www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu - European Commission
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu
HUNGARY
Content
Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Description of national situation ............................................................................................ 4
2. Assessment of existing policy and governance framework .............................................. 13
3. Structural Funds .................................................................................................................... 26
4. Role of civil society organisations and international organisations ................................. 27
5. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 27
Selected bibliography................................................................................................................ 29
Annex .......................................................................................................................................... 30
2
HUNGARY
Summary
Hungary is has a considerable but not homogeneous Roma population (6%). Birth rates are far
higher among the Roma population, but so is mortality, their average life expectancy at birth is 10
years shorter. There is significant and increasing regional concentration of the Roma in Hungary
(NE, SW). Lots of Roma live in the most disadvantaged small rural settlements, often in
segregated colonies. The proportion of colony-dwelling Roma is approximately one-fifth to one-
quarter of the estimated number of Roma people in Hungary. Unemployment and inactivity and
thus poverty especially affect the Roma population. 80% of Roma adults only have primary
education. Only 42% of Roma children go to nursery school. Only 0.3% of the Gypsy population
holds a university or college degree. The education system magnifies the disadvantage of
uneducated parents. Only 40% of adult Roma men are employed and 10% out of this live on
temporary (casual jobs or public works), often illegal work, and the employment situation is even
significantly worse in case of Roma women. Ethnic discrimination is prevalent in all spheres of
life, esp. on the labour market, in education (segregated schools, classes), health services. The
general public is often prejudiced, the media coverage of the Roma reflects dominantly a negative
picture and the right-wing anti-Roma party Jobbik has seats in parliament and its views significant
support.
The issue of Roma integration is on the agenda of the government and has been a priority of the
Hungarian EU presidency. The new FIDESZ government (taking office in 2010) established a
new ministerial unit with considerable resources for promoting the integration of disadvantaged
(among them Roma) people. The most recent and quantified targets both regarding reducing
poverty and handling the situation of the Roma are set out in the National Reform Programme
submitted in April 2011. Reducing regional disparities and improving the situation of the Roma
are declared to be horizontal principles of the final NRP. On May 20th 2011 the government and
the National Roma Self-government (ORÖ) signed a framework agreement creating a common
decision making mechanism, highlighting that the ORÖ would participate in all decisions
regarding improving the employment end education of the Roma. The legitimacy of ORÖ
however is questionable and should be strengthened, together with stakeholder involvement
more generally. The responsibilities are fragmented, a number of ministries are involved.
The proposed (and existing) policies and programmes, IF IMPLEMENTED, could substantially
improve the present situation of the poor and also the Roma. All the good examples cited in this
paper cannot be considered exemplary in every respect. Whether state-run or managed by
NGOs, funding for the programmes promoting integration is volatile and unpredictable and their
impact is rarely measured or evaluated. Even successful organisations work in precarious and
unpredictable financial circumstances, which constrain capacity building. Due to the problems
with the definition of the target group, in most cases, ministries and organisations managing
programmes have no idea concerning how much of the budget of their programmes has been
invested in helping the Roma. ESF funding comprises a very significant part of funding.
The key challenges that need to be met are well reflected in the national goals and policies that
affect all the priority areas of the Roma Decade, with the exception of the issue of public
transport. The emphasis should be put on the successful implementation of proposed measures.
As the problem is very complex, coherent and complex intervention and long-term political
commitment is required to handle it. It should be indispensable to properly monitor projects and
assess their impact and then use this information. The local characteristics should be taken into
account and in very deprived areas community building and empowerment are the first steps to
be taken. Geographic targeting for the improvement and enhanced accessibility of employment,
3
HUNGARY
social and health services would be necessary with additional financing. NGO innovations in
employment, education, housing and health should be mainstreamed and supported in the long
run, with stable and possibly increasing funds. As to the better use of EU funds, more flexibility
may enhance the realisation of programme goals. For such issues, due to the complexity of the
problems, only very complex programmes can contribute to the solution, which realise objectives
in different spheres of life, and can run for longer periods of time (at least 5-8 years),
continuously.
1. Description of national situation
1.1. Roma population
There is a considerable Roma population living in Hungary as Hungarian citizens, although they
are not registered as minority. According to Census 2001 200,000 persons claimed themselves to
be Roma, that is 2% of the total population, which most probably seriously underestimated the
number, but studies estimated the size of the Roma population to be 520-650 thousand, in 2004,1
with a continuously increasing trend. According to the estimations of Hablicsek, the Roma
population would be around 660,000 in 20112.
Contrary to the general public opinion, the Hungarian Roma is not a homogenous population
either. The Roma population is divided into at least 3 main distinct linguistic groups: “Hungarian
Roma [magyar cigányok], who speak Hungarian, identify themselves as Hungarian or Musician
Roma, and are sometimes called Romungro (70% of the Roma population); Vlach Roma [oláh
cigányok], who speak two languages, Hungarian and Romani (Lovari and Kalderash dialects),
and who identify themselves as Roma or Rom (20%); and Beás people [beások], who speak two
languages, Hungarian and Beás (dialects based on an archaic form of Romanian), and who
identify themselves as Beás (10%)”3, but others identify at least 6 groups. Approximately 87%
speak Hungarian as their mother tongue, but this group is further divided according to their (past)
occupation or livelihood (musician, basket weavers, adobe makers etc.). By 2003 the percentage
of Beás native speakers fell to 4.6%, while 8% speak different Romani dialects as a first language
(Lovari, Kalderashi). Language groups are further divided by kinship, craft, income and locality.
