|
Cultural
expenditure in the central budgets between 1991 and 2001
The following are excerpts from a marcostatistical investigation conducted
by BO*. A major objective of the research
was to compare central governmental spending with three selected Hungarian
cities (including Budapest), which will be presented in English here soon.
Table
1: Development of cultural expenditure in the
central budget between 1991-2001
|
|
1991
|
1992
|
1993
|
1994
|
1995
|
1996
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
2001
|
|
Central
cultural expenditure,
HUF thousand million
|
10,31
|
16,80
|
18,77
|
17,95
|
21,57
|
20,02
|
29,08
|
39,11
|
56,91
|
71,28
|
71,63
|
|
Percentage
of cultural expenditure in central budget,
%
|
1,11
|
1,60
|
1,46
|
1,09
|
1,11
|
0,96
|
1,14
|
1,40
|
1,62
|
1,88
|
1,66
|
|
Percentage
of cultural expenditure related to GDP,
%
|
0,41
|
0,57
|
0,52
|
0,41
|
0,38
|
0,29
|
0,34
|
0,39
|
0,50
|
0,55
|
..
|
|
Central
cultural expenditure per capita, HUF
|
995
|
1
625
|
1
821
|
1
747
|
2
106
|
1
960
|
2
859
|
3
859
|
5
639
|
7
097
|
7
025
|
|
Real
value of cultural expenditure
(1991 = 100)
|
100
|
132,5
|
120,9
|
97,3
|
91,2
|
68,5
|
84,1
|
98,9
|
130,9
|
149,3
|
..
|
|
Central
cultural expenditure,
USD million
|
137,8
|
212,6
|
204,0
|
170,8
|
171,6
|
131,2
|
155,7
|
182,4
|
239,8
|
252,5
|
246,3
|
|
Central
cultural expenditure per capita, USD
|
13,3
|
20,6
|
19,8
|
16,6
|
16,8
|
12,8
|
15,3
|
18,0
|
23,8
|
25,1
|
24,2
|
|
Share
of investment and reconstruction in cultural
expenditure, %
|
16,0
|
22,1
|
20,0
|
20,9
|
23,0
|
29,8
|
35,5
|
31,0
|
31,8
|
39,6
|
30,9
|
Remarks
on the methodology
The
sources of the investigation consist of official budgetary laws and decrees,
and records of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office.
In
contrast to other countries, in the case of
Hungary it is not sufficient to investigate
only the budget of the Ministry of Culture.
On one hand, a significant part of the cultural
expenditures are to be found in the budget of
other ministries (local supports in the budget
of the Ministry of Interior, the protection
of monuments before 1998 in the budget of the
Ministry of Transport and Telecommunication,
etc.), on the other hand, not all estimates
of the budget of the Ministry of Culture
are spent on culture (support to religious denominations
being an important addition).
It
is important to stress that these data comprise plans and not factual
figures. The budgetary reports are significantly less detailed than the
money-bills, that is why our statistics rely on plans. However, the investigation
of some of the factual figures proved that there are not significant differences
between the planned (approved) and actual figures on spending.
The
expenditures of the protection of monuments are included in the statistics,
while the support of public media is excluded (opposed to the comparative
statistics of the Compendium of EricArts). The support that goes to churches
and to artistic education is also excluded. The ratio of administrative
expenses of the ministries is included, in correspondence to the ratio
of cultural expenditure.
The
amounts earmarked for investment appear separately in the statistics.
These include the figures of large amount pruchases and renovation too.
The amounts of dedicated support, earmarked to individual cultural investments,
run under the Ministry of Interior, are taken into account as well.
The
calculation of spending power is based on the
consumer price index of the Hungarian Central
Statistical Office.
*Beside
the Budapest Observatory, the Department of Cultural Management of the
University of Pécs (UP) took part in the research. The research team:
Csilla Filó (UP), Zsófia Földesi (BO), Zita Lévai (BO) and Szilvia Szabó
(UP), directed by Péter Inkei (BO).
|
