2006b): Jelentés a Változó Életkörülmények Adatfelvétel 2005-ös hullámáról. (Report of the 2005 wave of the Survey Changing Circumstances of Life /SILC/). Central Statistical Office, Budapest CSO (2006c): Jövedelmi helyzet, jövedelemeloszlás, 2004 (Income situation and income distribution, 2004). Central Statistical Office, Budapest CSO: Yearbooks of Regional Statistics of Hungary. Central Statistical Office, Budapest Data base of regional statistics, Central Statistical Office. Data base of the Employment Authority of the Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs. Hegedüs, P. – Monostori, J. (2005): A szegénység és a társadalmi kirekesztödés jelzöszámai (Indicators of poverty and social exclusion). Demographic Research Institute, Budapest Kapitány, B. – Spéder,Zs. (2004): Szegénység és depriváció – Társadalomszerkezeti összefüggések nyomában (Poverty and deprivation – structural aspects). Demographic Research Institute, Budapest Legyen jobb a gyermekeknek, Nemzeti Stratégia, 2007-2032. (National Strategy against child poverty, 2007-2032.) Draft. Government of the Republic of Hungary. Budapest, 2007. National Strategy Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, 2006-2008., Hungary. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_inclusion/docs/2006/nap/hungary_en.pdf New Hungary Rural Development Strategic Plan, 2007-2013. Ministry Of Agriculture And Rural Development, Budapest, January 2007.

155

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Annex

The distribution (%) of the Roma and non-Roma population between settlements of various sizes Settlement size

Roma

Non-Roma

Total

– 1 000

16,0

7,2

7,4

1 001 – 2 000

16,6

9,5

9,7

2 001 – 5 000

16,8

13,9

14,0

5 001 – 10 000

12,1

8,5

8,6

10 001 – 20 000

11,6

10,1

10,2

20 001 – 50 000

11,6

13,6

13,6

50 001 – 100 000

9,2

18,8

18,6

100 001 +

6,1

18,2

17,9

100,0

100,0

100,0

Total

Distribution (%) of the Roma and non-Roma population by marital status in urban and rural settlements Cities and towns Marital status

Villages

Roma

Non-Roma

Roma

Non-Roma

Currently not married and not cohabiting

19,8

22,4

13,8

18,5

Married

48,9

52,4

50,8

58,5

Unmarried cohabiting partner

19,5

8,5

23,4

7,1

Divorced/separated

5,2

9,3

7,2

6,4

Widow

6,5

7,4

4,7

9,5

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

Total

Distribution of the Roma and non-Roma population by activity status in urban and rural settlements Cities and towns Activity status

Villages

Roma

non-Roma

Roma

non-Roma

Working

34,4

55,5

20,8

46,7

51,8

27,4

52,5

Unemployed

19,2

4,1

23,8

6,9

5,5

21,6

5,1

Old-age pensioner

5,2

20,1

8,0

22,0

20,3

6,6

20,7

Disability pensioner

12,3

7,2

13,5

10,4

8,5

12,9

8,3

Maternity benefits

13,0

3,1

14,6

4,2

3,8

13,8

3,5

Student

2,1

6,7

1,3

3,8

5,6

1,7

5,7

Other inactive dependent

13,8

3,3

17,9

6,0

4,5

15,9

4,2

Total

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

156

Total Total Roma Total non-Roma

Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies HUNGARY

Distribution (%) of the Roma and non-Roma population by number of employed persons in household in urban and rural settlements Number of employed persons in household

Cities and towns

Villages

Roma

non-Roma

Roma

non-Roma

0

46,2

23,9

62,4

30,4

26,9

54,6

26,1

1

37,4

30,8

28,5

30,0

30,6

32,8

30,5

2

13,2

33,3

6,3

27,6

30,8

9,6

31,3

3

3,1

9,0

2,4

8,8

8,8

2,7

8,9

4

2,8

0,5

2,7

2,7

0,3

2,7

5

0,2

0,5

0,3

100,0

100,0

6 Total

0,0 100,0

100,0

Total Total Roma Total non-Roma

0,3

0,0 100,0

0,0 100,0

100,0

Distribution (%) of the Roma and non-Roma population by availability of WC and shower or bathroom in urban and rural settlements Is there a WC and a shower or athroom in the dwelling?

Cities and towns

Villages

Roma

non-Roma

Roma

non-Roma

Yes

62,7

96,0

49,6

88,9

No, would like to have it but cannot afford it

31,4

3,2

47,7

No, there is no need for it

1,0

0,2

0,5

No, for other reasons

4,9

0,6

2,3

100,0

100,0

100,0

Total

157

Total Total Roma Total non-Roma 92,5

55,9

93,6

9,4

6,2

39,8

5,3

0,3

0,3

0,7

0,3

1,4

0,9

3,5

0,9

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

Suggest Documents