Can Hungarian tourism be successful at all without a modern, renewed strategy?

The question is no longer just who is leading Hungarian tourism, but rather whether we even know where it is headed.

What are the consequences of the government's lack of tourism strategy and its noticeable delay?

Imagine an airline with excellent pilots. They appoint a new CEO, reorganize the management, modernize the fleet, and launch a new marketing campaign. The operation seems flawless. There is one small thing missing: no one knows where the company is flying. There is no clear vision, no long-term strategy, no designated destination. Everyone does their job, but no one knows if they want to arrive at the same place. - Sounds absurd?

Yet, this analogy has come to mind more and more often in recent weeks, as our articles on the future of Hungarian tourism have been published on Szálloda.blog. We have dealt with the new leadership of the Hungarian Tourism Agency, examined the role of the Hungarian Hotels and Restaurants Association, analyzed in detail the tourism strategy of Switzerland , the practices of Austria and Slovenia, wrote about the missed opportunities of active tourism , Rail & Fly systems , the decline of regional air transport , and the increasingly spectacular challenges of Lake Balaton and Lake Velence . At first glance, these may seem like completely independent topics, but in fact they are pieces of the same puzzle.

At the end of each analysis, we came back to the same point. Not to the question of who should be the CEO of the MTÜ, who should lead the professional interest groups, or which political force is planning what organizational transformations. Much more to the fundamental dilemma that is surprisingly little discussed in domestic professional and political debates: do we even know what kind of tourism we want to build in Hungary in ten years?

Because today the most important question is no longer who leads Hungarian tourism, but whether we have a modern, long-term and broad professional consensus-based strategy that sets the direction for all decision-makers, institutions, municipalities and market players. If this is missing, we can easily end up in the same situation as the airline in the introduction: we may have excellent professionals, new leaders and well-functioning organizations, but without a common destination, sooner or later everyone will start pulling the wheel in a different direction.

Our neighbors weren't waiting for us.

The potential of Hungarian tourism remains exceptional. The international appeal of Budapest, Lake Balaton, Lake Velence, the Danube and the Tisza, the wealth of medicinal and thermal waters, the historic towns, the wine regions, the national parks, the cultural heritage, the gastronomy and the geographical location of the country provide a foundation on which many of our competitors would be happy to build. The problem is not that there are few attractions, but that they too rarely form a uniformly accessible, bookable, transport-connected and consistently managed tourism system.

In our analysis of the Swiss tourism strategy, we have just come to the conclusion that a significant part of Switzerland's competitive advantage is not a natural feature, but an organizational performance. Mountains do not coordinate schedules, lakes do not create a common ticket system, the panorama does not connect hotels, railways, shipping, museums and local producers. This requires a system in which tourism, mobility, regional economic development, sustainability and sales are not presented as independent state or market tasks.

Austria doesn't just want more tourists either. It consciously shapes seasonality, strengthens the spring and autumn periods, coordinates provincial and national goals, while rail, air transport, cycling, hiking, wellness, gastronomy and local services operate as part of the same tourism ecosystem. Slovenia, on the other hand, is not satisfied with a few well-sounding sustainability phrases, but has assigned measures, responsible parties and measurable goals to its strategy. These countries are not ahead of us because all their natural resources are better, but because they know what kind of tourism they want and adjust their daily decisions accordingly.

Hungary, on the other hand, still too often thinks in terms of projects instead of systems. We renovate an attraction, hand over a visitor center, support a hotel, launch a campaign, and then communicate each investment as an independent success story. However, a renovated building is not yet a destination, a new hotel is not yet a tourism strategy, and a commercial film is no substitute for functioning transport, unified sales, season extension, and cooperation between local service providers. As we showed in our article on Rail & Fly systems , the passenger does not see companies, sectors, and lines of responsibility, but experiences a single journey that either works or it does not.

The profession was not just expecting new names, but also new operations.

