The Emergence of the Patronage State in Central Europe: The Case of FDI-Related Policies in Hungary Since 2010

  • Miklós SzanyiEmail author
Part of the International Political Economy Series book series (IPES)


Hungary was regarded a success story of FDI-led development model in Central and Eastern Europe during the 1990s. The country underwent fundamental economic changes which resulted in sound macroeconomic performance. Neighbouring countries could caught-up in FDI attraction instead of FDI transfers from the EU-fuelled economic growth. Critiques-dominated communication and support of selected local companies and clients increased. The capital attraction policy changed from normative to selective measures. Moreover, multinational businesses in trade, communication, and financial services were levied with various surcharges. The chapter analyses the new FDI management toolkit of the Hungarian government. The main conclusion is that the new policy is not a form of economic patriotism but rather a form of patronage in crony capitalism.


FDI FDI attraction Patronage Rent-seeking 


  1. Antalóczy, K., & Sass, M. (2015). Through Glass Darkly: The Content of Statistical Data on Foreign Direct Investment. Studies in International Economics, 1(1), 34–61.Google Scholar
  2. Antalóczy, K., Sass, M., & Szanyi, M. (2011). Policies for Attracting Foreign Direct Investment and Enhancing Its Spillovers to Indigenous Firms: The Case of Hungary. In E. Rugraff & M. W. Hansen (Eds.), Multinational Corporations and Local Firms in Emerging Economies (pp. 181–210). Amsterdam: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boycko, M., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1996). A Theory of Privatization. The Economic Journal, 106(3), 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clift, B., & Woll, C. (2012). Economic Patriotism: Reinventing Control Over Open Markets. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(3), 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drahokoupil, J. (2008). Who Won the Contest for a New Property Class? Structural Transformation of Elites in the Visegrád Four Region. Journal for East European Management Studies, 13(4), 360–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drahokoupil, J., Van Apeldorn, B., & Horn, L. (2008). Introduction. In B. Van Apeldorn, J. Drahokoupil, & L. Horn (Eds.), Contradictions and Limits of Neoliberal European Governance: From Lisbon to Lisbon. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  7. Dunning, J. H. (1988). The Eclectic Paradigm if International Production – A Restatement and Some Possible Extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunning, J. H. (2001). The Eclectic (OLI) Paradigm of International Production: Past, Present and Future. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(2), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frydman, R., & Rapaczynski, A. (1994). Privatization in Eastern Europe: Is the State Withering Away? Budapest: Central European University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Helleiner, E., & Pickel, A. (Eds.). (2005). Economic Nationalism in a Globalizing World. Itacha: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Iwasaki, I., & Tokunaga, M. (2014). Macroeconomic Impacts of FDI in Transition Economies: A Meta-Analysis. World Development, 61(9), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalotay, K., & Sass, M. (2012, October 18). Inward FDI in Hungary and Its Policy Context. Columbia FDI Profiles. Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment.Google Scholar
  13. Kozarzewski, P., & Baltowski, M. (2016). Change in Economic Policy Paradigm: Privatization and State Capture in Poland. CASE Research Paper No. 3, p. 127.Google Scholar
  14. Laki, M. (2002). A nagyvállalkozók tulajdonszerzési esélyeiről a szocializmus után (About Chances of Obtaining Property by Entrepreneurs After Socialism). Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review-Monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), 49.1(2002), 45–58.Google Scholar
  15. Laki, M., & Szalai, J. (2013). Tíz évvel később – a magyar nagyvállalkozók európai környezetben [Ten Years After: Hungarian Entrepreneurs in European Environment]. Budapest: Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány.Google Scholar
  16. Levy, J. (Ed.). (2006). The State After Statism: New State Activities in the Age of Liberalization. Oxford: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. McDermott, G. A. (2002). Embedded Politics: Industrial Networks and Institutional Change in Post-Communism. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mihályi, P. (2010). A Magyar privatizáció enciklopédiája [Encyclopedia of Hungarian Privatization]. Budapest: Pannon Egyetemi Könyvkiadó – MTA KTI, 1–2.Google Scholar
  19. Mihályi, P. (2015). A privatizált vagyon visszaállamosítása Magyarországon 2010–2014 [Re-nationalization of Privatized Property in Hungary 2010–2014]. KTI Discussion Paper, MTDP 2015/7.Google Scholar
  20. Naczyk, M. (2014, July 15). Budapest in Warsaw: Central European Business Elites and the Rise of Economic Patriotism Since the Crisis. Sciences Po Paris.
  21. Nölke, A., & Vliegenthart, A. (2009). Enlarging the Varieties of Capitalism: The Emergence of Dependent Market Economies in East Central Europe. World Politics, 61(4), 670–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rapaczynski, A. (1996). The Roles of State Property and the Market in Establishing Property Rights. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(2), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schoenman, R. (2014). Networks and Institutions in Europe’s Emerging Markets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stark, D. (1996). Recombinant Property in East European Capitalism. American Journal of Sociology, 101(4), 492–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stark, D., & Bruszt, L. (1998). Postsocialist Pathways: Transforming Politics and Property in East Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Szanyi, M. (1996). Adaptive Steps by Hungary’s Industries During the Transition Crisis. Eastern European Economics, 34(5), 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Szanyi, M. (2002, May). Spillover Effects and Business Linkages of Foreign-Owned Firms in Hungary. IWE Working Paper No. 126.Google Scholar
  28. Szanyi, M. (2003, December). An FDI-Based Development Model for Hungary – New Challenges? IWE Working Paper No. 141.Google Scholar
  29. Szanyi, M. (2016a). The Reversal of the Privatization Logic in Central European Transition Economies: An Essay. Acta Oeconomica, 66(1), 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Szanyi, M. (2016b). The FDI-led Development Model Revisited? IWE Working Paper No. 220.Google Scholar
  31. Szentes, T. (Ed.) (2005–2006). Fejlődés, versenyképesség, globalizáció [Development, Competitiveness, Globalization]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
  32. TIH. (2014). Lifting the Lid on Lobbying. Strategic Partnership Agreements in an Uncertain Business and Regulatory Environment. National Report of Hungary, Transparency International Hungary.Google Scholar
  33. Yakovlev, A. (2006). The Evolution of Business – State Interaction in Russia: From State Capture to Business Capture? Europe-Asia Studies, 58(07), 1033–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of World EconomicsHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary
  2. 2.University of SzegedBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations