Hungary: Role of social dialogue in industrial policies

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Published on: 14 september 2014



About
Country:
Hungary
Author:
Institution:

Disclaimer: This information is made available as a service to the public but has not been edited by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The content is the responsibility of the authors.

The recently elected government started their rule by having a clear idea on what the country should look like after the end of the legislation period – and probably beyond. This idea has also an industrial policy aspect. Besides having a strong automotive sector (an industrial strategy of the former government) and low added-value work bench (which is not accompanied by the formulation of a strategic concept) the government communicate an industrial strategy with nationalised strategic companies, strong Hungarian based SMEs, well-being and health-oriented production and services within a green economy. This should give Hungary a competitive edge in Europe and is arguably in line with the Hungarian concept of a healthy and rural society. The social partners’ role was marginal in that process and also the role of social partners implementing the strategy is very weak.

Part 1: Overall role and involvement of social partners in industrial policy in the national context

Industrial policy is in this context used in its broader sense as…

those policies that have an impact on the cost, price and innovative competitiveness of industry and individual sectors, such as standardisation or innovation policies, or sectoral policies targeting e.g. the innovation performance of individual sectors.

COM(2010) 614 An Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era Putting Competitiveness and Sustainability at Centre Stage. EC 2010

The policy instruments are then defined as the method or mechanism used by government, political parties, business or individuals to achieve a desired effect, through legal or economic means.

Industrial policy initiatives are often undertaken unilaterally by the government but other forms may include social partners in different constellations, including:

  • bipartite initiative (a common approach by the social partners);
  • tripartite initiative (the social partners in tandem with the public authorities);
  • tripartite+ initiative (the three stakeholders in combination sometimes with other civil society players such as NGOs, research centres or qualified figures);
  • public-private partnership initiatives (one social partner and the public authorities); and
  • unilateral initiatives by a single social partner

In Hungary from 2002 (after the national elections) the social liberal government announced a new economic model with a developed emphasis on the industrial policy. This was done mainly through tax incentives and tax reduction for companies. This was partly in accordance with the preparation of the EU-accession. On the basis of a strategic background research and industrial policy development programme prepared in behalf of the Ministry for Economic and Environment, it was planned to decide on a defined industrial policy strategy for the period between 2004 and 2010. This strategy took into consideration that from 2004 onwards Hungary is being a member of the EU and therefore the economic development should be related to the common market and the Lisbon-Strategy. Researches had shown that foreign direct investments got more and more important and in 2004; three-quarter of the industry was foreign capital investment. Therefore a new industrial strategy was developed in 2006, but again it was not executed. The next strategy was developed in 2009, when the action plan for prioritized industrial sectors were defined to support the pharmaceutical industry, logistics, information technology and the automotive sector. The strategy consisted of two parts: 1. crisis management initiatives and 2. incentives to increase the compatibility of the Hungarian economy. This action plan faded into background, when a new government got elected in 2010, thus it had no real impact on the economy. Instead in 2011 the so called New Széchenyi Plan (Új Széchenyi Terv, NSZP) was designed to support the economic and industrial development. (source: http://www.polgariszemle.hu/app/data/toth_gergely_botos_iparpolitika_ismerteto.pdf)

It aims to improve Hungary´s competitiveness, to create one million new jobs within ten years and promote economic growth. The government defined six breakthrough points: pharmaceutical industry, green economy, organizational development of undertakings, traffic/transportation development, research and innovation, employment. (source: http://ujszechenyiterv.gov.hu/fejlesztespolitika)

The plan is escorted by the Széll Kálman Plan (Széll Kálmán Terv, SZKP), which aims to make structural reforms (policy changes) in the employment, labour market, pension system, public transport, higher education, drug subsidy, state and local government finance and debt reduction. (source: http://www.kormany.hu/download/b/23/20000/Hungary's%20Structural%20Reform.pdf).

The social partners were not involved into the development of the NSZP nor of the SZKP. Since 2011 there had been a consultation with social partners in some single particular cases a posterior (often only after public protest).