A significant number of tourism stakeholders had high hopes that the approach to tourism management could be renewed along with the political changes. During the NER period, it was at least understandable – even if we did not consider it acceptable – why the management of the sector was gradually centralized and dumbed down, why real professional dialogue was pushed into the background, and whose economic interests were served by the concentration of subsidies, developments, communication and decision-making. In our article on the missed opportunities of Hungarian active tourism, we have already pointed out that the decentralized model, strengthening local businesses and regional networks, was difficult to reconcile with a tourism policy that favored large investments, prominent actors and centrally distributed resources.

With the advent of TISZA, many people were therefore expecting not simply a change of government, but a professional turnaround. They hoped that tourism management would not continue to operate as a closed power and economic system, but would return to public professional debates, transparent decision-making, and dialogue with local governments, interest groups, and businesses. They did not expect a new logo, new nameplates, or different-colored presentations, but that it would finally become clear what role Hungary intended for tourism in its economic, transportation, rural, climate, and regional development policies.

These expectations were particularly well-founded by the role of Ágnes Forsthoffer. The party consistently positioned the vice-chair of the TISZA Party as a tourism expert who did not come to the sector from outside, but had experience in hotels, Lake Balaton and professional advocacy. Many players in the sector could therefore rightly think that her person could be a guarantee for increasing the weight of tourism and developing a modern policy concept.

However, Ágnes Forsthoffer has since become the Speaker of the Parliament and then temporarily the President of the Republic. This is undoubtedly a significant political and public law advance, but from the perspective of tourism, it has left behind new questions. We do not know what happened to the tourism ideas previously associated with her, who will continue to carry them forward, and who today represents at the government level the professional thinking on which the actors had previously placed such high hopes.

We read the program, but we couldn't find the tourism concept

That is why we read the 243-page government program of TISZA with special attention. We were not looking for a political position in it, and we were not examining whether we agree with individual economic, social or transport proposals. We wanted to get an answer to a simple question: what kind of tourism does the new government want to build in Hungary in the next ten years?

The document naturally contains elements related to Lake Balaton, thermal water resources, environmental protection, transport, the rural economy, small and medium-sized enterprises or digitalization. These are important, but they do not yet constitute a unified tourism strategy. It is not clear what role is intended for the MTÜ, what the future of the NTAK will be, how the Kisfaludy Program and the distribution of development funds will be transformed, how real destination management will be rebuilt, what national tourism marketing will be like, how the labor shortage will be addressed, what connection will be created between transport and tourism development, and what metrics will be used to evaluate performance.

We have not found a clear answer to what tourism position is intended for Budapest, Lake Balaton, Lake Venice, medical and health tourism, rural areas, active tourism, the conference market or regional airports. We do not know whether the success of future tourism can still be measured primarily in guest nights and record communication, or whether profitability, local added value, performance of shoulder seasons, regional balance, the employment situation, the quality of life of the local population and environmental impact will finally appear.

It is possible that the detailed policy concept is still being prepared or will be published in a separate document. However, tourism is not a distant end-of-cycle issue. The players in the sector have to make investment, employment, pricing, marketing and development decisions now, while they still do not see what long-term state and policy framework they should align themselves with.

Why is tourism so spectacularly under-positioned?

The first months of the new government's operation have not dispelled the uncertainty. We do not know who the deputy state secretary will be who will actually deal with the area on a daily basis, and why a sector of such economic, social, regional development and country image-shaping importance has been placed at such a low level in the government structure. We do not understand why István Kapitány, Minister of Economy and Energy, did not speak out on tourism issues, and why Ágnes Fábián, the state secretary overseeing the area, did not present how she envisions the management of the sector.

It is equally difficult to understand why an open competition was not held for the leadership of the Hungarian Tourism Agency. Olivér Csendes' professional experience and previous work do not in themselves make a transparent selection process unnecessary. In the case of a new, more transparent and professional government, it would have been particularly important to select a leader for the leadership position of the non-profit organization based on a public set of requirements, a professional competition, a clear mandate and accountable goals. Instead, we once again learned the name before the strategy he was to implement. Olivér Csendes was asked by István Kapitány to lead the non-profit organization, while the public has not yet been able to learn the comprehensive tourism policy mandate related to the appointment.