Attitudes to majority norms and integration vary by subgroup4 and there is also a hierarchy and
conflicts between the various groups.5
Birth rates are far higher among the Roma population, but so is mortality, which means that the
share of under-15-year-olds among the Roma population is more than double the national
average: 16.8% of Hungary’s total population but 37% of Roma are aged under 15, while the ratio
1 Kemény I.–Janky B. - Lengyel G. (2004): A magyarországi cigányság 1971–2003. Budapest: Gondolat.
http://www.mtaki.hu/kiadvanyok/kemeny_janky_lengyel_moi_ciganysag_main.html. Further referece: Kemény et
al 2004,
2 Hablicsek, L.: Népességünk következő évtizedei – különös tekintettel a területi különbségekre. In: Demográfia,
2007. 50. évf. 4. szám 392–429, www.demografia.hu/letoltes/kiadvanyok/Demografia/2007.../Hablicsek.pdf
3 Kemény I. – Janky B.: Roma population of Hungary 1971-2003. IN: Kemény, I (ed.) 2005: Roma of Hungary
New York, http://www.mtaki.hu/kiadvanyok/isvtan_kemeny_ed_roma_of_hungary_main.html p. 100. and
.Szuhay P. The self definition of Roma ethnic groups and their perceptions of other Roma groups. In: Kemény, I
(ed.) 2005: Roma of Hungary New York,
http://www.mtaki.hu/kiadvanyok/isvtan_kemeny_ed_roma_of_hungary_main.html p. 237. Percentages int he
quotation are provided by the author of the present report.
4 Szuhay 2005 ibid, Kemény et al 2004 ibid.
5 Szuhay 2005.
4
HUNGARY
of people aged over 60 is five times higher than among the Roma population: 20.2% of Hungary’s
total population but just 3.9% of Roma are aged over 60.6 (See Annex Chart 1)
The fertility rate of the Roma population is higher than the national average, but is decreasing.
There are significant differences based on the level of education, that is, fertility rates decrease
with the increase in the level of education. “For the population as a whole, 7.5% of married
women in Hungary have no children, one-quarter have one child, 48% have two children, and
one-fifth have three or more children. Among the Roma population, 6% of married women have
no children, 10% have one child, 23% have two children, and 60% have three or more children.”7
Regarding legal marital status, there is no significant difference between Roma and non-Roma
males. In many Roma communities, long-term relationships are regarded as proper marriages
even when they are not officially recognised as such. Roma are younger than average on their
first marriage, but the ratio of those who remain single is no lower than it is among other groups in
society. Roma living in the western half of Hungary tend to get married later than do those living
to the east of the River Danube. The share of early marriages among Roma is particularly high in
the Northern region.
In 2003, the average number of persons per Roma household was significantly higher than the
national average. According to the 2001 data, the number of persons per 100 households was
257 in Hungary. Among Roma households, however, the figure was 464. The high number is
linked to the financial position of Roma. Often several families share a household. The number of
persons per household is no higher in rural areas than it is in the provincial urban centres or in
Budapest. Slight regional differences are, however, apparent: households are smaller in the
western part of the country than in the east. 8
1.2 The geographic distribution of Roma
There is significant and increasing regional concentration of the Roma in Hungary. Between
1971, 1993 and 2003 the regional share of the total Roma population increased significantly in
the Northern region, (counties of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén, Heves and Nógrád), approximately one
third of the Roma live in this region amounting to 13-16% of the counties’ population. The
numbers of Roma increased but the regional shares declined (20%) in the Eastern region
(counties of Szabolcs-Szatmár, Hajdú-Bihar and Békés), in the Great Plain region (counties of
Bács-Kiskun Csongrád and Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok), in the Budapest agglomeration (Budapest,
and the counties of Fejér, Pest and Komárom) and in Southern Transdanubia (counties of
Baranya, Somogy, Tolna, Veszprém and Zala). But the number of Roma and the regional share
also increased in Western Transdanubia (counties of Győr- Moson-Sopron and Vas). It should 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, and
all this in the eastern part of the country.
Chart 2 in Annex demonstrates the overlap between the high share of Roma population and the
most disadvantaged micro-regions of the country. Although the proportion of Roma living in towns
6 Kemény I. – Janky B.: Roma population of Hungary 1971-2003. IN: Kemény, I (ed.) 2005: Roma of Hungary New
York, http://www.mtaki.hu/kiadvanyok/isvtan_kemeny_ed_roma_of_hungary_main.html p. 82-83.
7 Kemény-Janky ibid p. 85.-91.
8 Kemény-Janky ibid p. 95.
5
HUNGARY
and cities has increased considerably in comparison to the 1970's, the majority still lives in
villages. In 2003 49.7% of the total Roma population, lived in provincial urban areas. Lots of
Roma live in the most disadvantaged small rural settlements, often in segregated colonies, in
houses with no conveniences. (Charts 2-4) A certain part of suburbanisation, namely the escape
of the poor from cities to villages outside agglomerations so as to escape increasing financial
burdens of housing costs (e.g. paying utility bills, most markedly in flats with distant central
heating) affects the Roma in high extent9. Segregation is getting stronger, in 1993 over 60%; in
2003 over 70% of the Roma lived in Roma neighbourhood.
The increasing concentration of the Roma minority in the rural areas intensifies the motivation of
non-Roma residents to move out of their villages. These processes of segregation often affect
several adjacent villages simultaneously; the problem has assumed regional dimensions (chart
2).
1.3 The poverty and social exclusion situation of Roma
- Relative income poverty and deprivation
Unemployment and inactivity and thus poverty especially affect the Roma population. Latest
income data indicates that 70% of the Roma are poor.10 The economic activity status of the
household and the educational level of the head of household are the most important
independent determinants of poverty in present day Hungary. Ethnicity, age, household
composition, the type of settlement, territorial segregation all have very significant, and often
mutually reinforcing effects on poverty. The unemployment or inactivity of the head of
household, together with age, type of settlement and ethnicity (being Roma) play an
increased role in the poverty risk of the household than 2 years before. Those living in
villages are among the poor with a 6 times higher chance in 2009 as compared to a double
chance in 2007.11 In 2009 poverty was the highest among single-parent families (31%),
“other households with kids” (23%), among not old, single households (18%), with the
highest (6-7%) increase in the first two groups. Differences between settlement types
increased even further during the preceding 2 years’ period: the smaller the settlement one
lives in, the higher is the risk of poverty. While only 2% of those living in the capital city of
Budapest are poor, 20% of those living in villages. Poverty among the Roma increased
dramatically.12
9 Ladányi János, Szelényi Iván (2010) Szuburbanizáció és gettósodás. (Suburbanisation and ghettoisation) In:
Kovalcsik Katalin (szerk): Tanulmányok a cigányság társadalmi helyzete és kultúrája köréből. BTE–IFA–MKM,
Budapest. pp 185–206.
