English version

Changing figures

Utolsó frissítés:

Szerző:

szerző:
hvg.hu
Tetszett a cikk?

The government recently changed the way it calculates the budget deficit. It forecast a deficit of 8.8 per cent of GDP for 2006, even though it already stood at 8 per cent in June. When prime minister Ferenc Gyurcsany and finance minister Janos Veres met with Joaquin Almunia, the European Union finance commissioner, the trio agreed that Hungary's convergence programme could only be accepted if the costs of building motorways were accounted for within the budget. This accounting change forced revisions to the 2007 and 2008 deficit plans and meant that the introduction of the euro had to be postponed to 2011 or later.

© Nemzeti Autópálya Rt.
In the introduction to his government's programme, Gyurcsany wrote that the budget started running off course in 2000 and 2001, but "there is no doubt that the blame lies primarily with the 2002-2006 government." He did not mention, however, that the growth in government debt was primarily the result of the motorway-building programme.

In 1998, the Orban government promised to build 600km of motorway in five years. None were built over the first three and a half years. In the months before the 2002 elections, 20km of motorway were built in record time.

Between 2002 and 2006, under the Medgyessy and Gyurcsany governments, 400km of motorway were built. Why was this necessary? Was so much road needed and so quickly? Before the 2002 elections, Peter Medgyessy promised motorways, and he started work on them immediately on taking office. Istvan Csillag, the economics minister, introduced a plan for an accelerated motorway-building programme, saying that this would attract investors into the country. Whether this really is the case is open to question, but even if motorways were the key to bringing in foreign investment, they should only have been constructed if there was money to do so. There was no money, but they were still built.

Gyurcsany took office in the third quarter of 2004, by which time it was necessary to finish the motorways on which work had already started. But it was wrong to start work on new roads in 2005 and 2006.

At least the new prime minister might claim that he had had little time to get to know the country's financial situation. But now?

It is still the case that roads that were begun before have to be finished in 2006. But the government should make clear that not one metre of new motorway will be built in 2007 and 2008.

Critics at home and abroad say the government's budget plans focus on raising revenues while doing little to cut spending. If only for this reason, it would have been better to cut costs by the simplest means possible: by suspending the construction of new motorways.

Companies involved in building motorways as well as experts and officials all say that motorways should be built using EU money. But this is a poor argument. It is true that the country will have more EU money at its disposal in 2006 and 2008, but it is also true that the government has to match any EU funds it uses.

The EU is spending vast sums on developments in the new member states, and these sums must be used - but it is the national governments that will decide which developments to promote. Why should we think that they are making the right choices?

ISTVÁN KEMÉNY

(The author is a sociologist)