Bethlen Gábor Fund

Individual grants to 'nationally significant' institutions — at 35,560 mFt the largest Fund line item, allocated outside the competitive process. The chapter analysis notes the absence of a published recipient list. Public-choice theory predicts that non-competitive grants of this scale will reflect proximity to ministerial decision-makers rather than measurable cultural output. Year-1 action is mandatory recipient-list publication; from Year 3, conversion to competitive process. Eliminating non-competitive allocation does not eliminate diaspora cultural support — it disciplines its distribution. This costs each SZJA payer roughly 7,902 Ft per year.

A per-student grant of 100,000 Ft/year to approximately 229,000 ethnic Hungarian students in neighbouring states for Hungarian-language schooling. The phase-out transitions this to a community-managed endowment model — civil organisations elected by the diaspora community itself allocate funds, rather than the Hungarian ministry. Estonia's Cultural Endowment, governed by community-elected councils across minority-culture fields, is the comparator. Per-student state grants are appropriate in principle; the governance model that bypasses diaspora civil society in favour of ministry discretion is not.

Határtalanul! — subsidised cross-border study trips for approximately 50,000 seventh-grade Hungarian students annually. Year-1 saving from introducing a means-tested 20% co-payment for above-median-income families; full saving by Year 5 through transition to a competitive school-application grant model. The cultural-education rationale is genuine; the subsidy design — universal, regardless of family income — is not. Families who can afford the co-payment should pay it. Families who cannot remain fully subsidised. This preserves the educational purpose while reducing the regressive cross-subsidy.

Fund administration costs — staff, IT, and governance for the Bethlen Gábor Alapkezelő Zrt. A nominal freeze is appropriate, pending the governance reform that converts LXV-E4 to competitive allocation. Administrative costs should contract as the grant portfolio is restructured; a flat nominal freeze prevents expansion while the reform is designed. The FSI's preferred model is a leaner secretariat supporting community-elected grant boards, materially reducing the Alapkezelő's discretionary role.

Social support grants for Hungarian diaspora communities in neighbouring states — hardship payments and social assistance for ethnic Hungarians facing genuine poverty. A nominal freeze is appropriate for a genuine social-safety-net function: the FSI does not contest state support for diaspora Hungarians in hardship. The reform argument is for means-testing and transparent eligibility criteria, not elimination. At 2,785 mFt this is the most defensible line in the chapter; the nominal freeze preserves real value erosion as a mild discipline.

Operating support for the Rákóczi Association — a civil organisation with 28,000 members and 500 branches coordinating diaspora cultural, educational, and community activities. The FSI applies a nominal freeze rather than a cut: civil organisations with this scale of genuine community membership have a plausible claim on modest state support, and the Rákóczi Association's voluntary membership base provides some accountability signal that purely state-appointed bodies lack. The preferred long-run instrument is the endowment model, where the Association draws income from an invested corpus rather than annual budget allocations.

Competitive grant support allocated through an application process — the most legitimately governed element of the Fund. A nominal freeze preserves this line while eliminating the non-competitive grant element (LXV-E4). If the Fund transitions to a fully competitive grant model, this envelope should expand proportionally. Competitive allocation is the FSI's preferred governance instrument for cultural and civil-society grants: organisations that cannot attract competitive funding reveal a preference divergence between their activity and genuine diaspora community demand.

Thematic programme support — a residual discretionary line with no sub-classification and no recipient transparency. The chapter analysis classifies this as an uncharacterised remainder. The absence of programmatic definition is itself the public-choice red flag: opaque residual discretionary lines fund political priorities that cannot survive transparent scrutiny. Any specific programme within this envelope may reapply under the competitive process (LXV-E3). Eliminate immediately. At 729 mFt this costs each SZJA payer roughly 162 Ft per year.

Support for the House of Hungarianness (Magyarság Háza) programme — cultural identity programming aimed at diaspora and foreign audiences. A nominal freeze is appropriate at 180 mFt — the amount is small and the function (promoting Hungarian cultural heritage) has a plausible public-good dimension for a country with substantial diaspora communities. The preferred reform is absorbing this into the competitive grant framework rather than maintaining it as a separate programme line with dedicated budget allocation.