Skip to main content

Understanding Agenda Dynamics in Non-democracies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Policy Agendas in Autocracy, and Hybrid Regimes

Part of the book series: Comparative Studies of Political Agendas ((CSPA))

Abstract

In this chapter, we introduce the theoretical background and the main concepts that are helpful for understanding policy agenda change in non-democracies and for comparing the agenda dynamics of different regimes. We rely on the punctuated equilibrium theory of policymaking as well as the politics of attention in our investigation of five distinct regimes of over 150 years of Hungarian policy history. We define the notion of policy agendas and explain why they are useful for understanding policymaking patterns in historical context. We also explain the difficulties of investigating policymaking in non-democratic contexts. The regime typology used in the book is also presented in this chapter, along with our rationale for case selection. The functional comparability of regimes is explored beyond the free-not-free dichotomy by relying on the concept of partly free and hybrid regimes. We argue that within this more general framework, Hungarian political history provides a generalizable case for testing hypotheses related to policy dynamics in non-Western and non-democratic regimes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://2015-2019.kormany.hu/hu/a-miniszterelnok/beszedek-publikaciok-interjuk/a-munkaalapu-allam-korszaka-kovetkezik.

References

  • Antonio, M. J. (2012). Decreasing inequality under Latin America’s “social democratic” and “populist” governments: Is the difference real? International Journal of Health Services, 42(2), 257–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro, R. J. (1996). Democracy and growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 1(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., Breunig, C., & Grossman, E. (2019). Comparative policy agendas: Theory, tools, data. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., Carammia, M., Epp, D. A., Noble, B., Rey, B., & Yildirim, T. M. (2017). Budgetary change in authoritarian and democratic regimes. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(6), 792–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993, 2009). Agendas and instability in American politics. The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boda, Z., & Sebők, M. (2019). The Hungarian comparative agendas project. In F. R. Baumgartner, C. Breunig, & E. Grossman (Eds.), Comparative policy agendas: Theory, tools, data (pp. 105–113). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonafont, L. C., Baumgartner, F. R., & Palau, A. (2015). Agenda dynamics in Spain. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Smith, A. (2011). The dictator’s handbook: Why bad behavior is almost always good politics. Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulut, A. T., & Yildirim, T. M. (2020). Political stability, democracy and agenda dynamics in Turkey. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. N., Lam, W. F., & Chen, S. (2020). Elite bargains and policy priorities in authoritarian regimes: Agenda setting in China under Xi Jinping and Hu Jintao. Governance, on-line. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12543.

  • Chan, K. N., & Zhao, S. (2016). Punctuated equilibrium and the information disadvantage of authoritarianism: Evidence from the People’s Republic of China. Policy Studies Journal, 44(2), 134–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deacon, R. T. (2009). Public good provision under dictatorship and democracy. Public Choice, 139(1–2), 241–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1989). The end of history? The National Interest, 16, 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grindle, M. S. (2007). Good enough governance revisited. Development Policy Review, 25(5), 533–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. P. (1991). Democracy’s third wave. Journal of Democracy, 2(2), 12–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, P., Bertelli, A., Jennings, W., & Bevan, S. (2013). Policy agendas in British politics. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D., Epp, D. A., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2019). Democracy, authoritarianism, and policy punctuations. International Review of Public Policy, 1(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.318.

  • Knutsen, C. H. (2010). Investigating the Lee thesis: How bad is democracy for Asian economies? European Political Science Review: EPSR, 2(3), 451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornai, J. (1990). The affinity between ownership forms and coordination mechanisms: The common experience of reform in socialist countries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(3), 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2002). The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merkel, W. (2004). Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization, 11(5), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan Casey, G. R., & Sala-I-Martin, X. (2004). Do democracies have different public policies than nondemocracies? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(1), 51–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Or, N. H. (2019). How policy agendas change when autocracies liberalize: The case of Hong Kong, 1975–2016. Public Administration, 97(4), 926–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, A. (1999). Minimalist conception of democracy: A defense. Democracy’s Value, 23, 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J., & Acemoglu, D. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity and poverty. Profile.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P., & Weible, C. M. (Eds.). (2014). Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, a member of the Persus Books Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, A. (2013). The politics of uncertainty: Sustaining and subverting electoral authoritarianism. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scheiring, G. (2019). Dependent development and authoritarian state capitalism: Democratic backsliding and the rise of the accumulative state in hungary. Geoforum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebők, M., & Berki, T. (2018). Punctuated equilibrium in democracy and autocracy: An analysis of Hungarian budgeting between 1868 and 2013. European Political Science Review, 10(4), 589–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedelmeier, U. (2017). Political safeguards against democratic backsliding in the EU: The limits of material sanctions and the scope of social pressure. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(3), 337–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, G. (1995). Decision making in political systems. Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 289–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedung, E. (2000). Evaluation research and fundamental research. In R. Stockmann (Ed.), Evaluationsforschung: Grundlagen und ausgewählte Forschungsfelder (pp. 111–134). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y. (2020). Dynamics of policy change in authoritarian countries: A multiple-case study on China. Journal of Public Policy, 40(2), 236–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, H., Wang, X., & Liu, C. (2020). Budgetary punctuations: A fiscal management perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 48(4), 873–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildirim, T. M., Bulut, A. T., & Ilter, E. (2020). Agenda dynamics and policy priorities in military regimes. International Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120923068.

  • Zakaria, F. (1997). The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76(4), 22–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zsolt Boda .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Boda, Z., Sebők, M. (2021). Understanding Agenda Dynamics in Non-democracies. In: Sebők, M., Boda, Z. (eds) Policy Agendas in Autocracy, and Hybrid Regimes. Comparative Studies of Political Agendas. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73223-3_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics