Academic journal article Economics, Management and Financial Markets

The Role of Human Resource Development in the Sustainable Development of Hungary

Academic journal article Economics, Management and Financial Markets

The Role of Human Resource Development in the Sustainable Development of Hungary

Article excerpt

1. Introduction

Human resource is one of the most important bases of long-term economic and social development. The development of human resources requires various conscious strategies in countries and the achievements and results can be realized mainly in middle or long terms. Therefore, it should be one of the most significant priorities of national strategies. The systematic development of human resources has for some time been an important consideration for national policy-makers throughout much of the developed world. It is reflected in the increased emphasis that is nowadays given to issues such as lifelong learning, equal opportunities, social inclusion, employability and what has come to be known as the knowledge economy (Batey, 2002). Human resources show huge regional discrepancies not only in Hungary but all over Europe and the world. So, regional development and human resource development are supposed to go hand in hand, serving the harmonized developments of regions. In this paper we intended to introduce the major tendencies of human resources in the regions of Hungary in the mirror of the Lisbon Strategy and the EUROPE 2020.

1.1. Lisbon Strategy

The original Lisbon strategy was launched in 2000 as a response to the challenges of globalization and ageing. The European Council defined the objective of the strategy for the EU "to become the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010 capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion and respect for the environment." Underlying this was the realization that, in order to enhance its standard of living and sustain its unique social model, the EU needed to increase its productivity and competitiveness in the face of ever fiercer global competition, technological change and an ageing population. It was recognized that the reform agenda could not be pursued at EU level alone (as had for instance been the case with the 1992 single market program), but that since many of the policy areas involved member state competences, close cooperation between the EU and member states would be necessary to achieve results. It also reflected a first acknowledgement that member states' economies are inherently linked, and that the action (or inaction) of one member state could have significant consequences for the EU as a whole. However, the original strategy gradually developed into an overly complex structure with multiple goals and actions and an unclear division of responsibilities and tasks, particularly between the EU and national levels. The Lisbon strategy was therefore re-launched in 2005 following a mid-term review. In order to provide a greater sense of prioritization, the relaunched strategy was focused on growth and jobs. A new governance structure based on a partnership approach between the Member States and the EU institutions was put into place. In assessing ten years of the Lisbon strategy, what ultimately counts is the impact on growth and jobs. Assessing this impact, however, is not straightforward, as the economic cycle and external events, as well as public policies, play a determining role.

Ultimately, the objective of the Lisbon strategy was to improve the pace and quality of reforms at national and European level: therefore the assessment needs also to consider whether the strategy shaped reform agendas by forging greater consensus amongst stakeholders on challenges and policy responses (SEC, 2010). Overall, the Lisbon strategy has had a positive impact on the EU even though its main targets (i.e. 70% employment rate, and 3% of GDP spent on R&D) have not been reached. The EU employment rate reached 66% in 2008 (from 62% in 2000) before it dropped back again as a result of the crisis. However the EU has failed to close the productivity growth gap with leading industrialized countries: total R&D expenditure in the EU expressed as a percentage of GDP only improved marginally (from 1. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.