This article investigates European Union and International Monetary Fund influence on Hungary's public sector reforms in the period 2004–2013, that is, a time period that saw the initiation of the European Union's Excessive Deficit Procedure (the whole period) and an International Monetary Fund bailout programme (2008–2010). In this case, public sector reforms became derailed from the externally proposed trajectory and took the opposite direction: instead of fostering decentralization of the state administration and deepening the Europeanization process, Hungary's restructuring of the public sector delivered centralization and a ‘power grab’ that eventually impinged on some core values of the European Union ‘constitution’ (the acquis communautaire). This study aims to explain this empirical puzzle by in-depth analysis of how external influence was exerted and became interwoven with dynamically changing domestic factors in circumstances of conditionality. The research is framed by existing policy transfer and public sector reform theories. The article argues that the Hungarian case provides evidence of the unintended consequences of European Union-driven public sector reforms.
BarzelayM (2001) The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
2.
BeachDPedersenR (2013) Process-Tracing Methods – Foundations and Guidelines, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3.
BennettAGeorgeA (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
BennettCHowlettM (1992) The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences25(3): 275–294.
5.
Bruszt L (2007) Multi-level governance – The eastern version emerging patterns of regional developmental governance in the new member states. EUI Working Papers SPS 2007/13. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1814/7672 (accessed 18 December 2017).
6.
ChristensenTLaegreidP (2017) A transformative perspective. In: Van de WalleSGroeneveldS (eds) Theory and Practice of Administrative Reform, London: Routledge, pp. 27–43.
7.
CsákyGY (2009) IMF hitelek Magyarországnak jellemzői, Pénzügyi Szemle [Main characteristics IMF loans provided for Hungary]. Public Finance Quarterly2013(1): 94–108.
8.
De VriesMNemecJ (2013) Public sector reform: An overview of recent literature and research on NPM and alternative paths. International Journal of Public Sector Management26(1): 4–16.
9.
DolowitzDMarshD (1996) Who learns from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political StudiesXLIV: 343–357.
10.
Hajnal GY (2013) Public Sector Reform in Hungary: View and Experiences from Senior Executives (Country report as part of the COCOPS Research Project). Available at: www.cocops.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Hungary-WP3.pdf (accessed 20 November 2017).
11.
Hajnal Gy (2014) Unorthodoxy at work: An assessment of Hungary's post-2010 governance reforms. Paper presented at IRSPM XVIII Annual Conference, Ottawa, Canada.
12.
HajnalGyKovácsÉ (2015) Hungary's central state administration 1990-2014. In: HajnalGYvan DoorenWVakkuriJ, et al.(eds) Towards Meaningful Measurement: Performance Management at the Crossroads of Internal Efficiency and Social Impact. Special issue of the NISPAcee. Journal of Public Administration and Policy 8(2): 11–20. Bratislava: NISPAcee.
13.
HecloH (1974) Social Policy in Britain and Sweden, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
HughesJSasseGGordonC (2004) Conditionality and compliance in the EU's eastward enlargement: Regional policy and the reform of sub-national government. Journal of Common Market Studies43(3): 523–551.
15.
GreskovitsB (2015) The hollowing and backsliding of democracy in East Central Europe. Global Policy6: 28–37.
16.
KickertW (2011) Distinctiveness of administrative reform in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain: Common characteristics of context, administrations and reforms. Public Administration89(3): 801–818.
17.
KickertWRandma-LiivT (2017) The impact of fiscal crisis on public administration reforms in Europe. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice19(2): 91–99.
18.
KornaiJ (2015) Hungary's U-turn. Capitalism and Society10(1): . Article 2.
19.
Körössényi A (1999) Democratic transition and political patronage: Relation between spheres of politics government and public administration. Hungary in a comparative perspective. Research Support Scheme, Open Society Institute. Available at: http://rss.archives.ceu.hu/archive/00001024/01/25.pdf (accessed 23 July 2016).
20.
Nunberg B (2000) Ready for Europe Public Administration Reform and European Union Accession in Central and Eastern Europe. World Bank Technical Paper, No. 456. Washington, DC: World Bank.
OngaroE (2008) Introduction: The reform of public management in France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. International Journal of Public Sector Management21(2): 101–117.
23.
OngaroE (2009) Public Management Reform and Modernization – Trajectories of Administrative Change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
24.
OngaroE (2014) The relationship between the new European governance emerging from the fiscal crisis and administrative reforms: Qualitatively different, quantitatively different, or nothing new? A plea for a research agenda. Administrative Culture15(1): 10–20.
25.
OngaroEMeleV (2014) Public sector reform in a context of political instability: Italy 1992–2007. International Public Management Journal17(1): 111–142.
26.
PollittCBouckaertG (2011) Public Management Reform – A Comparative Analysis – New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
RobertsonDBWaltmanJL (1992) The politics of policy borrowing. In: FinegoldDMcFarlandLRichardsonW (eds) Something Borrowed, Something Blue. Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, Wallingford: Triangle, pp. 25–48.
28.
RoseR (1991) What is lesson-drawing?. Journal of Public Policy2(1): 3–30.
29.
SchimmelfennigFSedelmeierU (2004) Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy11(4): 661–667.
30.
SárközyT (2012) Magyarország kormányzása 1978–2012. [The Governing of Hungary, 1978–2012], Budapest: Park Kiadó.
31.
VassL (2001) Politicians, bureaucrats and administrative reform in Hungary: Who stops whom?. In: PetersGPierreJ (eds) Politicians, Bureaucrats and Administrative Reform, London: Routledge, pp. 83–92.
