Suchergebnisse

East-Central European countries have been hit by the economic crisis especially hard. This article argues that reactions to the crisis by the Hungarian government of Viktor Orbán have been distinct in several ways. The crisis has been used by the cabinet as a rationale to carry out paradigmatic reforms in nearly all policy fields within a very short period of time while the two-thirds parliamentary majority provided an opportunity for this. There have been no widespread protests and no veto players have prevented the implementation of reforms, partly because checks and balances, including the Constitutional Court, have been put aside. The direction of reforms has been diffuse and often contradictory, consisting of neo-liberal, étatist and neo-conservative elements. Early assessment of changes indicates the increasing polarization of society not only in terms of income but also of ethnicity.

This article analyses the first Hungarian social insurance law, enacted in 1891, which made health insurance compulsory for all industrial employees (including commercial clerks) in Hungary. Its timing and content suggest that it was modelled on German and Austrian legislation. But, in contrast to Germany and Austria (where the implementation of the legislation was quite successful), implementation of the legislation in Hungary encountered several difficulties. This is the reason why the proportion of de facto insured individuals in Hungary was much less than in Austria and Germany. The article attempts, first, to fit Hungarian social insurance legislation into the wider context of European welfare development. It gives a precise definition of de jure insured persons with particular reference to the situation of day labourers. It then analyses some organisational issues, e.g. the funding of the 'district insurance offices', and the crucial problem of establishing an effective procedure for collecting contributions. The failure of the latter and the shortage of doctors led to failures in implementation. By the turn of the century, the majority of the de jure insured had not become de facto insured and many of those who were insured did not get sufficient health provision. The first problem was a long lasting one: if one compares the proportion of insured persons in Austria and Hungary over time, the difference actually widens in the period before World War II.

In this paper we try to fit the figures of the first Hungarian social security arrangements into the Western-European trends. We concentrate on the date of introduction of such schemes and the coverage of industrial and factory workers. The major finding is that the beginnings of the Hungarian compulsory social security legislation were not belated compared to Western countries. At the same time we see differences which the paper attempts to explain.

This article documents and compares the social policies that the governments in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) implemented to combat the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic by focusing on Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia. Our findings show that governments in all four countries reacted to the COVID-19 crisis by providing extensive protection for jobs and enterprises. Differences arise when it comes to solidaristic policy responses to care for the most vulnerable population, in which CEE countries show great variation. We find that social policy responses to the first wave of COVID-19 have largely depended on precious social policy trajectories as well as the political situation of the country during the pandemic.

Résumé Cet article entend proposer un cadre conceptuel pour appréhender les dispositifs de welfare à l'œuvre sous le régime socialiste. Bien qu'il faille les modifier sur plus d'un point, on s'appuiera sur les approches théoriques développées à propos des démocraties capitalistes de l'Ouest. Les principaux travaux auxquels nous nous référons sont ceux de Marshall sur la citoyenneté et ceux d'Esping-Andersen sur le processus de démarchandisation découlant des politiques sociales. Les concepts de nationalisme et de familialisme nous sont apparus très heuristiques pour analyser le welfare à l'ère socialiste. Les études de cas portent sur la Hongrie et la Pologne — deux pays ayant emprunté des voies très différentes en matière de welfare .

Mainstream western-centric welfare state research has mostly confined itself to studying social policy in consolidated democracies and tends to assume a synergy between democracy and the welfare state. This article shifts the focus to welfare states in countries with declining democratic institutions and rising right-wing populist rule to explore a complex relationship between (de)democratization and welfare state reforms. We conduct a comparative case study of two extreme cases of democratic decline, Turkey and Hungary. We employ a sequential mixed method approach. First, we assess welfare efforts in the two countries to understand which policy areas were prioritized and whether autocratizing governments retrenched or expanded their welfare states. In the second stage, we explore the trajectory of welfare reforms in Hungary and Turkey, focusing on three analytically distinguishable dimensions of social policy change: policy content, policy procedures (including timing, parliamentary procedures, veto players); and the discourses accompanying reforms. We find that democratic decline facilitates rapid welfare state change but it does not necessarily mean retrenchment. Instead we observe ambivalent processes of welfare state restructuring. Common themes emerging in both countries are the rise of flagship programmes that ensure electoral support, a transition towards top-down decision-making and the salient role of discourse in welfare governance. Overall, similarities are stronger in procedures and discourse than in the direction of reforms. Differences in spending levels and policy content do not suggest that the two cases constitute a coherent illiberal welfare state regime. Instead, we see the emergence of authoritarian features that modify their original welfare models.