We could list the reasons further. Why was the organizational and professional model of the new tourism management not presented? What will be the role of Visit Hungary? How will the relationship between the non-profit organization and the local governments change? Will destinations be given real tasks again? What will be the place of interest groups? What data will be made public? When will real consultation with the profession begin? Why is there still no clear answer to what the new government wants to do with the sector that all political parties previously called of strategic importance?

The problem is not simply that we don't know all the names yet. It's more that we don't know the professional concept by which we can interpret the names and organizational levels. We're back to the airline analogy: we know who's in charge, but we can't see the destination.

Meanwhile, one of the weakest summer seasons is slowly winding down

While the policy direction remains unclear, the 2026 summer high season is slowly coming to an end. There is an increasing amount of mixed feedback about Lake Balaton, and it is clear that something is wrong. Reports of high prices, shortened stays, uncertain demand, extremely fluctuating traffic, weather exposure and weakness of shoulder seasons cannot be dismissed as communication misunderstandings or malicious press sentiment every year.

A significant part of rural tourism is not performing as well as it could based on the country's characteristics. Budapest's international achievements are important, but Hungarian tourism is not the same as Budapest. Rural destinations continue to struggle with seasonality, accessibility, labor shortages, weak regional cooperation, fragmented supply, short stay periods, and the fact that guests often still cannot find a single, easily purchasable chain of experiences.

Our analysis of Lake Velence has shown particularly clearly what happens when a destination's problems are not met with a systemic response, but with institutional silence. The low water level of the lake is a serious challenge in itself, but the tourism crisis is not caused solely by the lack of water. At least as serious is the lack of coordination, common regional communication, alternative experience offerings and real destination management. The guest does not think in terms of municipal boundaries, ministerial responsibilities or organizational structures. He simply decides whether to go to Lake Velence or choose another destination.

During the preparation of this article, we contacted the MTÜ, the relevant local governments, authorities, businesses and professional actors. We did not receive a substantive official response from the MTÜ, and the majority of local governments preferred to remain silent. This in itself revealed a lot about how tourism crisis management works today: responsibility shifts between several institutions, while guests, local entrepreneurs and employees immediately feel the consequences.

“Do we want to answer this?”

During the correspondence regarding the Lake Velence case, an internal MTÜ email was mistakenly forwarded to us, which essentially asked: "Do we want to respond to this?"

It was a single short sentence, yet it revealed more about the organizational culture than any carefully crafted press release. The problem is not the misplaced letter itself, but the NER attitude it reflects: a professional question is an inconvenience, a critical press is a potential adversary, and responding is not a natural public duty, but a considered communication favor.

This arrogance must be changed. A modern tourism management should not ask whether it wants to answer, but how it can communicate authentically, quickly and honestly. It is not necessary to agree with every criticism, and it is not necessary to assume good intentions behind every question, but a tourism organization operating with public funds and with national authority cannot handle professional problems by being silent.

Tourism does not belong to an agency, a ministry, a professional association or a political party. It is a common cause in which the state, local governments, businesses, employees, professional organizations, researchers and the media must engage in dialogue. The critical issue is not an attack, but an opportunity for explanation, correction and trust-building. If a new era has truly begun, the first sign of it will not be that new people are sitting in the old offices, but that the culture of operation will change.

Hungarian tourism, above all, suffers from a lack of trust

We often hear that the biggest problem of Hungarian tourism is the lack of money, the shortage of labor, or weak international marketing. These are all real problems, but behind them lies an even deeper problem: the lack of trust between the profession and decision-makers, the state and businesses, the center and the countryside, tourism institutions and the public.

Without trust, there is no honest situation assessment. If a communication record has to be made from every weak season, then the problems will not surface. If entrepreneurs only dare to speak anonymously, then there is no real professional discussion. If local governments do not respond because they are afraid of conflict or do not feel competent, then there is no regional cooperation. If the NGO sees the critical issue as a communication threat, then there is no partnership. However, a long-term strategy cannot be created, let alone implemented, without trust.

