Tamás Szemlér been said, it has- by its nature- a very close and organic connection to the NSRF. This connection makes the two programmes not simply overlapping(which, in itself, could also be a disadvantage, as it could be evaluated as a duplication of programmes), but- due to the difference in the time frames- potential divergences from NRP objectives(until 2008) can help actions initiated to correct the same aspects(if they are relevant) in the NSRF(lasting until 2013). Thus, the NRP contributes to the exercise of“continuous planning”; different programmes are built on each other, and provide several reference points and benchmarks, in order to check their success. This is very important in a country ­and this is valid not only for Hungary, but for all the new and future EU members from Central and Eastern Europe- where“planning” was something “suspicious”, and thus quite pushed into the background in the 1990s, and it came into fashion again only by the end of that decade, due to the prospect and the pre-conditions for EU accession 4 . An interesting question- also related not especially to Hungary, but for all member states- is whether EU structural policy will be“Lisbonised” in the future(in the sense that Lisbon objectives will have an increasingly important place in structural operations, and thus they can menace traditional structural policy objectives). There can be such fears within the European Commission and in the member states, as well, but if NSRF priorities reflect the real needs of a country, it is not necessarily a problem for the given member state. Problems can arise if objectives and measures are not coordinated; in such a case, due to the very limited available EU financing, it will be very probably in the case of the NRP that measures and success can be endangered. In the case of Hungary, such a situation seems to be unlikely at the moment. Although financial constraints are important, and they are expected to remain so for some time, the high degree of coordination between the NSRF and the NRP provides a solid background(potential changes in the public administration, however, can endanger this situation, but at the moment, there is no experience about how the reorganisation of ministries will affect this coordination in practice). 4. This was only partly a consequence of the rejection of(even the rhetorical) heritage of the centrally planned economic system; due to the very rapid changes(creation of fundamental market economy institutes, opening up of the economy, structural and geographical reorientation of trade, etc.),“strategies” in the early 1990s served mainly to manage these changes. Mid-term strategies(industrial policy concepts) appeared in Hungary again from the second half of the 1990s. 128