Ladányi János, Virág Tünde (2009) A szociális és etnikai alapú lakóhelyi szegregáció változó formái
Magyarországon a piacgazdaság átmeneti időszakában. (Changing forms of social and ethnic residential
segregation in Hungary in the transitional period of market economy) Kritika 2009. július–augusztus,
http://www.kritikaonline.hu/kritika_09julius-aug_ladanyi.html
Ladányi János-Szelényi Iván, 2004: A kirekesztettség változó formái. (Changing forms of exclusion). Napvilág
Kiadó. Budapest.
Csanádi G., Csizmady A. (2002): Szuburbanizáció és társadalom. (Suburbanisation and society) Tér és
Társadalom, XVI. évf. 3. sz.
10 Tóth István György: Jövedelemeloszlás a konszolidációs csomagok és a válságok közepette Magyarországon In:
Társadalmi Riport 2010. Eds: Kolozsi Tamás – Tóth István György. Budapest, 2010. pp.17-34. Please note that
due to the small sample size this data cannot be considered as representative.
11 Gábos András – Szivós Péter (2010): Jövedelmi szegénység és anyagi depriváció Magyarországon (Income
poverty and material deprivation in Hungary) In: Társadalmi Riport 2010. Eds: Kolosi Tamás – Tóth István
György. Budapest. pp.58-81. P. 71.
12 Gábos-Szívós ibid: 68-69.
6
HUNGARY
Before the transition, old people were most affected by poverty in Hungary. Since the
transition the poverty risk of children has increased continuously, while that of those older
than 65 years decreased. The profile of the poor in 2009: almost one/third of them are aged
0-17, whereas only 5% above 65 years. Half of the poor are living in completely inactive or
unemployed households with zero work intensity. More than 53% live in villages (as
compared to 1/3 of the total population).13 At present, the poverty rate in households with
children is nearly 50 percent higher than the overall rate for all Hungarian households, and is
nearly double the rate for households without children. The proportion of children living in
jobless households is the second highest in the EU and labour market opportunities also
have very significant regional differences, as demonstrated later in this paper.
Based on the EUROSTAT material deprivation indices 12% of the Hungarians are both
income poor and materially deprived. The primary indicator of material deprivation14 is
51.2%, while the average of deprivation items is 4.2. 75.7% cannot afford to go on an at
least week-long holiday, 71.7% cannot afford to pay unexpected required expenses, 41.3%
cannot afford to eat meat every second day, 28.6% has no car, 21.5 has arrears relating to
mortgage payments, rent, utility bills, hire purchase, 19.8% cannot heat their homes
properly. Households affected most by material deprivation are where the head of household
is Roma (95%), inactive or unemployed (80%), the work intensity of the household is
between 0 and 0.5 (64%), the family has a lot of kids (65%), or live in villages (61%).15
- Education
80% of Roma adults – compared to 33% in the total population – only have primary
education.16 Only 42% of Roma children go to nursery school, as compared to 88% of the
total population. Among 20-24 year-olds, 5% of the Roma and 55% of the total population
completed secondary education (A levels). Though there has been some increase in levels
of education, it has been much slower among Roma than among children from the majority,
so that the ethnic gap has in fact increased. The practice of sending Roma children in large
numbers to special needs classes still exists.
Presently 90% of young Roma complete primary school education, and 85% of them go on
to study in some form of secondary institution. In recent years the proportion of Roma
students at secondary school institutions providing a school-leaving certificate has risen from
9 to 15%, which is still, a very low figure, plus most young Roma acquire qualifications in
professions where there is a little chance of finding employment. Only 0.3% of the Gypsy
population holds a university or college degree.
The drop-out rate has always been high among Roma students. The education system
magnifies the disadvantage of uneducated parents. The main problems are the lack of
13 Gábos-Szívós ibid p. 74.
14 Proportion of people lacking 3+ items of the material deprivation scale.
15 Gábos-Szívós ibid. pp.: 77-78.
16 Kemény et al. 2004, Kertesi G. (2005): Roma foglalkoztatas az ezredfordulon. Szociológiai Szemle, 2: 57-87,
Kertesi 2005.
7
HUNGARY
monitoring, adverse selection of teachers, obsolete teaching methods and curricula, the
dysfunctional operation of the child-protection network, severe segregation and prejudice.17
- Employment
As mentioned above, economic activity status of the household and the educational level of
the head of household are the most important independent determinants of poverty in
present day Hungary. The disastrous labour market situation of the Roma is a basic factor of
their social exclusion. Only 40% of adult Roma men are employed and 10% out of this live
on temporary (casual jobs or public works), often illegal work, and the employment situation
is even significantly worse in case of Roma women. The level of employment dramatically
changed throughout the economic transition; the main losers of this period were the Roma,
who had regular employment in the lower segments of the economy during the socialist
period. In the 1970s the level of employment of the Roma men was around the same as that
of the total population, although the jobs occupied by them were unskilled low prestige jobs.
As a consequence of the transformation of the Hungarian economy that resulted in a general
loss of 1.5 million jobs with a peak of 1993, the Roma lost their jobs in a very short time.
Altogether around 30% of the total jobs and 55% of the jobs of the Roma disappeared in the
beginning of the transition period. The main reason of the extreme job loss among the Roma
is their low level of education as unskilled jobs ceased to exist in the highest extent, and
especially in branches which were particularly hit by the transformation shock of the early
1990s, e.g. heavy industry, metallurgy, mining, construction. In case of women the same is
true for textile and other light industries. The extremely low level of the employment hasn’t
changed in the years of the economic recovery (chart 4).
