Tanulmányok Budapest Múltjából 28. (1999) – Urbanizáció a dualizmus korában: konferencia Budapest egyesítésének 125. évfordulója tiszteletére a Budapesti Történeti Múzeumban

A VÁROSI ÁTALAKULÁS KÉRDÉSEI ÉS SZÍNTEREI - Sipos András: Bárczy István és Karl Lueger : két polgármester a századforduló Monarchiájában 53-66

28. Albert LICHTBLAU: Wiener Wohnungspolitik 1892-1919. Wien, 1984.; Renate BANIK-SCHWEITZER: Die Kleinwohnungsfrage in Wien um die Jahrhundertwende. In: Juan Rodriguez-LORES-Gerhard FEHL (Hrsg.): Die Kleinwohnungsfrage. Zu den Ursprüngen des sozialen Wohnungsbaus in Europa. Hamburg, 1988,431-449. 29. Heinrich SCHNEE: Karl Lueger. Leben und Wirken eines grossen Sozial- und Kommunalpolitikers. Berlin, 1960,85. 30. GEEHR: Lueger, 288-293. 31. Brigitte HAMANN: Hitlers Wien. Lehrjahre eines Diktators. München, 1996,429. 32. A kérdés historiográfiáját áttkinti GEEHR: Lueger, 171-176. 33. KIELMANSEGG, 382. 34. BOYER: Culture and political crisis..., 28.; GEEHR: Lueger, 203. 35. Egyenlőség, 1923. szept. 1. 36. Jürgen REULECKE: Bildungsbürgertum und Kommunalpolitik im 19. Jahrhundert. In: Bildungsbürgertum im 19. Jahrhundert. Teil IV. Hrsg. von Jürgen Kocka. Stuttgart, 1989,138-145. ANDRÁS SIPOS ISTVÁN BÁRCZY AND KARL LUEGER: TWO MAYORS IN THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN MONARCHY AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY SUMMARY The last third of the 19th century and the early part of the twentieth century saw the change of functions in municipal administration. City administration, which had merely focused on maintaining the law and supervising town life, was replaced by city management, which then played an active and intervening role in trying to change and develop the municipal environment and living conditions in various forms. This change lay in the background and set the base for the appearance of a uniquely characteristic civil servant type: the outstanding mayor personality. In the late Monarchy, both rival cities, the country seat of Budapest and the capital of Vienna, provided two "great" mayors, István Bárczy (1906-1918) and Karl Lueger (1897-1910), who worked parallelly to each other for some time. The presentation offers a comparison of these two personalities and their offices, primarily from a social and municipal aspect. In Vienna, the mayor's office was a political job, whereas in Budapest it was considered a civil servant's job. Accordingly, Bárczy was appointed after a smoothly ascending and swift civil servant career, while Lueger took his post at the top of a political carrier previously marked with obstacles, fall-backs and restarts. Lueger acted primarily as a political integrator in the mayor position, while Bárczy was successful mainly because he managed to secure autonomous opportunities for his team of experts, who were highly knowledgable and were committed to social reforms. The approval for his attempts came from both the nobility of the national assembly and the central state bureaucrats. The social base of the municipal policy was a lot wider in Vienna than in Budapest, which explains why party politics has earlier beginnings in Vienna. Lueger came to power due to the breakthrough of the Christian Socialist Party movement, which had an antiliberal/anti-semite attitude and represented the joint interests of various middle-class groups in Vienna. The Monarchy started an entirely new chapter in municipal policy by using the municipality and its institutions as national political resources. The elements of both the technical innovations and city management expertise, which also characterized the municipal development of other major cities, were successfully and impressively displayed as political symbols. Lueger's "village socialism" however, did not include income redistribution for the welfare of the losers of the market economy. Basically, what they said was that the profit of successful state companies was to be secured for the budget of the municipalities instead of the plutocracy, thus sparing the population from further increases in their public rates and taxes. According to their view, the task of the city management was the maintenance of the general well-functioning and development of the infrastructure. However, they did not consider the job of the city management to take official responsibility for the individual resident's living conditions. Even with the support of executive measures, they were primarily committed to the political task of preserving the life-style of the Christian wealthy middle-class and the adjacent employee middle layers, considered as society's valuable breadwinners rooted in local municipalities. The task of social politics was mainly viewed as the support of social groups who were unable to care for themselves, and who were considered needy according to the traditional concept of charity. According to the views of Bárczy and his colleagues, city management fit into the comprehensive program of social and political democratization. It even had concepts which tended towards patterns of the modern welfare state. Behind the change in Budapest however, there were no new social power groups, which acquired new roles in municipal politics. Neither were certain social groups politically reoriented. Reform politics depended on the approval of the national as-