1. Is there in your country currently a policy framework to stimulate investments that both create economic growth and employment? Tick Yes/No

Table 1

Policy framework

Yes

No

Economic growth

   

Employment

   

Both economic growth and employment

X

 

Competitiveness

X

 

2. Is there evidence in your country of involvement of social partners in the process of formulating industrial policy interventions? If yes, please indicate which types of involvement:

Table 2

Type of social partner involvement:

… in the formulation of horizontal (cross-sector) interventions

… in the formulation of vertical (sector-, industry- or company-specific) interventions

Sector-specific involvement

No

Yes: once within the pharmaceutical industry, but it does not happen regularly and there is no information on other sectors.

Cross-sector involvement

Yes: National Economic and Social Council (Nemzeti Gazdasági és Társadalmi Tanács, NGTT) and the Permanent Consultative Forum of the Private Sector and the Government (Versenyszféra és a Kormány Állandó Konzultációs Fóruma, VKF)

No

Bipartite, tripartite, tripartite+, unilateral, public/private partnership?

Please indicate which, if any, of these types apply:

NGTT: bipartite, but convened by the government.

VKF: tripartite,

NGTT and VKF meetings take place only after government’s invitation. SP cannot initiate it.

Council for the Development of Entrepreneurship (Vállakozás Fejlesztési Tanács, VFT) is a consultative forum for supporting SMEs according to the law No. 2004. XXXIV. Its chair is the minister.

Please indicate which, if any, of these types apply:

Strategic agreements between single companies and the government.

Social partners are missing involvement. Both recent plans (NSZP and SZKP) were decided without consultation of social partners.

Discussion of formulated policy intervention within the NGTT: Members of the NGTT are unions and employers, but also representatives of business chambers, social and scientific civil organizations as well as Hungary’s historical churches (all together 32 organisations). There is regular participation from the government’s side, however, at the council’s plenary sessions ministers participate only as observers. Council members have no decision-making rights, only to daw up an option on the draft proposals of the government. In reality, the government presents drafted regulations and laws to the NGTT without proper time to prepare and the time for consultation is also limited.

Since 2011, there is another forum established, the VKF (Versenyszféra és a Kormány Állandó Konzultációs Fórumá- Constant Consultation Forum of the business sector and the Government), where three employer organisations (MGYOSZ, ÁFÉOSZ and VOSZ) and three trade unions (LIGA, MSZOSZ, and Munkástanácsok) consult about industrial policy. The aim is – besides consulting – the development of joint positions regarding employment, industrial development and related socio-economic and financial aspects.

Ad hoc consultation in the pharmaceutical industry: In 2012 it happened that the government invited social partners from the pharmaceutical industry to discuss the sector’s strategy. This was a small meeting with the affected union (Federation of Trade Unions of the Chemical, Energy and Allied Workers, Magyar Vegyipari Energiaipari és Rokon Szakmákban Dolgozók Szakszervezeti Szövetsége, VDSZ) and the representatives of the main companies and the employer organization (Hungarian Chemical Industry Association, Magyar Vegyipari Szövetség, MAVESZ). This meeting had an ad-hoc character and was not followed by other meetings.

The VFT (Vállalkozásfejlesztési Tanács – Council for the development of the Entrepreneurship)is a tripartite forum, where six employer organisations (ÁFEOSZ, IPOSZ, KISOSZ, OKISZ, MGYOSZ and VOSZ) are consulting with the government; two trade unions (not defined by law and changing), representatives from the R&D, organization for the development of entrepreneurships (Incubator- houses etc.) have consultation right, if invited. They meet at least four times a year; it is convened by the minister. The tasks are: consulting on the strategic development of the SME sector and its central programmes, discussing on the financial support system, tax issues, legal issues and case studies on certain special problems.

All mentioned consultations are - as said by social partners - not sufficient and often a posterior.