A good tourism strategy is not just a government document. It is a shared agreement on what kind of country we want to be, who we want to reach, what value we want to create, how the benefits of tourism will be shared, what kind of burden we consider acceptable, and what success means to us. It is not enough to say that we want more guest nights, higher revenue, and a stronger country image. We also need to determine where, when, from what kind of clientele, at what environmental and social cost, and based on what kind of transportation system, workforce, and local economy we want to achieve all of this.

Ten questions that every future tourism strategy must answer

A modern Hungarian tourism strategy cannot avoid clarifying the future and scope of the MTÜ, the use and disclosure of NTAK data, the transparent distribution of development grants, and the reconstruction of destination management. It must also provide clear answers on how it will address labor shortages and professional recruitment, what kind of tax and regulatory environment it will create for businesses, how it will connect rail, aviation, bus transport, cycling and local mobility with tourism products, and what indicators it will use to measure performance.

It also needs to be clarified who represents the profession and with what legitimacy, how the considerations of small and medium-sized enterprises, local governments, rural service providers and employees are included in decisions, and what institutional guarantees prevent tourism development from once again being reduced to a support system for a few prominent investors.

Above all, however, there is the most important question: what kind of Hungarian tourism do we want to see in 2035? More tourists or greater added value? Even stronger concentration in Budapest or more balanced regional development? Further large-scale investments or functioning regional networks? A short summer peak season or year-round demand? Cheap mass tourism or consciously positioned, quality offerings? A system in which the local population feels tourism is a burden, or one from which communities, employees and smaller businesses also noticeably benefit?

Until there is a common answer to these, all organizational restructuring, appointments, and marketing campaigns are at most a matter of detail.

Tourism is not a campaign topic, but a matter of national strategy

When we talk about tourism performance, the same numbers almost automatically come to mind: economic contribution, jobs, guest nights, airport passenger traffic, and tourism receipts. These are important indicators, but they do not fully tell the whole story of what tourism means to a country.

Tourism is the first impression of Hungary. The airport attendant, the train passenger, the bus driver, the taxi driver, the receptionist, the waiter, the chambermaid, the tour guide, the barmaid at Lake Balaton, the innkeeper at Lake Venice, the village innkeeper, the museum employee and the local producer all together shape the image that the guest takes home of the country. Tourism is therefore simultaneously economic policy, employment policy, regional development, transport, culture, environmental protection and a foreign policy image of the country.

That is why we cannot allow tourism to become a communication sideline of a deputy state secretariat, an internal matter of an agency or a financing issue for a few key investments. Tourism is not a campaign topic, not a personnel issue or a marketing project. It is a national strategic issue that requires a direction that is set out in advance for at least a decade, professionally grounded and spanning political cycles.

In recent months, we have been dealing so much with the MTÜ, the advocacy groups, the international strategies, the Rail & Fly systems, the regional airports, Lake Balaton and Lake Velence because these are not separate stories. They are parts of the same system. If we look at them one by one, we can find a short-term explanation for each. However, if we put the pieces together, a much more worrying picture emerges: Hungary has excellent tourism assets, professionals, businesses and successes, but it still does not have a modern, jointly agreed and consistently implemented strategy that would organize all of this in one direction.

We can argue about who will win the next election. We can also argue about who will lead the Hungarian Tourism Agency or who will be the next president of the Hungarian Hotel and Restaurant Association. However, there is one thing we should not argue about: Hungary needs a modern tourism strategy that sets the direction not for a single political cycle, but for at least a decade.

Because it's useless to change the train driver, it's useless to repaint the train, it's useless to buy new trains if we still don't know which station we're going to. Hungarian tourism today doesn't primarily need new drivers. But finally, a common destination.

About the author:

Tamás Pakuts has been actively involved in aviation and tourism for almost 35 years, and in the hotel industry and catering for more than 25 years.

As a manager and consultant, he had insight into the operations of several airlines, as well as hotels, hotel chains, and shipping companies, successfully taking on a role in their operational management, crisis management, and development.

He is currently present in many countries around the world with his colleagues as an expert, consultant, and trainer in the hotel industry and aviation, and he and his colleagues are working on the development of numerous new, internationally noteworthy projects.