IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nos/vgmu00/2021i6p84-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development Through Intervention? Revisiting Criticism Of Hungarian Democracy

Author

Listed:
  • Marton Gellen

Abstract

Hungarian public administration culture has traditionally been considered as overtly legalistic and proceduralist, which appears to be in contrast with claims of weakening the rule of law or facing sanctions under Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union. This article offers an overview on the criticisms put forth by academic writers and EU institutions regarding the Hungarian development path and puts them into the wider context of democratization through transaction (transitology, democracy export) theory. The article compares findings of contemporary interventionist authors with the propositions of such iconic writers as Dankwart Rustow (1970) and Samuel P. Huntington (1984) and attempts to connect the dots between these realms of thought. These authors all share the view that democracy shall be exported the more and quicker the better. Transitology, though, has had its critics, while contemporary interventionist theory appears to be rather monolithic without considerable criticism. The article uses the approach of Payne (2006), and of other authors, to question various statements of contemporary interventionists.Not least, recent developments in Afghanistan provide historical evidence that the ambitions of transactional democratisation are predetermined to fall short on non-democratic institutions imposing democracy using non-democratic measures on recipients of various sorts.

Suggested Citation

  • Marton Gellen, 2021. "Development Through Intervention? Revisiting Criticism Of Hungarian Democracy," Public administration issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 6, pages 84-102.
    • Handle: RePEc:nos:vgmu00:2021:i:6:p:84-102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://vgmu.hse.ru/data/2021/11/16/1443576801/6_Bloc_Engl_2_6_21.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mitcham, Carl & Emeritus,, 2021. "Science policy and democracy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    2. Lipset, Seymour Martin, 1959. "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy1," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 69-105, March.
    3. Christopher Pollitt, 2003. "Public Management Reform: Reliable Knowledge and International Experience," OECD Journal on Budgeting, OECD Publishing, vol. 3(3), pages 121-134.
    4. repec:idb:brikps:publication-detail,7101.html?id=68561 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Ramona Coman, 2014. "Quo Vadis Judicial Reforms? The Quest for Judicial Independence in Central and Eastern Europe," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 66(6), pages 892-924, July.
    6. Daivd S. Bernstein & James H. Anderson & Cheryl W. Gray, 2005. "Judicial Systems in Transition Economies : Assessing the Past, Looking to the Future," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 7351.
    7. Christopher Pollitt, 2003. "Public Management Reform: Reliable Knowledge and International Experience," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 80370, Inter-American Development Bank.
    8. Ropret Marko & Aristovnik Aleksander & Kovač Polonca, 2018. "A Content Analysis of the Rule of Law within Public Governance Models: Old vs. New EU Member States," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 11(2), pages 129-152, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mark Christensen, 2007. "What We Might Know (But Aren't Sure) About Public-Sector Accrual Accounting," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 17(41), pages 51-65, March.
    2. Javed Miraj & Zhuquan Wang, 2021. "Factors Influencing the Implementation of International Public Sector Accounting Standards in Pakistan," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, July.
    3. Satu Kalliola & Tuula Heiskanen & Riikka Kivimäki, 2019. "What Works in Democratic Dialogue?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Gellén Márton, 2014. "From Overdecentralization to Overcentralization ? Hungarian Experience in Handling the Crisis at the Local Level," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 7(2), pages 51-69, December.
    5. Robert MacCulloch & Silvia Pezzini, 2010. "The Roles of Freedom, Growth, and Religion in the Taste for Revolution," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 329-358, May.
    6. Jian-Guang Shen, 2002. "Democracy and growth: An alternative empirical approach," Development and Comp Systems 0212002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Johannes W. Fedderke & John M. Luiz, 2005. "Does Human Generate Social and Institutional Capital? Exploring Evidence From Time Series Data in a Middle Income Country," Working Papers 029, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    8. Ahmet Faruk AYSAN & Mustapha Kamel NABLI & Marie‐Ange VÉGANZONÈS‐VAROUDAKIS, 2007. "Governance Institutions And Private Investment: An Application To The Middle East And North Africa," The Developing Economies, Institute of Developing Economies, vol. 45(3), pages 339-377, September.
    9. Torsten Persson & Guido Tabellini, 2009. "Democratic Capital: The Nexus of Political and Economic Change," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 88-126, July.
    10. Yong Glasure & Aie-Rie Lee & James Norris, 1999. "Level of economic development and political democracy revisited," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 5(4), pages 466-477, November.
    11. Emilia Justyna Powell & Steven Christian McDowell & Robert O’Brien & Julia Oksasoglu, 2021. "Islam-based legal language and state governance: democracy, strength of the judiciary and human rights," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 376-412, September.
    12. Pauline Grosjean & Claudia Senik, 2011. "Democracy, Market Liberalization, and Political Preferences," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(1), pages 365-381, February.
    13. Annette N. Brown & Drew B. Cameron & Benjamin D. K. Wood, 2014. "Quality evidence for policymaking: I'll believe it when I see the replication," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 215-235, September.
    14. Pettersson, Jan, 2003. "Democracy, Consolidation and Growth," Research Papers in Economics 2002:16, Stockholm University, Department of Economics, revised 15 Dec 2004.
    15. Ruiz Pozuelo, Julia & Slipowitz, Amy & Vuletin, Guillermo, 2016. "Democracy Does Not Cause Growth: The Importance of Endogeneity Arguments," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 7758, Inter-American Development Bank.
    16. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Academic vs. biological age in research on academic careers: a large-scale study with implications for scientifically developing systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3543-3575, June.
    17. Leandro Prados de la Escosura, 2023. "Inequality Beyond GDP: A Long View," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 69(3), pages 533-554, September.
    18. Daron Acemoglu & Tuomas Pekkarinen & Kjell G. Salvanes & Matti Sarvimäki, 2021. "The Making of Social Democracy: The Economic and Electoral Consequences of Norway’s 1936 Folk School Reform," NBER Working Papers 29095, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Mark Gradstein & Branko Milanovic, 2004. "Does Libertè = Egalité? A Survey of the Empirical Links between Democracy and Inequality with Some Evidence on the Transition Economies," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(4), pages 515-537, September.
    20. Shashi Kant Srivastava & Verma Deepika Chandra & Srinivas Jangirala & Janardan Krishna Yadav, 2024. "The Genesis of the Crypto-economy: Application of the Institutional Theory," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 49(3), pages 244-256, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nos:vgmu00:2021:i:6:p:84-102. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Irina A. Zvereva (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://vgmu.hse.ru/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.