Bipartite consultation between the government and companies are likely to be requested; therefore the government is about to conclude around 40 agreements with the largest investors in Hungary (HU1308011I – not published yet). As the consultations behind are without publicity, only the first 10 agreements’ wording is published and the initiative started only recently in 2012, there are few information on the contents, ways, frequencies and outcomes. The first 10 published agreements are general letter of commitments mainly about professional education, general will to further investments and mutual support without going into deepness.

3. How have social partners been involved in the industrial policy formulation process?

Table 3
 

Please indicate (X) the extent to which the different types of involvement are used, including whether this involvement is statutory:

Level of government?

Sector focus?

Specific form of social partner involvement:

Statutory/mandatory

Very common/ used in most policy processes but not statutory

Fairly common but not consistently used

Rarely used

Not used at all

National or regional?

Sectoral or cross-sectoral?

Tripartite standing committee

X (VKF)

   

X

(VKF)

 

National

Cross-sectoral

Tripartite ad hoc committees

       

X

   

High-level groups or other multi-stakeholder committees involving other stakeholders in addition to social partners

X

(VFT)

 

X

(NGTT)

   

National

(NGTT)

National&Regional

(VFT with its regional departments)

Cross-sectoral

If multi-stakeholder committees:

Please indicate which types of other stakeholders are (typically) involved:

Hearings

X

(VFT, VKF)

 

X

(NGTT)

   

National

Cross-sectoral

Consultations

X

(VKF, VFT)

 

X

(NGTT)

   

National

Cross-sectoral

Conferences

             

Other - please specify below:

Round table

       

Occurred once in 2012

 

Chemical industry

4. Is there evidence in your country of initiatives that follows recommendations and development at EU-level? If yes, please indicate in which sectors:

After the EU accession the then ruling governments (2002 – 2010) followed the initiatives of the Lisbon-Strategy. Today’s government (2010-) takes some initiatives like increasing employment, green economy development, development of a knowledge based society, but even if the government agreed with the aims and initiatives the communication to the public is a nationalistic one and not corresponding to the European perspective. One of the rare exceptions is the Digital Agenda for Europe, DAE programme which is mentioned in the IT knowledge development programme.

5. Which types of industrial policy instruments/interventions at different government levels have social partners been involved in? Please indicate degree of involvement

3 = high degree of involvement,

2 = involvement to some extent,

1 = low degree of involvement,

0 = no involvement.

Table 4

Policy instruments:

National level

Regional level

Local level

Public investment programmes:

1

0

0

infrastructure

1

0

0

construction

1

0

0

building renovation

1

0

0

other

1

0

0

Innovation programmes

1

0

0

Support for R&D

1

Might occur, but no information available

0

Cluster promotion

1

Might occur, but no information available

Might occur, but no information available

Export promotion

1

0

0

Internationalisation of SMEs

     

Improvement of access to finance:

0

0

0

loan

1

0

0

loan guarantee programmes

1

0

0

venture capital funding

 

0

0

other

     

Public procurement policies

1

Might occur, but no information available

0

Tax and duty policies

1

0

Might occur, but no information available

Adapting the skills base

1

   

Subsidies for restructuring/ bail-out of companies in crisis

1

1 (but only in cases of particular problems, where a company faces bankruptcies and unions are involved in negotiations (Debreceni Hús Zrt; Dunaferr metallurgy et.al)

1 (but only in cases of particular problems, where a company faces bankruptcies and unions are involved in negotiations (Debreceni Hús Zrt; Dunaferr metallurgy et.al)

Social plans in case of restructuring. Training/re-training

0

1 (but only in cases of particular problems, where a company faces bankruptcies and unions are involved in negotiations (Debreceni Hús Zrt; Dunaferr metallurgy et.al)

1 (but only in cases of particular problems, where a company faces bankruptcies and unions are involved in negotiations (Debreceni Hús Zrt; Dunaferr metallurgy et.al)

Investment incentives

0

0

0

Energy efficiency/ energy shift

1

0

0

Energy supply security

0

0

0

Access to raw materials

0

0

0

Prices of energy and raw materials

1

0

0

Others, please specify below:

     
       

6. Which, if any, positive effect(s) can be related to the involvement of social partners in the industrial policy process in your country?

