At the professional debate held during the 64th Közgadász‑vándorgyűlés participants agreed that state support plays an important role in fostering innovation, but the mere availability of funds does not guarantee improved national innovation performance. Several speakers stressed that how support is designed and what incentives it creates for firms matter at least as much as the amount of money.
Main structural issues: concentration, low ambition, lack of trust, and system weaknesses
Panelists identified several structural challenges in the Hungarian innovation ecosystem:
- Strong Budapest concentration: innovation spending and activity are heavily concentrated in the capital, while regional performance—outside mainly university towns—is far weaker.
- SME ambition: some small and medium‑sized enterprises reach a certain size but struggle to grow further without more professional management, new capabilities or generational renewal.
- Lack of trust: collaboration is fundamental to innovation, yet low trust makes building lasting ecosystems and partnerships difficult.
- Weaknesses in the support system: long‑term, centralized financing and programs that subsidize equipment purchases for years without demanding measurable performance were criticized.
Design and transparency matter more than declaring strategic sectors
Jánoskuti Levente, head of McKinsey’s Budapest office, argued that it is not inherently wrong for the state to designate strategic sectors or technologies to focus on, but selection of individual “champion” companies must rely on competitive, transparent mechanisms. The form of support is equally important: he cited Singapore’s targeted AI programme where a central body pre‑screens AI tools useful for SMEs, makes them available for trial, and co‑funds the initial testing period — if the technology proves successful, firms then bear future costs.
International examples: targeted interventions that solve concrete problems
Several foreign models were mentioned to illustrate effective state action that addresses firm‑level problems:
- South Korea: the role of state support and deliberate capital accumulation in building large corporate players.
- Estonia: digital public administration that links state databases so citizens are not asked to resubmit information that already exists in government systems, enabling many services to be handled electronically.
These examples suggest that effective intervention focuses on problem solving and creating incentives for firms to take on risk, rather than financing unnecessary purchases over long periods.
Artificial intelligence: horizontal efficiency gains and sectoral transformation
AI was highlighted as a special case: Jánoskuti noted it can be applied across industries — in finance, accounting, HR and other back‑office functions — and thus deliver broad efficiency improvements. In some sectors, such as drug discovery, AI can fundamentally shorten R&D cycles and create significant economic value. Therefore policy should expand access not only to tools but also to the competencies needed to use them.
SME support: bottom‑up initiatives and practical training
Many contributors emphasized that the effectiveness of SME development depends on approach:
- Top‑down programmes are not always durable: some collaborations disappeared once state funding ceased.
- Practical, problem‑driven training works better: programmes where firms arrive with a concrete issue and leave with at least one usable solution were judged more effective.
- The SME sector is heterogeneous: interventions must reflect sectoral differences, firm size and specific problems.
Hankó Gergely (Managing Director, Környezetvédelmi Szolgáltatók és Gyártók Szövetsége) described how his association supports nearly 1,200 companies not by running its own training system but by acting as a quality filter and recommending reliable adult education, vocational and university programmes, and by operating working groups that emerged organically to foster regular peer learning.
Conclusion: the quality of support matters
A recurring conclusion of the debate was that the decisive factor is not the amount of money available but the effect support has:
- It should solve concrete business problems;
- Encourage firms to take real risks and allow advancement based on objective performance;
- Improve trust needed for collaboration;
- Be able to adapt quickly to technological and market changes.
Absent these features, even larger budgets are likely to do less to improve competitiveness and sustained innovation.
Note
The discussion took place against the backdrop of changing economic policy and upcoming elections; participants referenced related conferences and events, but their recommendations focused chiefly on the design and targeting of support measures.
