COVID-19 pandemic and the characteristics of local crisis management in Hungary

Abstract

Government centralisation that strengthened in most countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, is generally referred to as 'coronationalism' in the literature (cf. Bouckaert et al. 2020). Now it is widely believed that central crisis management is not the most effective way to fight the pandemic. Among others Hambleton (2020) have questioned the effectiveness of super-centralisation, and identified the factors for successful crisis management as the appreciation of local government, real local autonomy and a cooperative local leader (mayor) who knows the place well.

In Hungary, the centralisation of epidemic management emerged in a system that had already established centralisation a government philosophy. The Local Government Act of 2011 replaced former decentralised territorial governance by the local state model. The provisions of the law have created a weakened local government system with fewer responsibilities and resources that lost further pillars of autonomy through the centralisation of epidemiological administration.

Based on the literature and the results of an empirical data survey covering 202 local governments, this study seeks to study how factors, identified by Hambleton as essential for successful crisis management, played out in Hungary during the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis details the challenges to local autonomy, good governance and local characteristics, analysed in terms of spatial differences in the problems caused by the pandemic, the different types of mayors and the different perceptions of their role, and the local participation.

Former analyses have shown that centralised or super-centralised states have not performed well in managing the coronavirus pandemic. This study concludes that local factors and conditions for successful crisis management, as identified by Hambleton, were damaged and missing in Hungary during the pandemic, while the problems caused by the COVID-19 and the means of managing it were differentiated along existing territorial differences. The autonomy of local authorities, their room for manoeuvre and financial resources have been reduced, making good governance impossible, although most municipal leaders have taken their decisions in cooperation with local political and professional actors, with (initially) considerable social support, thus developing local practices and mechanisms for crisis management that can be applied in other crises.