Table 5

Positive effects

Tick (X) where applicable

Please comment briefly: How did effect manifest itself?

Speed of policy process

   

Robustness of policy initiatives

   

Relevance of policy initiatives

   

Dynamism in the policy process

   

European coordination

   

Ownership of policy initiatives

   

Coherence and coordination of labour market, education, and economic policies

   

Stimulating public-private partnerships

   

Others, please specify below:

   

As estimations presented in table 5 and explanation under point 4 shows, the degree of involvement is very low, therefor a serious estimation on the degree of influence would be irresponsible. There are no manifestations of the effects at all.

It was said by several interview partners participating in the above mentioned fore that there has been no positive effects. It is more an exchange of information and decisions are made by the government without taking the social partners’ view, initiatives into consideration.

7. Which, if any, problems or challenges related to involvement of social partners in the industrial policy process have been encountered in your country?

Table 6

Problems/challenges:

Tick (X) where applicable

Please comment briefly: How did the problem manifest itself?

Increased bureaucracy

   

Lengthy policy processes

X

 

Lengthy bargaining processes

X

See above

Dilution (circumvention) of parliamentary democracy

   

Problems of establishing accountability

   

Lack of dynamism in the policy process

X

See above

Lack of culture to involve social partners

   

Others, please specify below:

   

.

   

8. What, if anything, has been done to address these challenges/problems listed in questions 7? What was the outcome?

Table 7

Problems/challenges:

Measures undertaken

Effect positive/negative

     
     

Unions have tried to protest several times against the missing involvement. The same time employer organisations tried to influence through individual meetings with governmental representatives.

Part 2: Description of relevant sector examples of social partner involvement

This section aims to identify examples of policies targeting specific sectors and involving social dialogue. Among the industrial policies treated in the previous section in question 5, please select 2-3 examples which represent significant industrial policies in your country and describe the policy instruments used and the contribution of social partners to the shaping of the policy and the outcome of their involvement.

The selection of examples should be guided by the following criteria:

  • importance of the sector to the national economy;
  • level of government support to the industry; and
  • best practice of social dialogue in the country.

The first relevant steps concerning industrial policy had been taken in 2009, when the action plan for prioritized industrial sectors was defined to support the pharmaceutical industry, logistics, information technology and the automotive sector.

(source: http://www.polgariszemle.hu/app/data/toth_gergely_botos_iparpolitika_ismerteto.pdf)

Example 1

Name of the instrument:

Az infokommunikációs szektor fejlesztési stratégiája - The development strategy of the info-communication sector (2014 – 2020) v5.0

Sector:

IT sector

Type of instrument applied:

(use categories from question 5. Some sector policies may apply more than one instrument

Infrastructure, R&D, “adapting the skills’ base” ( development of professionalism in IT sector for the population.

Timing:

(Period of implementation of instrument)

2014-2020

Operational level

National

Regional

Local

Please tick the government level and/or provide details of geographical implementation area if relevant:

X

X

X

Funding:

(Please describe the size of the instrument and detail the source(s) of funding, e.g. EU, state budget, levies, stakeholder contributions, etc.).

EU Cohesion Fund, other EU funds and own contributions, tax reductions, tenders without detailed financial calculations, stake holders’ investments.

Target group(s):

(please describe target group in terms of sector/industry, type of company, geographical criteria and/or other relevant characteristics)

SMEs, general increase of IT in the country with the aim to increase productivity and efficiency of the economy and the economy players (employees, entrepreneurs, employers)

Rationale/motivation for the instrument:

(please describe the problem that the instrument should address – for instance: market failure, need to increase sector competitiveness, crisis intervention, etc.)

General low level of e-economy, especially in the SME segment, but also general lack of e-communication within the society. Increasing competitiveness of SME´s.

