Reform Programmes in Hungary: Lisbon Matters? There has been broad public debate launched about the NSRF and the NRP in Hungary. The number of different professional and civil organisations that commented both programmes is very high, and this process contributes to the credibility of the programmes. The NRP, and Lisbon in general, however, is still in the background for the broad public, while the NSRF, and recently the CP (and the related restrictive measures) get much more attention. Although the time span(2005-2008) coincides with the rapid increase of EU transfers, and, as a result of the elections in April 2006, there was no delay due to the national political cycle in this period 5 , the fact that the time span also coincides with the need for budgetary consolidation, is very important for the success or failure of the NRP. We will see only later whether there will be only restrictive measures or real budgetary/public sector reform, and what role under these circumstances there can be for development, and especially for the Lisbon objectives. What we can see already today is that while the Lisbon objectives ­concretised for Hungary in the NRP- are important to the country, the primary objectives are the possible most efficient use of available development transfers (at programme level, this is the task of the NSRF), and the change towards a credible and successful stabilisation of the public finances(at programme level, this is the task of the CP). Until there are no conflicts between the NRP and the two other programmes, the NRP objectives will probably be consistently followed, but it is not the NRP that has the lead- to answer the question in the title, it is not Lisbon in the first place that really matters. As similar situations can occur in other countries in Central and Eastern Europe as well, the Hungarian experiences of the actual period can also be interesting for new and future EU members. EPILOGUE FROM SIX MONTHS LATER This paper was first prepared for a conference dealing with actual questions concerning the Lisbon agenda, organised in May 2006, then finalised in the first 5. It has to be remarked that even in the case of a political change as a result of the general elections, no substantial changes regarding the content of the NRP could be expected(Szemlér, 2006). Despite the victory of the governing coalition, as part of the restructuring of the public administration, there have been changes in the institutional structure(the National Development Office has been replaced by the National Development Agency) as well as in the person responsible for the NSRF. 129