"Mothers, Families, or Children? is the first comparative-historical study of family policies in Poland, Hungary, and Romania from 1945 until the eve of the global pandemic in 2020. The book highlights the emergence, consolidation, and perseverance of three types of family policies based on "mother-orientation" in Poland, "family orientation" in Hungary, and "child-orientation" in Romania. It uses a new theoretical framework to identify core and contingent clusters of benefits and services in each country and trace their development across time and under different political regimes, before and after 1989. It also examines and compares policy continuity and change with special attention to institutions, ideas, and actors involved in decision making and reform. As family policies continue to evolve in the era of European Union membership and new governmental and societal actors emerge, this study reveals mechanisms that help preserve core family policy clusters while allowing reform in contingent ones in each country"--

The rise of populist governance throughout the world offers a novel opportunity to study the way in which populist leaders and parties rule. This article conceptualises populist policy making by theoretically addressing the substantive and discursive components of populist policies and the decision-making processes of populist governments. It first reconstructs the implicit ideal type of policy making in liberal democracies based on the mainstream governance and policy making scholarship. Then, taking stock of the recent populism literature, the article elaborates an ideal type of populist policy making along the dimensions of content, procedures and discourses. As an empirical illustration we apply a qualitative congruence analysis to assess the conformity of a genuine case of populist governance, social policy in post-2010 Hungary with the populist policy making ideal type. Concerning the policy content, the article argues that policy heterodoxy, strong willingness to adopt paradigmatic reforms and an excessive responsiveness to majoritarian preferences are distinguishing features of any type of populist policies. Regarding the procedural features populist leaders tend to downplay the role of technocratic expertise, sideline veto-players and implement fast and unpredictable policy changes. Discursively, populist leaders tend to extensively use crisis frames and discursive governance instruments in a Manichean language and a saliently emotional manner that reinforces polarisation in policy positions. Finally, the article suggests that policy making patterns in Hungarian social policy between 2010 and 2018 have been largely congruent with the ideal type of populist policy making.

The rise of populist governance throughout the world offers a novel opportunity to study the way in which populist leaders and parties rule. This article conceptualises populist policy making by theoretically addressing the substantive and discursive components of populist policies and the decision-making processes of populist governments. It first reconstructs the implicit ideal type of policy making in liberal democracies based on the mainstream governance and policy making scholarship. Then, taking stock of the recent populism literature, the article elaborates an ideal type of populist policy making along the dimensions of content, procedures and discourses. As an empirical illustration we apply a qualitative congruence analysis to assess the conformity of a genuine case of populist governance, social policy in post-2010 Hungary with the populist policy making ideal type. Concerning the policy content, the article argues that policy heterodoxy, strong willingness to adopt paradigmatic reforms and an excessive responsiveness to majoritarian preferences are distinguishing features of any type of populist policies. Regarding the procedural features populist leaders tend to downplay the role of technocratic expertise, sideline veto-players and implement fast and unpredictable policy changes. Discursively, populist leaders tend to extensively use crisis frames and discursive governance instruments in a Manichean language and a saliently emotional manner that reinforces polarisation in policy positions. Finally, the article suggests that policy making patterns in Hungarian social policy between 2010 and 2018 have been largely congruent with the ideal type of populist policy making.

This special issue of Intersections. EEJSP is dedicated to some of the central concerns of contemporary sociology: recognition, rights, and redistribution. These are three interrelated and often contrasted subjects that have occupied a special place in the works of Júlia Szalai, one of Hungary's leading sociologists. Szalai, besides being an early pioneer of sociological research in her own country, is also well known outside Hungary for her international and comparative investigations of inequality and poverty, her research on ethnic minorities, and especially the Roma, as well as her work on the welfare state. Her research has involved close co-operation with colleagues from all over Europe from Scotland to Sweden, from Slovakia to Romania and Serbia. This is why, besides a special issue being dedicated to her in Socio.hu: Social Science Review in Hungarian, a 'twin-issue' of Intersections. EEJSP is also being published to allow her friends and colleagues from around Europe to celebrate Júlia Szalai on her birthday. Intersections. EEJSP and Socio.hu are both on-line social science journals based within the Hungarian Academy of Sciences where Szalai started her research career in the 1970s, and where she has served as Professor Emerita in recent years while also teaching and undertaking research at the Central European University. These two journal special issues thus also symbolize the gratitude of the Center for Social Sciences, and within this, the Institute for Sociology, to Szalai for the teaching and inspiration her colleagues and friends have received from her for nearly half a century.