Policy stage

Please describe stage of involvement of the social actors, i.e.

policy preparation (consultation),

policy decision (co-determination? and

policy implementation (fx. by involvement in agencies)

No involvement known. However, there had been bilateral consultations with SME sectoral actors and organisations in order to develop the preparation. These consultations were not published, so their influence is difficult to measure. There are accidentally, ad-hoc meetings between some of the social partners and the government to influence legislation. There is no measurable outcome.

Objectives of the instrument:

(please describe the objectives and any quantitative targets set for the instrument– e.g.

increased employment by X% in sector Y by 20xx

increase in sector exports by X%

increase in FDI by X%

Digital infrastructure development: NGA net development, new gsm generation (4 G, LTE).

Until 2014 100% coverage of min. 4 Mbps, until 2020 100% min. 30 Mbps and 50% min. 100 Mbps; 2020 80% NGA, Docsis 3.0 or higher. 2016 no district/region without optical NGA-white coverage, Until 2016 every public administration office should have access to the national telecommunication backbone, 2016 95% covering with mobile broadband and the average EU band width

Digital competencies development for inhabitants and companies (especially SMEs): every owner of a company with less than 10 employees should be confident with internet, basic IT knowledge.

2016 90% of micro and small enterprises (MSE) should have internet access, in 2020 100%.

In 2016 50% of MSE should have an internet profile (website, facebook, others).

All population: 2016 the not at all users of internet should get reduced to 40%, 2020 to 30%; 2016 the people using the internet at least once a week should reach 65 % (and 50% of disadvantaged groups), in 2020 75% (60% of disadvantaged).

In 2016 every schooling institution should provide for 10% of the students IT tools (PC, laptop, Tablet) and have 20Mbit/s internet.

Digital economy development:

Until 2020 increase by 20% of participants in professional IT education with university degree.

The number of Hungarian based IT companies in the MSE segment should reach the EU´s average.

Until 2020 the export of Hungarian software and IT services should increase by 50%.

In 2020 33% of MSE should realise business online.

In 2020 MSEs using intranet should reach EU´s average.

In 2020 the number of employees using computers with internet access should reach EU´s average.

E-government:

In 2016 overall clouding system for all governmental IT background. In 2020 20% of public administration should use clouds. 15% of the public administration should use open-source applications.

2018 100% population and companies should get access to e-administration (where applicable).

2020 overall interoperation between the main governmental institutions and 80% of public administration should be done electronically.

Activities and implementation:

(Please give details on the implementation of the intervention)

As the strategy is a very new one, there is no detailed implementation decided yet.

Social partner involvement

 

Type of social partner involvement:

(Bipartite, tripartite, tripartite+, unilateral, public/private partnership? – cf. qu. 1)

There is no direct social partner involvement but a so called “public consultation”. This were announced on 26 July 2013 and finished on 31 August. No results known. All people, organisations (including social partners) were asked to send written opinion to the ministries’ email address on a prepared template. Opinions and own proposals were about the general objectives (“system of objectives”), the forms of the strategy and other issues.

Level of involvement of social partners involvement:

European, National, regional, local

Sectoral

All levels possible

Specific form of social partner involvement:

(tripartite standing or ad hoc committee, high-level group, hearing, consultation, conferences, etc.? – cf. qu. 2)

-

Timing and nature of social partner involvement:

(Please provide more details on the processes that social partners were involved in, their input, the timing, etc.)

There was a one-month period provided. The strategy was published on the ministers’ website, a public call to send opinions and proposals were published in the same time and it has been announced that the results of the consultation will be published on the same website (http://www.kormany.hu/hu/nemzeti-fejlesztesi-miniszterium/infokommunikacioert-felelos-allamtitkarsag/hirek/augusztus-vegeig-velemenyezheto-a-nemzeti-infokommunikacios-strategia).

Impact of social partner involvement on design and implementation of instrument:

(Please describe how/if the design and/or implementation was affected through the involvement of social partners)

No information.

There is no sign in the strategy about the planed involvement of social partners.

Other stakeholders involved, if any:

(please name stakeholders and briefly describe their roles)

Public at all, providing opinion and proposals through the website.