As indicated in the first section, the Roma live in regions which have low level of employment
and high long-term unemployment in the North East and Eastern part of the country, with
limited access to among others labour market services and proper public transport (See
Annex Charts 5-6). As will be discussed later, labour market discrimination has also been
identified as an essential reason for the extremely low level of employment.18
In 2003, over three quarters of the Roma of 15-74 had no regular job. Nearly a quarter of the
20-29 years old and about 7% of those of 30-39 has never had a job, according to the 2003
Roma survey data. Others have previous job experiences but no employment at the time of
the survey. In 2003 in Budapest 64% of the Roma men were employed, in other towns
27.5% and 20% in the villages. As for women, employment is lower, in Budapest 36%, in
other towns 15% and 10% in the villages. In 2003 among the employed Roma 71% had a
job all over the year, 19% had a job for some weeks or months, and 10% had casual
employment. The share of actually employed young Roma was low: for men of 20-29 around
40-45%; for men aged 30-39 40-56% (depending on primary or vocational education). Even
this low level of employment is dominantly comprised of unstable, short term jobs with a high
turnover on the periphery of the labour market. Kertesi (2009), Fleck and Messing (2009)
and others estimate considerable share of these jobs as supported jobs of welfare
programmes.19
17 Fazekas et al (2009) Green Book for the Renewal of Public Education in Hungary
http://mek.oszk.hu/08200/08221/08221.pdf
18 Kertesi, G (2009) Roma foglalkoztatás az ezredfordulón. Számítások a 2003. évi Országosan reprezentatív roma
felvétel adatain. (Roma employment at the Millennium. Estimations based ont he Roma survey 2003) In Fazekas,
K., Lovász, A., Telegdy, Á (eds) Munkaerőpiaci helyzetkép, 2009.OFA-KTI Budapest pp 133-148.
19 Kertesi, G (2009) Roma foglalkoztatás az ezredfordulón. Számítások a 2003. évi Országosan reprezentatív roma
felvétel adatain. (Roma employment at the Millennium. Estimations based ont he Roma survey 2003) In Fazekas,
8
HUNGARY
As joblessness is very characteristic of the Roma, welfare provisions are important income
sources of the families. Those who are not working are partly in school (32%), get
retirement/disability pension (13%), child-care benefit (13%), unemployment benefit (3%)
social assistance (10%) or they are dependent on other provisions (12%).20
The survival strategies of the poor are very diverse. In a study of the poor in two micro-
regions we found that 83% of poor families have some kind of work-related income, although
some in the black/grey economy. However, regular sources of income (either work-related or
social provisions) characterise the non-Roma poor in a greater extent, while Roma families
depend more on irregular ones. The collection and re-selling of used/thrown away products
(“lomizás” is often done in Western European countries, mostly Austria, Germany, the
Netherlands21) was a source of income for on average 16% of the surveyed poor, but for
33% of the Roma poor from Central Hungary. 22
- Health
Hungary, as a number of other countries in Central and Eastern Europe, is generally
characterised by poor health with high premature mortality (generally defined as death
before age 65 years) mainly as a result of cardiovascular diseases, cancer, chronic liver
diseases, and accidents. Behind the low average life expectancy, there are significant
geographical and social differences. In villages with less than 1,000 inhabitants the number
of years of life lost in case of males is 50% more than in big cities.23 As a high number of
Roma live at such locations, the phenomenon significantly affects these people. The health
status, mortality and morbidity rates of the Roma are significantly worse than the average
Hungarian population, their life expectancy at birth is 10 years shorter. They have poorer
physical health than the national average due to lack of education, poor housing conditions,
and also inadequate access to health services.24
Comparative health interview surveys carried out in 2003/2004 in representative samples of
the Hungarian population and inhabitants of Roma settlements found that regarding persons
older than 44 years, 10% more of those living in Roma settlements reported their health as
bad or very bad than did those in the lowest income quartile of the general population. Of
those who used any health services, 35% of the Roma inhabitants and 4.4% of the general
population experienced some discrimination. In Roma settlements, the proportion of persons
K., Lovász, A., Telegdy, Á (eds) Munkaerőpiaci helyzetkép, 2009.OFA-KTI Budapest pp 133-148. and Fleck, G –
Messing, V (2009) A roma foglalkoztatáspolitika alakváltozásai (Metamorphosis of the Roma employment policy)
In Fazekas, K., Lovász, A., Telegdy, Á (eds) Munkaerőpiaci helyzetkép, 2009.OFA-KTI Budapest pp. 82-96.
20 Kemény et al 2004. ibid.
21 Pauker Csaba (2010): „A lomizáshoz nemcsak jó érzék, éles szem, jó szimat, orr, hanem erős gyomor is kell”
(részletek) in: Piachely, kgst-piac, emberpiac szerk.: Czakó Ágnes, Giczi Johanna, Sik Endre, TáTK, Budapest,
pp. 320-324.
22 Havasi Éva 2010: Jövedelmi helyzet, megélhetési viszonyok a mély szegénységben élők körében. (Income
situation, survival strategies among those living in deep poverty) In: Kóczé Angéla (szerk.) Nehéz sorsú
asszonyok feketén fehéren. Roma nők munkaerőpiaci és megélhetési lehetőségei két kistérségben. Budapest.
pp 19-50, pp:38-40.
23 Kincses Gy: Kő az egészségügy levesében. In Népszabadság 2006.01.30. http://www.nol.hu/archivum/archiv-
392428
24 Janky Bela (2004): A cigany csaladok jovedelmi helyzete, megjelent: Tarsadalmi Riport 2004, TARKI; Kosa, Zs.
et al: A Comparative Health Survey of the Inhabitants of Roma Settlements in Hungary. Am J Public Health. 2007
May; 97(5): 853-859.; Voko Z., Csepe P., Nemeth R., Kosa K., Kosa Zs., Szeles Gy., Adany R. (2008): Does
socioeconomic status fully mediate the effect of ethnicity on the health of Roma people in Hungary?, J Epidemiol
Community Health doi:10.1136/jech.2008.079715.
9
HUNGARY
who thought that they could do much for their own health was 13% to 15% lower, and heavy
smoking and unhealthy diet were 1.5 to 3 times more prevalent, than in the lowest income
quartile of the general population (see Annex Tables 2-4.)
