Abstract
This chapter argues that society’s welfare and social needs have not been addressed in a balanced way in Hungary since its political transformation. A systemic reappraisal of the state’s functions, its provider roles, the organisation and regulation of the economy, has not yet been carried out; and there is no equilibrium between the pillars of the welfare state. In other words, there has been a lack of harmonious cooperation between the markets, the state and families during the last 18 years as well as the preceding period. In the author’s opinion, this lack of equilibrium has resulted in a series of social and fiscal crises. Today it is clear that both the diagnosis of market logic and the therapy it offered have failed. They have failed on the level of principles, because if market logic is made absolute, it is not capable of providing the conditions of welfare, solidarity, fairness and cooperation for everyone. And they have failed on the level of practice, because the global economic crisis has shown the flaws of neo-liberal principles on the basis of facts. The neo-liberal agenda’s failure on the levels of principle and practice has made it clear to everyone that there is a need for an active, intelligent and strong state that considers again and again where its duties are. In other words, the state must adjust the market’s mechanisms—in everyone’s interest, even the market’s own interest, too. But instead of an active, strong and intelligent state we are witnessing an impotent, over-stretched and corrupt state that makes its citizens distrustful. A weak state and poor government performance cannot be explained only by external reasons (e.g., ‘prosperity’, unfavourable world economic processes, the global economic crisis, etc.). Rather, a significant part of the problemlies in the quality of the governing itself, namely in governmental practice that is dysfunctional, that misunderstands the nature of problems and follows short-term individual or political party interests. In other words, the deterioration of the state is the necessary consequence of bad governing. The remedy follows from the identification of the problem: the reinforcement of the state is necessary for the creation of conditions for good governing.
The research presented in this chapter has been supported by OTKA F-68112.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barzelay, M. (2001). The new public management: Improving research and policy dialogue. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Benz, A. (2004). Governance: Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
von Blumenthal, J. (2005). Governance: eine kritische Zwischenbilanz. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 15(4), 1149–1180.
Calame, P. (2003). La démocratie en miettes. Pour une révolution de la gouvernance. Paris: Descartes & Cie.
Debicki, M. (2003). Public service in a corporate world: The dangers of managerialism as a tool for public administration. In: J. Finlay & M. Debicki (Eds), Delivering public services in CEE countries: Trends and developments (27–36). Bratislava: NISPAcee.
Drechsler, W. (2005). The reemergence of ‘Weberian’ public administration after the fall of new public management: The Central and Eastern European perspective. Halduskultuur, 6, 94–108.
Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public Money & Management, 14(3), 9–16.
Evans, P. B., & Rauch, J. (1999). Bureaucracy and growth: A crossnational analysis of the effects of ‘Weberian’ state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 748–765.
Fodor, G. G. (2008). Kormányzás/tudás. Budapest: Századvég.
Fodor, G. G. (2009). The two ‘faces’ of political creativity. In: J. Femia, A. Körösényi & G. Slomp (Eds), Political leadership in liberal and democratic theory. Exeter: Imprint Academic (forthcoming).
Fodor G. G., & Kern, T. (2008). The chance of a successful social compromise in Hungary. Central European Political Science Review, 9(32), 91–105.
Fodor, G. G., & Stumpf, I. (2007). A ‘jó kormányzás’ két értelme. Avagy a demokratikus kormányzás programja és feltételei. Nemzeti Érdek, 3, 76–95.
Fodor, G. G., & Stumpf, I. (eds) (2008a). Végjáték. A 2. Gyurcsány-kormány második éve. Budapest: Századvég.
Fodor, G. G., & Stumpf I. (2008b). Neoweberi állam és jó kormányzás. Nemzeti Érdek, 7, 5–27.
Gray, A. & Jenkins, W. I. (1995). From old public administration to new public management. Public Administration, 73(1), 75–99.
Henderson, J., Hulme, D., Jalilian, H., & Phillips, R. (2003). Bureaucratic effects: ‘Weberian’ state structures and poverty reduction. Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC) Working Paper 31. http://www.chronicpoverty.org/pdfs/31Henderson_et_al.pdf/.
