MACMILLAN Policy Agendas in Autocracy, and Hybrid Regimes: The Case of Hungary (Comparative Studies of Political Agendas)

Over the past thirty years the comparative study of policy agendas under the aegis of the Comparative Agendas Project (CAP) has become one of the fastest growing sub-field in policy research. Yet, similarly to policy studies in general, most of the agenda-setting literature focuses on well-established democracies. This edited volume offers a ground-breaking analysis of a hitherto less examined topic in comparative politics: the dynamics of policy agendas in Socialist autocracy and in hybrid regimes. We propose that policymaking in authoritarian and illiberal regimes is different from the practices of democracies which we analyse based on a unique historical policy agendas database built by the Hungarian CAP team at the Centre for Social Sciences in Budapest. We find that punctuated equilibrium theory offers a good description of policy dynamics regardless of policy regimes, yet punctuations are more pronounced in autocratic and illiberal settings. These regime types also share a tendency towards centralization, a less efficient use of public information and a suppression of democratic participation in the policy process. This book may be of interest to scholars and students of policy studies, agenda-setting and the politics of authoritarianism. Review “This important book, the result of a collaboration among a team of Hungarian scholars, unifies theories of governing regimes with policy process studies. It focuses on changing patterns of attention to policy issues across five major regimes that Hungary has experienced since 1867. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitive examinations of policy choices, along with intensive case studies in each regime, the authors test prevailing theories in the literature and generate some fresh thinking on policy change. The book will be essential reading in both policy studies and comparative politics.” ―Bryan D. Jones, JJ “Jake” Pickle Regents’ Chair in Congressional Studies, Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin, USA “The volume edited by Miklós Sebők and Zsolt Boda―with ten, mainly early career collaborators―offers an exceptionally careful analysis of a―mainly unsuccessful―century-long struggle of Hungary to combine liberalism and democracy. This case study of a small semi-peripheral country is of great theoretical interest to those who are interested in the world-wide spread of liberal democracy between 1970 and 2005 and its decline during the past 15 years. Warmly recommended for political scientists, economists an and sociologist.” ―Ivan Szelenyi, William Graham Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Political Science, Yale University, USA From the Back Cover Over the past thirty years the comparative study of policy agendas under the aegis of the Comparative Agendas Project (CAP) has become one of the fastest growing sub-fields in policy research. Yet, similarly to policy studies in general, most of the agenda-setting literature focuses on well-established democracies. This edited volume offers a ground-breaking analysis of a hitherto less examined topic in comparative politics: the dynamics of policy agendas in Socialist autocracy and in hybrid regimes. We propose that policymaking in authoritarian and illiberal regimes is different from the practices of democracies which we analyse based on a unique historical policy agendas database built by the Hungarian CAP team at the Centre for Social Sciences in Budapest. We find that punctuated equilibrium theory offers a good description of policy dynamics regardless of policy regimes, yet punctuations are more pronounced in autocratic and illiberal settings. These regime types also share a tendency towards centralization, a less efficient use of public information and a suppression of democratic participation in the policy process. This book may be of interest to scholars and students of policy studies, agenda-setting and the politics of authoritarianism. Miklós Se