- Housing and environment
In 2003, the Roma population numbered around 600,000 (6%), with almost two thirds living
in North-East of Hungary, one of the country's most underdeveloped regions. Around 40%
live in villages of below 5,000 inhabitants, which is only slightly higher than in the total
population (35%). However, over 70% live in spatially segregated housing with only or
mostly Roma neighbours and up to 26% of the Roma population live in segregated Roma
settlements with basic or no infrastructure.25
According to Kemény et al, currently, 5% of Roma dwell in huts or shacks (compare: two-
thirds in 1971) .In 2003, 28% of Roma dwellings had one room, 42% had two rooms, and
30% had three or more rooms. One room dwellings accounted for 12% of the total housing
stock in Hungary, 41% of dwellings had two rooms, and 47% had three or more rooms. In
2003, 77% of dwellings were in brick, concrete or stone buildings and 19% in adobe or mud-
and-wattle buildings. There is no data for 4% of dwellings. The share of dwellings with
earthen floors was 4% in 2003. In both 1993 and 2003, the share of Roma homes supplied
with electricity was 98%. In 2003, the share of Roma homes with running water was 72%
(94% in Budapest, 68% in provincial urban areas, and 67% in rural areas). Water was drawn
from a well on site in 6% of homes. The share of homes with an indoor toilet was 51% (59%
in Budapest, 54% in provincial urban areas, and 44% in rural areas) while 7% of homes had
an outdoor toilet (33% in Budapest, 5% in provincial urban areas, and 3% in rural areas). In
2003, the share of Roma homes with a bathroom was 57.6% (66.7% in Budapest, 57.4% in
provincial urban areas, and 55.5% in rural areas). Among the Roma population, there were
2.4 persons per room in 2003. In the same year, the share of persons with 5 square meters
of living space or less was 9.3%, while 26.5% had between 5.1 and 10 square meters,
44.4% between 10.1 and 20 square meters, and 19.7% more than 20 square meters.26
A comprehensive environmental survey of all settlements in Hungary was carried out
employing Roma field workers in order to locate and characterise segregated parts
(colonies) of human habitats. Based on the collected data on environmental conditions and
aggregate population numbers of the colonies, ranking of colonies and maps on their
characteristics were prepared for all counties of Hungary. Seven hundred fifty-eight colonies
were identified with approximately 134,000 inhabitants. Ninety-four percent of all colonies
are populated dominantly by Roma. A total number of approximately 134,000 people (1.6%
of the total population of Hungary in 2003) were found to live in segregated habitats in the 19
counties of Hungary. 33% of the total colony population lived in the Northern Great Plain
region; 32.7% of colony dwellers lived in the region of Northern Hungary. The northernmost
county (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) was home to 21% of all colony dwellers, comprising 3.8% of
the total population of this county. The lack of sewage and gas mains, garbage deposits,
waterlogged soil and lack of water mains are the most frequent environmental problems in
25 6% in Kemény et al 2004, 20-26% in Ungváry et al 2005 and Kósa et al 2009.
26 Kemény-Janky 2005.
10HUNGARY
the colonies. The proportion of colony-dwelling Roma is approximately one-fifth to one-
quarter of the estimated number of Roma people in Hungary.27
- Sport, recreation, culture
Despite the traditional and stereotypical views on Roma music and dancing, it should be
emphasised that different Roma groups have different traditions, cultural values and life-style
attributes, so we cannot speak about a homogenous Roma culture at all. There have been
efforts to spread knowledge about the Roma and their culture both to the Roma themselves
and also to the majority society. A nice example of this is an interactive multimedia CD ROM
available via the internet as well, the ”Virtual House of Roma Culture28.
1.4 The extent and nature of discrimination experienced by Roma
Anti-discrimination legislation and administrative procedures to fight ethnic discrimination are in
place, but their enforcement is weak. A survey in 2005 found thal almost two-thirds of Hungarians
agree to some extent with the statement that “criminality is genetically coded in Gypsies” and
80% think that “problems of the Roma would be solved if they finally started to work”.29
The EU-MIDIS survey30 carried out in 2008 found that 62% of Roma respondents experienced
discrimination during the previous year in Hungary, 41% in private services, 32% in work-related
settings, 18% by health care or social service, 17% by school personnel, and 16% related to
housing (see Annex chart 7). 90% of Hungarian Roma respondents feel that ethnic discrimination
is widespread in the country. Only 41% are aware of anti-discrimination legislation and 78% has
no information about organisations that might provide assistance in such cases. The
overwhelming majority of discrimination cases remain unreported. 41% of respondents were
stopped by the police and 58% of these cases were perceived as “ethnic profiling”.
“The depression of local economy represents a much more serious plight for Roma than for non-
Roma of the same gender, age, educational level and family conditions. […] It would be hard to
interpret this situation as something else than the sign of employment discrimination.”31 “Their
employment opportunities amount to less than half of those characterising the control group
[employment seekers of the same level of education]…” 32
27 Kósa, K. – Daragó, L. – Ádány R. Environmental survey of segregated habitats of Roma in Hungary: a way to be
empowering and reliable in minority research. In: European Journal of Public Health, 2009.
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/07/17/eurpub.ckp097.full
28 http://www.dalit.hu/a-roma-kultura-virtualis-haza/
29 Dencső Blanka- Sik Endre (2007): Adalekok az előitéletesség mértékének és okainak megismeréséhez a mai
Magyarorszagon, Educatio, 2007/I.
30 EU Minorities and Discrimination Survey 2009. http://www.fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/EU-
MIDIS_ROMA_EN.pdf
31 Kertesi Gábor (2000) A cigány foglalkoztatás leépülése és szerkezeti átalakulása 1984 és 1994 között. [The
decline and restructuring of Roma employment between 1984 and 1994] Munkatörténeti elemzés Közgazdasági
Szemle, Vol. 47, No. 5. pp. 406–443., p. 440.
32 Kertesi Gábor (2005) Roma foglalkoztatás az ezredfordulón. A rendszerváltás maradandó sokkja [Roma
employment at the turn of the millennium. The lasting shock of the regime change]. In: Kertesi Gábor: A
tarsadalom peremén. Romák a munkaerőpiacon es az iskolaban [On the fringes of society. The Roma in the
labour market and at school], Osiris, Budapest, pp. 173–204. p. 191.).