Results and outcomes

 

Outputs/results:

(Please give details of the outputs/results of the intervention; e.g number of jobs created/retained, number of workers upskilled; wage increases, investment increases, increased co-operation between social partners, etc.)

No information

Assessment of effectiveness:

(Please provide an assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention - were the objectives reached? If possible, base the assessment on evaluation reports or similar)

No information

Possible explanations for the effectiveness of the instrument:

(Please provide possible explanations for the degree of effectiveness achieved, including the contribution of the social partner involvement; e.g. improved bargaining process? Increased dynamism in the policy process? Other explanations?)

No information

Assessment of efficiency:

Did the outputs/results measure up to the effort/resources invested? If possible, base the assessment on evaluation reports or similar)

No information

Possible explanations for the efficiency of the instrument:

(Please provide possible explanations for the degree of efficiency, including the contribution of the social partner involvement)

No information

Example 2

Name of the instrument:

GYÓGYÍTÓ MAGYARORSZÁG –EGÉSZSÉGIPARI PROGRAM

(Healing Hungary – Pharmaceutical industry programme) GyMEP

Sector:

Health care/pharmaceutical sector, but also tourism and energy sector

Type of instrument applied:

(use categories from question 5. Some sector policies may apply more than one instrument

All of them

Timing:

(Period of implementation of instrument)

14 January 2011 - 2020

Operational level

National

Regional

Local

Please tick the government level and/or provide details of geographical implementation area if relevant:

X

X

X

Funding:

(Please describe the size of the instrument and detail the source(s) of funding, e.g. EU, state budget, levies, stakeholder contributions, etc.).

NSZF: HUF2000 billion (2011- 2020), EUR 6,6 billion from mixed EU and Hungarian funds (state budget, credit support and bank warranties) depending on the single intervention.

No information about the part for “Healing Hungary Programme”.

Target group(s):

(please describe target group in terms of sector/industry, type of company, geographical criteria and/or other relevant characteristics)

All industries, employees, companies contributing to the programme, regions were thermal water is (practically all over Hungary) with a special focus on less developed rural regions.

Rationale/motivation for the instrument:

(please describe the problem that the instrument should address – for instance: market failure, need to increase sector competitiveness, crisis intervention, etc.)

Hungary has a quite developed pharmaceutical industry with flagships like Richter-Gedeon, ÉGIS, but also 30 – 80 SMEs producing health care and beauty products – 10 of them using thermal water. There is a history and competencies in production of medical instruments and is a supplier of health care services for a large number of Europeans (mainly dentist services). Especially /hot spring related “wellness” services have space for development as Hungary has thermal water/hot springs everywhere. Hot springs can also be used for thermal energy production. Today it is not used at all in Hungary, but the development could be competitive advantage and a way to diversify the energy market and counter the high dependency from international energy supply. The plant strategy will combine both elements. (However, the latter is less developed, therefore we will focus on the healing/wellness part)

Policy stage

Please describe stage of involvement of the social actors, i.e.

policy preparation (consultation),

policy decision (co-determination? and

policy implementation (fx. by involvement in agencies)

Preparation: There was no direct involvement of social partners. Probably there had been some bilateral discussions on the programme. There had been general discussion with academics; however, there is no information about how this influences the NSZF and the GYMEP.

Codetermination: No social partner involvement. There had been a presentation of the overall programme NSZF in the NGTT but not on the detailed working programme and sectoral approaches.

Implementation: There are consultations in the NGTT on the general programmes to be financed within the NSZF. Employer organizations and unions are asked to make statements on it. There is no information or measurement whether this influences the implementation.

Objectives of the instrument:

(please describe the objectives and any quantitative targets set for the instrument– e.g.

increased employment by X% in sector Y by 20xx

increase in sector exports by X%

increase in FDI by X%

There are only very few quantitative targets set for the instrument: Health tourism: 150-200% higher tourist turnover.

Geothermal energy: 6 – 10, 000 new work places; drilling of 300 new hot springs.

