Advertisement

The Downturn of Gender Diversity on Boards in Hungary

  • Beáta Nagy
  • Henriett Primecz
  • Péter Munkácsi
Chapter

Abstract

Hungary, similarly to other post-socialist countries, does not regulate the gender diversity of companies, and this leads to women’s serious underrepresentation on corporate boards. The historical aversion to central regulation of social matters derives from the legacy of forced emancipation in the socialist period. This chapter discusses the contradictory impact of forced emancipation in Hungary and the limited probability of introducing legal regulations regarding gender diversity. It gives a thorough overview of present legal regulations, contains statistical data on gender representation on company boards and also includes an expert interview on the possible solutions to increase women’s participation. The research findings show that the socialist state prioritised women’s emancipation, many institutions were established to facilitate women’s full-time labour force participation and the figure of female managers was well-known. However, socialism lost its positive connotations in public discourse shortly after the system change, and delegitimised the issues connected to gender equality in political and policy fields. Consequently, the unsupportive social environment and the conservative turn in the Hungarian gender culture have not encouraged any changes in the legal framework. Moreover, the expert interviewee questions the importance and utility of legal regulations. At present, the most influential way to spread gender equality remains the internationalisation of companies: EU-driven policy and legal frames and multinational companies might promote gender equality in management and on corporate boards.

References

  1. Angyal, Á. (2001). Vállalati kormányzás [Corporate governance]. Budapest: Aula.Google Scholar
  2. Bohle, D., & Greskovits, B. (2012). Capitalist diversity on Europe’s periphery. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Czajlik, I., & Vincze, J. (2004). Corporate law and corporate governance. The Hungarian experience (KTK/IE discussion paper 2004/11). Institute of Economics Hungarian Academy of Sciences. http://econ.core.hu/doc/dp/dp/mtdp0411.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2016.
  4. European Commission. (2012). Women in economic decision-making in the EU: Progress report. A Europe 2020 initiative. Luxembourg: European Union. doi: 10.2838/65541 Google Scholar
  5. European Commission. (2013). Barcelona objectives. The development of childcare facilities for young children in Europe with a view to sustainable and inclusive growth. Luxembourg: European Union. doi: 10.2838/43161 Google Scholar
  6. European Commission. (2016a). Gender balance on corporate boards. Europe is cracking the glass ceiling. Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/gender_balance_decision_making/1607_factsheet_final_wob_data_en.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2016.
  7. European Commission. (2016b). Country report Hungary 2016 including an in-depth review on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances. Commission Staff Working Document. SWD(2016) 85 final. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/csr2016/cr2016_hungary_en.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2016.
  8. European Commission. (2016c). Report on equality between women and men 2015. European Union. doi: 10.2838/14515
  9. European Commission. (2016d). She figures 2015. gender in research and innovation. Luxembourg: European Union. doi: 10.2777/744106 Google Scholar
  10. Eurostat. (2016). Employment statistics. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Employment_statistics. Accessed 18 July 2016.
  11. EWSDGE. (2016). Women shareholders demand gender equality. Project Report. http://www.ewsdge.eu/
  12. Fodor, É. (2004). The state socialist emancipation project: Gender inequality in workplace authority in Hungary and Austria. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 29(3), 783–813. doi: 10.1086/381103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gal, S., & Kligman, G. (2000). The politics of gender after socialism: A comparative-historical essay. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glass, C., & Fodor, É. (2011). Public maternalism goes to market recruitment, hiring, and promotion in postsocialist Hungary. Gender & Society, 25(1), 5–26. doi: 10.1177/0891243210390518 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. HBLF. (2014). 202020 club research on gender equality among the TOP200 companies in 2014. Hungarian Business Leaders Forum, Carried out by BISNODE, under the supervision of Beáta Nagy.Google Scholar
  16. Hungary Economic Outlook. (2016). Hungary economic outlook July 5. http://www.focus-economics.com/countries/hungary. Accessed 5 July 2016.
  17. Kovács, M. (2007). Nemi sztereotípiák, nemi ideológiák és karrier aspirációk [Gender Stereotypes, gender ideologies and career aspirations]. Educatio, 16(1), 99–114.Google Scholar
  18. Ilonszki, G. (2014). “Jó kormányzás és a nemek egyenlősége. Magyarországi helyzetjelentés” [Good governance and gender equality. Report on Hungary]. In B. Juhász (Ed.), A nőtlen évek ára. A nők közpolitikai elemzése 1989–2013 [The price of the years without women. Analysis of female participation in public policies 1989–2013]. Budapest: Magyar Női Érdekérvényesítő Szövetség.Google Scholar
  19. Nagy, B. (2012). Women in management—The Hungarian case. In C. Fagan, M. G. Menéndez, & S. G. Ansón (Eds.), Women on corporate boards and in top management: European trends and policy (pp. 221–244). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Palgrave Book Series: Work and Welfare in Europe.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nagy, B., & Vicsek, L. (2014). Exploring gender culture at a telecommunications company. Gender in management. An International Journal, 29(6), 318-333. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/GM-01-2014-0008
  21. Nagy, B., Király, G., & Géring, Z. (2016). Work-life balance and gender regime after the economic transition. Intersections. EEJSP, 2(3), 5–20. doi: 10.17356/ieejsp.v2i3.283 Google Scholar
  22. National Gender Strategy. (2010). Kormány 1004/2010. (I. 21.) Korm. határozata a Nők és Férfiak Társadalmi Egyenlőségét Elősegítő Nemzeti Stratégia—Irányok és Célok 2010–2021 [Government Decree 1004/2010 (I.21.) on National Strategy about the Social Equality between Women and Men—Directions and Targets 2010–2021], Magyar Közlöny MK 2010/5 6333 old.Google Scholar
  23. Neményi, M., & Takács, J. (2016). Main breadwinner women in Hungary and their work-family balance related coping strategies. Intersections. EEJSP, 2(3), 97–117. doi: 10.17356/ieejsp.v2i3.170 Google Scholar
  24. Pongrácz, T., & S. Molnár, E. (2011). Nemi szerepek és a közvélemény változásának kölcsönhatása [Interaction of gender roles and changing public opinion]. In I. Nagy, T. Pongrácz & I. Gy.Tóth (Eds.), Szerepváltozások: Jelentés a nők és férfiak helyzetéről [Changing Roles: Report on the Situation of Women and Men] (pp. 192–206). Budapest: TÁRKI.Google Scholar
  25. Szelényi, I. (1995). “Menedzser-kapitalizmus: a gazdasági intézményrendszer s a társadalmi struktúra változásai a poszt-kommunista átalakulás során” [Manager capitalism: changes of economic and social structure during the post-communist transformation]. Lettre International, 19(Winter), 21–29.Google Scholar
  26. Tóth, H. (2005). Gendered dilemmas of the work-life balance in Hungary. Women in Management Review, 20(5), 361–375. doi: 10.1108/09649420510609195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. WEF. (2016). The global gender gap report 2016. Geneva: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beáta Nagy
    • 1
  • Henriett Primecz
    • 2
  • Péter Munkácsi
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Sociology and Social PolicyCorvinus University of BudapestBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Institute of ManagementCorvinus University of BudapestBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Hungarian Ministry of JusticeBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations