Impact of demographic change

Mary REDEI, D.Sc.HU Regional Informatics Ltd.

ADAPT2DC Transnational Study tour Budapest, 20-22. May 2014

Demography left the descriptive style

1. Foresight: the future of the past based on relationship, explanation, how the structure limits the flow?

2. Border of demography extended like: economical activity, graduation, ethnicity, religious, household..

3. If the process of demography is in harmony, not much attention follows, pro-action…

4. But now, decreasing, ageing, no natural reproduction, rising mobility.

5. Why are these problems? How can we benefit?

Main pop trends

1. No natural reproduction. Half of 35y girls have no child! Under replacement level, life expectancies slowly rising, but still…

2. Demographic behaviour rapidly changing, vulnerability of life.

3. Cohort size varied from 220 to 85 thousands/y, (old) dependency ratio is growing, young 0,23 old 0,39 (0,85!) these are challenges for institutional utilisation, propagative number limits the expectation.

4. See the evolution of age tree.

10095908580757065605550454035302520151050

2010

020000400006000080000100000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

Férfiak Nők

4

Population development of Hungary

5

19501952

19541956

19581960

19621964

19661968

19701972

19741976

19781980

19821984

19861988

19901992

19941996

19982000

20022004

20062008

20102012

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

tényleges

ezer fő

Replacement movement1. 300 immigrants + 200 staying permit holders, 600 working +50

studying abroad +illegal, seasonal and circular migrants. 12% of working age.

2. Without immigration the population decrease would have been more rapid. 200 had got Hungarian citizenship and live here. Two-thirds of them live near the capital.

3. The small territorial level’s centrums are 4 times attractive compared to their periphery. Better educated, younger people. External HR resources – new task their re-engineering.

4. Mr Max Fischer: ‚we called workers and human arrived.’ Migration extended from worker to family.

5. Free movement is not equal to free access to social services

6

International flow of Hungary

7

19501953

19561959

19621965

19681971

19741977

19801983

19861989

19921995

19982001

20042007

2010

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

nemzetközi vándorlási egyenleg

évek

ezer fő

Ageing1. Raising awareness of inhabitants, common and individual

responsibility.2. Living longer in health, living away, growing generation

age-distance→1990. Around age of 20y to give birth to first child, nowadays it is over 30y.

3. Micro spatial distribution: living alone 32%, from this old household 53%.

4. Macro spatial distribution: access to oversized infrastructure, citizen right versa Constitution, how the service companies should be ready to do so? Profit or gratis? Who will compensate?

Number of settlements by population categories

Categories 2013 2020 2027 2034 2041

0-499 1128 1159 1192 1242 1300

500-999 645 654 661 653 626

1000-1499 362 359 348 338 340

1500-1999 272 251 253 242 229

2000-2999 281 278 252 242 236

3000-4999 192 183 183 180 173

5000-9999 132 126 127 122 115

10000-15000 52 55 48 50 54

15000-19999 30 33 32 27 24

20000-29999 24 21 25 26 26

30000-49999 17 16 14 13 14

50000-99999 10 11 11 11 9

100000- 9 8 8 8 8

Total 3154 3154 3154 3154 31549

10

Spatial distribution • Rural: farmers aging, how to cultivate the land?

Revitalization of life on economical basis or social ones? PC illiteracy and E-governance?

• City: low mobility level, specially old people, high maintenance cost, more and different institutional placement expected on XXI century level.

• Suburban area: early ´90 started without city governance, orientation. Particular way –local bargain, eg.35 y→60y, no physical -mental interest and effort to enjoy the green. No big family, real estate supply!

• Border area: isolation →CBC, real estate boom, two ways flow, interactive contact zone, specially to Croatia, Ukraine, Slovakia.

Double global effects

1. from 2008 Schengen free flow area, and economical-financial crisis,

2. The western demographic behaviours spread versus the eastern structure. Fertility, causes of deaths.

3. Silver economy +elderly immigration to Hungary. Former Romanian emigrants gained Austrian citizenship and return to ethnic life.

Population by age structuresource: Budget Act

years Hungary total pop.

0–14 15-64 65-X Aged per working

Years old population number in thousands

2013 9.906 1429 6229 2078 21% 3,0

2020 9.757 1421 6064 2025 21% 3,0

2030 9.579 1349 5762 2000 21% 2,9

2040 9.337 1227 5265 2191 23% 2,4

2050 9.113 1131 4768 2345 26% 2,0

2060 7.996 1009 4108 2879 36% 1,8

13

Half of population lives in red lane Three national borders 3X3 structure

14

Productivity of individuals in a closed economy and in a market economy

1. Underinvest to accumulate intellectual capital during socialism.

2. FDI was able to recruit eligible HR from labour-market, but in 1993 opened job fairs, direct from universities.

3. Recently, over 30y by proven experience in CV, despite of having a residence and job they moved to abroad for carrier, for better life style, be cosmopolitan, take a chance…

15

Népesség százalékos változása településenként, 2041 (2011. október 1. népesség=100%)

16

- 75.3 75.4 - 88.3 88.4 - 104.2104.3 - 133.0133.1 -

Build environment • Social and technical infrastructure ↔ citizen right/severely disabled• Housing structure: expanded, but not appropriate to their age. • Internal mobility: permanent flow from East to West, South to Nord. 1950-60: activity modification from agriculture to industry, concentrated to Budapest. 1960-75: housing and employment motivation, state construction. 1975-90: urban network extension, block of houses and private construction on perspectives.1992-2007: employment to urban + suburban, no state investment in housing. 2008- beyond the border.

• new partnership had formed in housing in western border area. Eg.: car assembly company (e.g.: AUDI) + newly internal mobile worker ( Mr XY) + property owner (landlord)

• Emigration creats depopulated settlements. 17

Economical impact 1. IMF: social and regional disparities limit the sustainable

development. 2. Biological gain and loss. No social load in sending case. 3. Human development: graduation, skill, ability experience4. Living longer → late start and life events shift5. Immigrants pay more tax than their social claim,6. Tax paying foreigners 7% in capital, 3% other counties, loss from

emigration, 7. remittances received (2,3 b$)1,8% GDP 42. ranked, sent (1,1 b$)

0,9 % GDP 36. ranked. 8. Missing the tax payers therefore missing tax, the production is

not here!

18

Some question and re-mark

• Separate the pro-action policy from the re-action policy, for example early warning system.

• Increase and strengthen the capability to affiliate based on mutually agreements,

• How can we expect solution from an inflexible system?

• Who will compensate the difference and whether on economical or on social basis action?

19

REDEYMARI@GMAIL.COM

Thanks for your attention and remarks

20