Tracing the (hidden) spatialities of digital agendas: the case of ‘Digital Hungary’

• Authors: Krisztina Varró
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Policies that aim at bringing about a digital transformation (seek to) create the conditions for particular spatial development trajectories. Yet, the understandings, explicit and implicit, of space advanced by digital agendas have remained rather underexposed to date. This paper addresses this gap by developing a Foucauldian-inspired discourse-analytical framework and applies it to the programme of ‘Digital Hungary’. It is argued that policies of digitalisation in Hungary only to a minor extent consider the spatial dimension, and their impact potentially undermines the declared aims of spatial development at different scales.

Keywords

EN

digitalisation; spatial development; discourse; discourse analysis; Hungary

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: European Spatial Research and Policy
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 26
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 135-150

Dates

published

2019-12-31

Contributors

author

Krisztina Varró

• Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Princetonlaan 8A, 3584 CB Utrecht, the Netherlands

References

• ALLEN, J., MASSEY, D. and COCHRANE, A. (1998), Rethinking the Region. London: Routledge.
• BAJMÓCY, Z., GÉBERT, J., ELEKES, Z. and PÁLI-DOMBI, J. (2016), ‘Beszélünk a részvételről… Megyei jogú városok fejlesztési dokumentumainak elemzése az érintettek részvételének aspektusából’, Tér és Társadalom, 30, pp. 45–62.
• BÖRÖCZ, J. (2001), ‘Introduction: Empire and coloniality in the «Eastern Enlargement» of the European Union’, [in:] BÖRÖCZ, J. and KOVÁCS, M. (eds), Empire’s New Clothes: Unveiling EU Enlargement. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, pp. 4–50.
• CASTELLS, M. (1996), The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, vol. 1, The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
• CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2010), A Digital Agenda for Europe. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0245R(01) [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• CEC (2014), Digital agenda for Europe: Rebooting Europe’s economy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• CEC (2017), Europe’s Digital Progress Report (EDPR) 2017 Country Profile Hungary. file:///C:/Users/vista/Downloads/HungaryEDPRcountryprofile.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• CHINI, I. (2008), ‘ICT policy as a governable domain: The case of Greece and the European Commission’, [in:] AVGEROU, C., SMITH, M.L. and BESSELAAR VAN DEN, P. (eds.), Social Dimensions of Information and Communication Technology Policy, IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, 282, pp. 45–62.
• CZÉKMANN, Z. (2016), Információs társadalom és elektronikus kormányzat Magyarországon (Doctoral dissertation, Miskolc University). http://www.uni-iskolc.hu/~wwwdeak/czekmann_zsolt_ert.pdf [accessed on: 4.06.2019].
• DĄBROWSKI, M. (2014), ‘Towards place-based regional and local development strategies in Central and Eastern Europe? EU cohesion policy and strategic planning capacity at the sub-national level’, Local Economy, 29, pp. 378–393.
• DEUTSCH, T. (2017), Keynote at the Infotér Conference on smart cities [video] http://okosvaros.infoter.eu/?p=home [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• DIE BUNDESREGIERUNG (n.d.) Grundsätze unserer Digitalpolitik. https://www.digitale-agenda.de/Webs/DA/DE/Grundsaetze/Grundsaetze_Digitalpolitik/grundsaetze-digitalpolitik_node.html [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• ESPON (2017), (European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion) Transforming territorial thinking through digitalisation. Synthesis report. https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/Synthesis%20report%20Tallinn%202017_1.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• GÁSPÁR, M. (2016), ‘Csipkerózsika, ébredj! – avagy új kihívások előtta közösségi hozzáférés’, Információs Társadalom, 16, pp. 113–133.
• GIFFINGER, R., FERTNER, C., KRAMAR, H., KALASEK, R., PICHLER-MILANOVIĆ, N. and MEIJER, S.E. (2017), Smart cities ranking of European medium-sized cities. Vienna: Vienna University of Technology.
• GOODWIN, I. and SPITTLE, S. (2002), ‘The European Union and the information society: Discourse, power and policy’, New Media and Society, 4, pp. 225–249.
• GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY (2013), H/13094. számú Országgyűlési Határozati Javaslat a Nemzeti Fejlesztés 2030 – Országos Fejlesztési és Területfejlesztési Koncepcióról [National Development and Territorial Development Concept]. http://www.terport.hu/webfm_send/4204 [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY (2014), National Infocommunication Strategy 2014–2020. http://www.kormany.hu/download/5/ff/70000/NIS_EN_clear.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY (2016a), Digital Education Strategy. http://www.kormany.hu/download/0/4b/21000/The%20Digital%20Education%20Strategy%20of%20Hungary.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY (2016b), Digital Export Development Strategy of Hungary. http://www.kormany.hu/download/1/4b/21000/The%20Digital%20Export%20Development%20Strategy%20of%20Hungary.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY (2016c), Digital Startup Strategy of Hungary. http://www.kormany.hu/download/2/4b/21000/The%20Digital%20Startup%20Strategy%20of%20Hungary.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY (2017a), Digital Commerce Development Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.kormany.hu/download/c/88/f0000/Stratégia.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY (2017b), Digital Welfare Programme 2.0. http://www.kormany.hu/download/6/6d/21000/DJP20%20Stratégiai%20Tanulmány.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• GRABBE, H. (2001), ‘How does Europeanization affect CEE governance? Conditionality, diffusion and Diversity’, Journal of European Public Policy, 8, pp. 1013−1031.