11HUNGARY
According to the empirical studies done by Ferenc Babusik regarding Hungarian enterprises, 80%
of employers “not only do not employ Roma but are also unwilling to do so, even in the case
where their educational level is satisfactory”.33
In spite of anti-discrimination legislation, Roma are excluded from employment already at the
point of entry to the labour market, i.e. during hiring procedures. It is a common experience,
evidenced by both research studies, that employers reject applicants merely on the basis of their
presumed Roma origin: 29% of respondents in the ERRC survey said employers had explicitly
told them that the reason for refusal had been their Roma origin. This phenomenon is also
revealed by the complaints submitted to, and investigations conducted by, the authorities in
charge of enforcing equal treatment: reports of the Equal Treatment Authority, the Roma Anti-
discrimination Lawyers’ Service Network of the Ministry of Justice and Police, the Legal Defence
Bureau for National and Ethnic Minorities and the ombudsman for minorities all refer to similar
cases. As indicated by several studies, Roma are discriminated against not only by employers
but, indirectly, also by employment agents and public employment centres that take employers’
preferences with respect to ethnic membership into account. Employment centres treating this
type of request by employers in a lenient or even accepting manner have been encountered
during research projects. E.g. a Hungarian case study shows how this is done in practice: jobs for
which employers indicated they did not want to employ Roma were marked by the letter R in the
computer system of the employment agency.34
Segregation based on ethnicity is frequent in the public education system as well. The prohibition
of unlawful segregation was motivated by the unlawful practices of segregating Roma and non-
Roma pupils followed in some schools in Hungary. This is a specific Hungarian provision, not
regulated in the EU norms. Under the law, unlawful segregation is defined as a conduct that
separates certain persons or groups from other, similarly situated persons or groups devoid of an
explicit permission by the law. The Hungarian Supreme Court has made a historical sentence
very recently, closing a 9-year long struggle: segregation of Roma children is prohibited in
Hajduhadház. This has been the first segregation case at Supreme Court of the Republic of
Hungary. 35
1.5 Main data gaps in relation to Roma
There are two main problems regarding this issue. The gathering of ethnic identity during
research is strictly regulated in Hungary, and data protection laws have resulted in a lack of
reliable statistical data. A governmental decree to improve the situation of Roma accepted in
1997 called for reliable information on disadvantaged Roma, especially those living in segregated
habitats (colonies) in Hungary. Previous governmental efforts to collect information through
administrative channels yielded incomplete data due to lack of uniform methodology and
enforcement of reporting.
The second issue is the definition problem: who is Roma? As it could be seen from the very first
section of this present paper, there is a difference in magnitude between the numbers of the
population based on various definitions. Three representative surveys of the Roma population in
33 Babusik Ferenc (2006) Foglalkoztatasi egyenlőtlensegek a munkaerő-piacon: a romak foglalkoztatasi
diszkriminacioja [Employment inequalities in the labour market: Roma discrimination]. Delphoi Consulting,
Budapest, www.delphoi.hu. p. 3.
34 ERRC The glass box. Exclusion of Roma from employment. ERRC, Budapest, http://www.errc.org/
db/02/14/m00000214.pdf.ERRC, 2007, p. 41.).
35 http://www.ambedkar.eu/historic-sentence-in-budapest/
12HUNGARY
Hungary have been conducted over the past years (1971, 1993, 2003) which covered the entire
Roma population. The data collected thus relate to each of the three language groups
(Hungarian, Romani and Beás). These classified as Roma all persons whom the surrounding
non-Roma community considered to be Roma. Official records relating to the places of residence
and addresses of Roma do not exist, and thus the selected method was considered to be the only
means of compiling a sample. In other surveys, e.g. those carried out by TÁRKI, respondents are
usually asked about their ethnic identity but also at the very end of the questionnaires
interviewers are also asked about the perceived ethnic identity of the respondent. The whole
definition-issue generated substantial scientific debate in the late 90s.36
In the census Roma is a person who identifies his/herself as Roma. In official records however
(police, education, social services) records of such people do not exist and are not permitted.
Taking the huge difference between census and survey data into account, we can state that
census data cannot be used for policy design. In the forthcoming census an improved
methodology is to be applied to collect data on ethnicity, as a result of hot scientific and political
debate on the issue.
Regarding programmes: very often, even in case of programmes with explicit ethnic targeting, no
data is gathered in this regard, thus the share of the Roma is based on guesses, as there is no
formal registration of the Roma in the projects (several examples could be cited for this, e.g. from
the previous EU programming period measures HRD OP 1.1., 2.3.1). Obviously it seriously limits
the monitoring and evaluation of programmes.
2. Assessment of existing policy and governance framework
2.1. Policy framework and governance arrangements
The issue of Roma integration is on the agenda of the government and has been a priority of the
Hungarian EU presidency. The issue of Roma inclusion has been on the political agenda for a
long time, however, as other analysts put it „the political commitment to integration policies has
never been very firm over the past 20 years, but the necessity of dealing with the problem has
moved higher on the political agenda, partly due to increasing pressure from the EU.”37 A number
of various strategies and action plans has been accepted in Hungary to improve the situation of
disadvantaged social groups including the Roma, e.g. the Joint Inclusion Memorandum on Social
Inclusion, National Action Plans, Employment Action Plans, Roma Government Programme a
government decree (1021/2004 (III.18.) on measures related to government programmes to
promote the social integration of the Roma, which all serve as the basis of the action plan of the
Roma Decade. The previous Socialist government in 2007 joined the Roma Decade and
published a strategy. In the framework of this programme specific measures focusing directly on
the Roma population and more broadly, to all disadvantaged social groups, should be realised
paralelly so as to achieve the best results and efficiency.
36 Ladányi J, Szelényi I. Who is gypsy? [in Hungarian] Kritika. 1997;(Dec):3–6., Ladányi J, Szelényi I. On the
objectivity of ethnic classification [in Hungarian]. Kritika. 1998;(March):33–35.
37 A Roma Integráció Évtizede Program az Európai Unió roma integrációs politikájában. Budapest Intézet 2011.
http://www.budapestinstitute.eu/dontestamogatas/prj/A_Roma_Integracio_Evtizede_Program_az_Europai_Unio_
roma_integracios_politikajaban. p. 3.
13HUNGARY
The new FIDESZ government (taking office in 2010) established a new ministerial unit with
considerable resources for promoting the integration of disadvantaged (among them Roma)
people. (The Ministry of Public Administration and Justice, which is led by the Minister of Public
Administration and Justice, has a Minister of State for Social Inclusion [Zoltán Balog]).