Hermet, G., Kazancigil, A. & Prud'homme, J. F. (2005). La gouvernance. Unconcept et ses applications. Paris: Karthala.
Jasay, A. de (1998). The state. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Inc.
Jenei, G. (2007). Adalékok a public policy szemlélet értelmezéséhez. Nemzeti Érdek, 1(1), 5–27.
Jenei, G. (2008). Reforms in public administration and the transition to democratic Rechtstaat. Paper presented to the First NISPAcee_EGPA Trans-European Dialogue, Tallin.
Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage.
Körösényi, A. (2005). Political Representation in Leader Democracy. Government and Opposition, 4(3), 358–378.
Lánczi, A. (2007). What is postcommunism? Society and Economy, 29(1), 65–85.
Mayntz, R. (2005). Governance-theory als fortentwickelte Steurungstheorie. In: Schuppert, G. F. (Ed.). Governance-Forschung. Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien (pp. 11–20). Baden-Baden.
Minogue, M. (2000). Changing the state: concepts and practice in the reform of the public sector. In: M. Minogue, C. Polidano, & D. Hulme (Eds), Beyond the New Public Management. Changing Ideas and Practices in Governance (pp. 17–38). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Olsen, J. P. (2004). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 1–24.
Palonen, K. (1998). Das ‘Webersche Moment’: Zur Kontingenz des Politischen. Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Pollit, C. (2008). Synthesis comments on propositions. Paper presented to the First NISPAcee-EGPA Trans-European Dialogue, Tallin.
Pollit, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (Second edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Potuček, M. (1999). Not only the market. The role of the market, government, and civic sector in the development of postcommunist societies. Budapest: Central European University Press.
Potuček, M. (2008). The concept of Neo-Weberian State confronted by the multi-dimensional concept of governance. Draft of the presentation at the First NISPAcee-EGPA Trans-European Dialogue, Tallin.
Randma-Liiv, T. (2008). New Public Management versus Neo-Weberian state in Central and Eastern Europe. Paper presented to the First NISPAcee-EGPA Trans-European Dialogue, Tallin.
Ringen, S. (2005). Citizens, families and reform (Second edition). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Ringen, S. (2006). The possibility of politics (Third edition). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Ringen, S. (2007). What is democratic quality. In: The Attractiveness of the European and American Social Models for New Members and Candidate Countries of the European Union. Berlin, 7–8 May.
Rodrik, D. (1998). Why do more open economies have bigger government? The Journal of Political Economy, 106(5), 997–1032.
Rodrik, D. (2002). After neoliberalism, what? In: New Paths of Development. Rio, BNDES seminar, 12–13 September.
Rodrik, D. (2008). Thinking about governance. Contribution to a panel on governance reforms during World Bank's PREM week. http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/Thinking%20about%20governance.doc/.
Sakwa, R. (1999). Postcommunism. Concepts in the Social Sciences. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Schabert, T. (1989). Boston politics: The creativity of power. De Gruyter Studies on North America. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Schabert, T. (2005). A classical prince: The style of François Mitterand. In: B. Cooper & C. R. Embry (Eds), Philosophy, literature and politics: Essays Honoring Ellis Sandoz (pp. 234–257). Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press.
Stumpf, I. (2007). Új közteherviselés – új társadalmi szerződés. Nemzeti Érdek, 1(1), 27–37.
Verheijen, T. (1998). NPM reforms and other Western reform strategies: The wrong medicine for Central and Eastern Europe? In: T. Verheijen & D. L. Coombes (Eds), Innovation in public management: Perspectives from East and West Europe (407–417). Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Constantinos Karamanlis Institute for Democracy, Athens
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fodor, G.G. (2009). The ‘Strong State’ Paradigm: Good Government and the State in Central and Eastern Europe – Why Do We Need a Stronger State?. In: Arvanitopoulos, C. (eds) Reforming Europe. The Constantinos Karamanlis Institute for Democracy Series on European and International Affairs. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00560-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00560-2_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-00559-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-00560-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)