• GRAHAM, M. (2011), ‘Time machines and virtual portals: the spatialities of the digital divide’, Progress in Development Studies, 11, pp. 211–227.
• GRAHAM, S. (1998), ‘The end of geography or the explosion of place? Conceptualizing space, place and information technology’, Progress in Human Geography, no. 22, pp. 165–185.
• GRAHAM, S. (2002), ‘Bridging urban digital divides? Urban polarisation and information and communications technologies (ICTs)’, Urban Studies, 39, pp. 33–56.
• HAJER, M. (2000), ‘Transnational networks as transnational policy discourse; some observations on the politics of spatial development in Europe’, [in:] SALET, W. and FALUDI, A. (eds.), The revival of strategic spatial planning. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, pp. 135–142.
• HARVEY, D. (1996), Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.
• HEALEY, P. (2004) ‘The Treatment of Space and Place in the New Strategic Spatial Planning in Europe’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28, pp. 45–67.
• HVG (2018), A hálón kívül. 15 March, pp. 19–20.
• JENSEN, O.B. and RICHARDSON, T. (2001), ‘Nested visions: New rationalities of space in European spatial planning’, Regional Studies, 35, pp. 703–717.
• JENSEN, O.B. and RICHARDSON, T. (2004), Making European space: mobility, power and territorial identity. London: Routledge.
• KISS, M. (2007), ‘A digitális esélyegyenlőség helyzete Magyarországon’, Információs Társadalom, 3, pp. 83–101.
• KOMÁROMI, L. (2015), ‘Participatory democracy: International and European tendencies, constitutional framework in Visegrad countries, Hungarian instruments and experiences’, Iustum Aequum Salutare, 11, pp. 31–66.
• KOVÁCS, G. (2001), ‘Telecottages in Hungary’, Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 2, pp. 153–160.
• KOVÁCS, M. and KABACHNIK, P. (2001), ‘Shedding light on the quantitative other: The EU’s discourse in the Commission Opinions of 1997’, [in:] BÖRÖCZ, J. and KOVÁCS, M. (eds), Empire’s New Clothes: Unveiling EU Enlargement. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, pp. 4–50.
• LEFEBVRE, H. (1991), The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
• MADANIPOUR, A. (2018), ‘Temporary use of space: Urban processes between flexibility, opportunity and precarity’, Urban Studies, 55, pp. 1093–1110.
• MAGYAR, B. and KARVALICS, L.Z. (2001), ‘«Information society» in Eastern Europe? Chances, possibilities, tasks and programs’, East European Quarterly, 34, pp. 509–522.
• MATKÓ, M. (2016), ‘Városfejlesztés az Eu-ban az EU2020 célok mentén’, Falu Város Régió, 2, pp. 16–25.
• MINISTERIE VOOR ECONOMISCHE ZAKEN (2016), Digitale agenda – Vernieuwen, vertrouwen, versnellen. Den Haag: Ministerie voor Economische Zaken.
• MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (2010), Digital Renewal Action Plan. http://www.terport.hu/webfm_send/2709 [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (2014) Green Paper on the Development of the Infocommunications Sector in 2014–2020. http://www.kormany.hu/download/9/2c/70000/ZK%20angol_javított_nokorr.pdf [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• OECD (2015), OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-digital-economy-outlook-2015_9789264232440-en#page4 [accessed on: 26.06.2018].
• PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, I. (2019), ‘A Magyar önkormányzatok korlátai a helyi gazdaságfejlesztésben’, Tér és Társadalom, 33, pp. 3–19.
• PICK, J.B. and SARKAR, A. (2009), The global digital divides. Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
• PILE, S. (1994), ‘Cybergeography: 50 years of Environment and Planning A’, Environment and Planning A, 26, pp. 1815–1823.
• PINTÉR, R. (2004), A magyar információs társadalom fejlődése és fejlettsége a fejlesztők szempontjából (Doctoral dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest), http://mek.oszk.hu/02300/02336/02336.pdf [accessed on: 4.06.2019].
• RANDALL, L., BERLINA, A., TERÄS, J. and RINNE, T. (2018), Digitalisation as a tool for sustainable Nordic regional development: Preliminary literature and policy review. Discussion paper prepared for Nordic thematic group for innovative and resilient regions. January 2018, Stockholm. http://www.nordregio.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Digitalisation_Discussion-Paper_Jan-31.pdf [accessed on: 17.01.2019].
• RICHARDSON, T. (2006), ‘The thin simplification of European space: dangerous calculations?’, Comparative European Politics, 4, pp. 203–217.
• RICHARDSON, T. and JENSEN, O.B. (2000), ‘Discourses of mobility and polycentric development: a contested view of European spatial planning’, European Planning Studies, 8, pp. 503–520.
• RICHARDSON, T. and JENSEN, O.B. (2003), ‘Linking discourse and space: towards a cultural sociology of space in analysing spatial policy discourses’, Urban Studies, 40, pp. 7–22.
• SCHULZ, S. (2017), ‘The discursive construction of innovation policy in peripheralizing Estonia’, European Spatial Research and Policy, 24, pp. 77–91.
• SHARP, E. and RICHARDSON, T. (2001), ‘Reflections on Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental policy research’, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 3, pp. 193–209.
• STARRS, P.F. and ANDERSON, J. (1997), ‘The Words of Cyberspace’, Geographical Review, 87, pp. 146–154.
• VARRÓ, K. and FARAGÓ, L. (2016), ‘The politics of spatial policy and governance in post-1990 Hungary: The interplay between European and national discourses of space’, European Planning Studies, 24, pp. 39–60.
• WARF, B. (2001), ‘Segueways into cyberspace: Multiple geographies of the digital divide’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28, pp. 3–19.
• ZOOK, M. (2003), ‘Underground globalization: mapping the space of flows of the Internet adult Industry’, Environment and Planning A, 35, pp. 1261–1286.

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/1231-1952.26.2.07