The most recent government decree numbered 1136/2011. (V. 2.) on certain short-term
measures promoting social inclusion of the Roma setting deadlines and responsible for each
proposed area of action. This document phrases as the most important target to enhance
education and employment of the Roma, by elaborating a detailed action plan with a deadline of
September 1 to extend employment opportunities, increase the quality of education and develop
programmes to improve living conditions in a coordinated manner. Regulations on decision
making processes, interministerial committees and consultative bodies are to be revised so as to
provide an opportunity for the National Roma Self-Government (Országos Roma Önkormányzat,
ORÖ) to cooperate, take part in decision making and monitoring regarding measures aiming to
promote social exclusion. The National Roma Self-Government is to improve the existing
institutional system of Roma representation that could support ongoing processes and secure
that Hungary represents a view during consultations with the EU which is previously discussed by
the National Roma Self-Government by delegating at least one person from this body. Thus this
decree contains no details regarding implementation.
As to governance, in Hungary the system of minority self-governments is to represent minority
interests but in fact the system would require substantial reforms for which now the 2/3 majority
rule of the governing party would provide opportunities. At present minority governments cannot
contribute substantially to promoting Roma integration: they lack professional and financial
capacities, and they are often used by national politics for building their clientele. Their
relationship (roles, responsibilities) with local governments is not clearly defined.
The municipal system, which is to provide public services, is seriously underfunded: especially
small settlements in disadvantaged regions where people affected by social exclusion, including
the Roma, are overrepresented, has neither sufficient financial nor human resources to provide a
full range of quality services and other provisions, thus the system is the weakest exactly where
demand is the greatest. Also, discretionary elements (e.g. in the new form of social assistance)
provide opportunities for prejudices and tensions to emerge. Furthermore some studies indicate
that this increases the vulnerability of service users.38
2.2 Targets
The most recent and quantified targets both regarding reducing poverty and handling the situation
of the Roma are set out in the National Reform Programme submitted in April 2011, detailed in
section 2.3. As described in the first report of the Network this year, the proposed targets,
especially in the field of employment (1 million new jobs) and social exclusion (5% less poor
people) by 2020 are highly ambitious (and of course highly desirable), but in view of current
trends seems a bit unrealistic. As for 2012 “Hungary will not commit itself to concrete targets
concerning the development of target indicators”, but makes projections based on the best
available information. On the other hand, most improvements and their impact are expected in
some years’ time.
38 Szalai Julia (2004, 2005): A joleti fogda I. es II., Esely, 2004/6; Esely 2005/1.
14HUNGARY
Currently the situation is getting worse for the poor, as the amount of the minimum pension, to
which most social provisions and also family allowance, a major source of income with poor
families with children, are tied in Hungary, has not been increased at all since 2008, plus a
number of new measures, e.g. the modified tax system or the restructuring of public work
schemes, the modification of sick pay and unemployment benefit systems affect those socially
excluded negatively. Thus at least for a year or two, the situation of almost 30% of the Hungarian
population affected by poverty and social inclusion will not improve but can be expected to
worsen.
On May 20th 2011 the government and the National Roma Self-government (ORÖ) signed a
framework agreement creating a common decision making mechanism, highlighting that the ORÖ
would participate in all decisions regarding improving the employment end education of the
Roma. The major targets of the agreement are the same as the ones presented in the NRP.
Preventive medical screening is to be organised for 150,000 Roma.39
2.3 NRP
Reducing regional disparities and improving the situation of the Roma are declared to be
horizontal principles of the final NRP. The Roma population as a specific and highlighted target
group of several measures is indicated, and specific target indicators are identified for them. The
integration of the Roma is presented as a horizontal aspect of the NRP (together with
regionalism) – this is a significant improvement as compared to the draft version of the NRP and
is completely in line with the measures aimed at the reduction of poverty, increasing employability
and educational performance and also with the Commission’s framework published in April 2011.
The main areas of concern of the Roma strategy are 1) spatial disadvantages (disadvantaged
areas and settlements), 2) social conditions (permanent joblessness, low school attainment, bad
health etc), thus in the four priority fields of education, employment, housing and healthcare both
social and spatial aspects are considered. The major targets are: equal access to quality
education, better labour market access, improvement of health status and of living conditions.
Discrimination and gender equality are both mentioned as horizontal aspects regarding the above
mentioned areas. The threat of enhancing further segregation, and the necessity to involve Roma
professionals are mentioned. The problem definition and the description of the situation of the
Roma is high quality (pp. 33-35). The monitoring and evaluation of the measures targeting the
Roma is also highlighted, but without particular detail. The need for the European Agricultural
Fund for Rural Development to support Roma integration in a greater extent is emphasised.
There are specific national Roma targets set in the NRP:
Involve 100,000 currently out-of job Roma in employment and support 10,000 Roma enterprises,
(from which at least 3,000 start-ups). Provide marketable skills for 20,000 young Roma in 50
prioritised vocational training schools, and 10,000 more to participate in courses providing a final
exam, 5,000 more of them to study in the tertiary education system; 50,000 Roma adults with
maximum vocational training school attainment can obtain marketable skills, and another 80,000
Roma adults to take part in programmes which provide basic skills (writing, reading, arithmetic,
informatics). 150,000 Roma will undergo health screening and will receive permanent counselling
necessary for a healthy lifestyle.
39 http://static.fidesz.hu/download/177/Kormany_ORO_keretmegallapodas_20110520_4177.pdf
15HUNGARY
2.4 Strengths and weaknesses of existing policies and programmes
Generally one can say that the proposed (and existing) policies and programmes, IF
IMPLEMENTED, could substantially improve the present situation of the poor and also the Roma
as their problem analysis is scientifically grounded and their approach is complex. However
during the past years we could witness how on paper well planned and appropriate programmes
could not turn out to be really effective in practice, due to a number of reasons detailed below. All
the good examples cited cannot be considered exemplary in every respect: if professional content
is good, then there are, or in the near future easily can be problems at least with sustainability.
The fact, that project financing do not permit the realisation of long programmes, and often
complex programmes cannot be realised, are serious obstacles in way of efficiency.