Pharmaceutical production and beauty care: there should be 3 – 4 Hungarian brands being global players. First regions to export: After Romania and Slovakia, Germany and Poland.

Pharmaceutical industry: 4% of all employees in the production should work in this industry, 4 -5% of the overall production should be from this sector, the export should grow to 4 -5 %, 8% of investment should be done in the sector.

Thermal water for consumption: Double availability to 2,5 billion litre water and increase consumption to 150 litre/person/annually.

Production of medical instruments: Min. 3,000 new work places in production and additionally in trainer, experts etc (without exact figures).

Bio- and nano-technology: Hungary should be one of the 10 most important countries, 4 – 5,000 new work places for highly qualified employees.

Activities and implementation:

(Please give details on the implementation of the intervention)

Support of all initiative connected to this objective

1. Professional education

2. R &D

3. Health cluster development

4. Understanding the healing sector as a cross sectoral task

Social partner involvement

 

Type of social partner involvement:

(Bipartite, tripartite, tripartite+, unilateral, public/private partnership? – cf. qu. 1)

No social partner involvement foreseen, though some discussion took part on bipartite level within the Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee (ÁPB) for the Chemical Industry.

Level of involvement of social partners involvement:

European, National, regional, local

Sectoral

-

Specific form of social partner involvement:

(tripartite standing or ad hoc committee, high-level group, hearing, consultation, conferences, etc.? – cf. qu. 2)

• In 2011 the chemical ÁPB had a bipartite consultation on the development of the pharmaceutical industry. The employers’ side had a meeting with the ministry to discuss the possible negative outcomes of the new tax system and how they plan to avoid it. (http://www.tpk.org.hu/engine.aspx?page=tpk_Vegyipari_Agazati_Beszamolok)

• In 2012 there had been a tripartite consultation - convened by the Ministry for Economic Affairs on the future development in the chemical industry. The pharmaceutical industry was an important topic, but this was only an ad-hoc meeting – the outcome of the meeting was not visible for the participants.

• In 2013 there was a bipartite consultation on the GyMEP within the ÁPB for the Spa and bath sector planed, but it was not carried out because of missing participants.

(http://www.tpk.org.hu/engine.aspx?page=tpk_Furdoszolgaltatas_Szakagazati_Beszamolok)

Timing and nature of social partner involvement:

(Please provide more details on the processes that social partners were involved in, their input, the timing, etc.)

There is no process visible as consultation happens “accidentally”, on an ad hoc base.

Impact of social partner involvement on design and implementation of instrument:

(Please describe how/if the design and/or implementation was affected through the involvement of social partners)

Only some consultation about the general frames.

Other stakeholders involved, if any:

(please name stakeholders and briefly describe their roles)

-

Results and outcomes

 

Outputs/results:

(Please give details of the outputs/results of the intervention; e.g. number of jobs created/retained, number of workers upskilled; wage increases, investment increases, increased co-operation between social partners, etc.)

No figures available

Assessment of effectiveness:

(Please provide an assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention - were the objectives reached? If possible, base the assessment on evaluation reports or similar)

No assessment available

Possible explanations for the effectiveness of the instrument:

(Please provide possible explanations for the degree of effectiveness achieved, including the contribution of the social partner involvement; e.g. improved bargaining process? Increased dynamism in the policy process? Other explanations?)

As the strategy is a long-term objective and it had been started only one and half years ago there is no assessment of the effectiveness possible. There was no involvement of social partners, therefore any estimation on the success of partners’ involvement possible.

Assessment of efficiency:

Did the outputs/results measure up to the effort/resources invested? If possible, base the assessment on evaluation reports or similar)

Efficiency is not measurable as the instrument are very divided and the duration of the strategy is to short yet.

Possible explanations for the efficiency of the instrument:

(Please provide possible explanations for the degree of efficiency, including the contribution of the social partner involvement)

-

Ildikó Krén, Solution4.org

Useful? Interesting? Tell us what you think. Hide comments

Lägg till ny kommentar