In the case of most programmes, available resources have been distributed via tenders. The
problem is, that the most potent organisations and communities, with extensive experience in
application for tenders and maintaining widespread social relationships, are the most likely to
obtain resources. Thus inequalities have become even greater as the factors determining the
disadvantaged situation of the most dependent population mutually reinforce one another. The
same counter-selective procedure, another source of insufficient efficiency can be observed
connected to project administration. The realisation or implementation of programmes entails
administrative difficulties that only potent organisations with extended experience can manage.
Flaws of project financing (delayed payments of often very significant amounts) also has driven a
number of otherwise professional organisations into bankruptcy or close to that. The professional
preparedness of the implementing organisation is also an important issue and Roma NGOs often
lack these capacities of the necessary formal certificates and in case of several programmes no
professional support has been provided to beneficiaries. EU funded programmes have been
monitored, but this has become more and more formal and bureaucratic since 2004 loosing the
initially supportive aspects and professional considerations are overcome by procedural and
administrative requirements.
Although promoting equal opportunities for highlighted groups, among them the Roma, in has
been a horizontal principle the National Development Plan, this requirement could be easily
satisfied by generally framed statements (e.g. the mere appearance of cooperation with Roma
organisations) The Catch-up programme for the most disadvantaged small regions was based on
territorial determinants justified by the fact that the territorially based marginalisation of poor
groups due to ethnicity is growing. Although at the level of small regions these programmes are
effective, inequalities within small regions will not decrease.
The “Making the Most of EU Funding for the Roma” initiative of the Open Society Institute40 aims
to tackle some of these problems, that „major sources of funding have yet to “trickle down” to
ideal candidates” OSI intends to maximise the use of available resources and funds by
governments in the region and to help major European Structural and other European Funds
“flow” to local governments, civil society, and private sector actors, who have the expertise
needed to contribute the social inclusion of the Roma in all aspects of civic life, through several
interlinked interventions, promoting Roma expertise and involvement in different phases of project
development and implementation by capacity building (technical assistance and mentoring:
project development fund to strengthen stakeholders work toward Roma integration; mentoring
for Roma representatives involved in programming and monitoring EU funds and pre-financing
40 http://lgi.osi.hu/documents.php?m_id=188
16HUNGARY
and non-eligible cost funding to increase the impact of EU funded projects and to support access
to or the flow of EU funding towards communities, by offering NGOs and smaller/poorer
municipalities involved in Roma projects monetary assistance; and influencing EU policies in
new- or -pre accession countries of South Eastern Europe.) and advocacy (marketing Roma
inclusion a political priority in conceiving European funding projects; monitoring the
implementation of EU funded programmes in all member states of the Decade of Roma
Inclusion).
In public discourse it appears that high welfare expenditure is a major factor contributing to the
bad economic situation of the country, and that is strongly connected to the situation of the Roma
(who do not want to work, are inherently criminal41 and have lots of children to get more social
provisions. Even more radical statements characterise the far right Jobbik (‛The Movement for a
Better Hungary’) established in 2003, which won 3 of the 22 Hungarian seats at the EU
Parliamentary elections in 2009 and won 12% of seats in the national Parliament in 2010. Magyar
Gárda (Hungarian Guard) is a closely related movement established in mid-2007 and banned in
late 2008). The media also strengthens a distorted and negative picture of the Roma. Facts
however do not support this: only 10% of the inactive adults are Roma. The proportion of Roma
among recipients of child benefit and unemployment benefits is 10-12%, and below 1% in the
case of pensions.42 Ear-marked government spending on Roma integration amounted to 26
billion HUF in 200643, which is less than one-tenth of annual public expenditure on cultural,
leisure and religious activities (330 billion HUF).44 That is why it is especially problematic, that
“Integration programmes typically aim at alleviating deprivation and segregation, while there are
no public institutions to promote tolerance and a formation of Roma identity (such as a national
Roma Archive or a Roma Cultural Center).”45
- income (tax and welfare policies)
Social policy have mostly been dominated by cash benefits. According to economists, the
repeated increases of the minimum wage, high taxes on labour and large administrative costs
that disproportionately burden small firms have held back the growth of demand for unskilled
labour.46 The social benefit system is being changed to promote employability and increase
41 There is a special and highly debated term used by the media, the police and others: Roma criminality
(cigánybűnözés), although the police (as all other actors) cannot legally keep records of the ethnicity of their
“clients” since 1991. The share of Roma among convicted property offenders is relatively high but not higher than
the similary educated and poor non Roma. (OKRI (2008): Allasfoglalas a magyarorszagi bűnozesi helyzetről, az
elkovetők etnikai hovatartozasanak
nyilvantartasarol es a „ciganybűnozesről”, Országos Kriminológiai Intézet
http://www.okri.hu/images/stories/doc_files/allasfoglalas_hossz.doc
42 A Roma Integráció Évtizede Program az Európai Unió roma integrációs politikájában. Budapest Intézet 2011.
http://www.budapestinstitute.eu/dontestamogatas/prj/A_Roma_Integracio_Evtizede_Program_az_Europai_Unio_
roma_integracios_politikajaban
43 ÁSZ (2008) A magyarországi cigányság helyzetének javítására es felemelkedésére a rendszerváltás óta fordított
támogatások mértéke és hatékonysága, Állami Számvevőszék, April 2008.
http://www.asz.hu/ASZ/tanulmanyok.nsf/0/79ED5720B293EBC9C12574F30031B5C7/$File/t206.pdf
44 A Roma Integráció Évtizede Program az Európai Unió roma integrációs politikájában. Budapest Intézet 2011.
http://www.budapestinstitute.eu/dontestamogatas/prj/A_Roma_Integracio_Evtizede_Program_az_Europai_Unio_
roma_integracios_politikajaban
45 A Roma Integráció Évtizede Program az Európai Unió roma integrációs politikájában. Budapest Intézet 2011.
http://www.budapestinstitute.eu/dontestamogatas/prj/A_Roma_Integracio_Evtizede_Program_az_Europai_Unio_
roma_integracios_politikajaban
46 Nagy Gy. (2008): Önkormányzati szociális segélyezés, in: Nagy Gy. szerk.: Joléti ellátások, szakképzés és
munkakinálat, MTA-KTI;Kertesi G. - Köllő J. (2004): A 2001. évi minimálbéremelés foglalkoztatási
17You can also read
