Illiberal or simply unorthodox? Public Administration education in Hungary
| Date | 01 July 2016 |
| Published date | 01 July 2016 |
| Author | Gyorgy Hajnal |
| DOI | 10.1177/0144739415621784 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Illiberal or simply
unorthodox? Public
Administration
education in Hungary:
A comparative
perspective
Gyorgy Hajnal
Department of Public Policy and Management, Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary; Institute
for Political Science, Center for Social Research of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (IPS CSR
HAS), Hungary
Abstract
Over the past decades, Public Administration (PA) education programmes in Europe
shifted their focus from a predominantly law-oriented approach to a more multi-
disciplinary, social science and managerial one. This paper deals with the tenacity of
traditional, law-oriented PA education programmes that can be found in a limited, but
not insignificant, range of countries throughout Europe. The paper has two aims. Firstly,
it attempts to test hypotheses which seek to explain this tenacity. Secondly, it wishes to
examine the extent to which this tenacity is related to new forms and paradigms of
government emerging in certain Central and Eastern European countries, sometimes
referred to as ‘‘illiberal democracy’’. The method is a two-case comparative study of
Germany and Hungary.
Keywords
Public Administration, higher education, legalism, Germany, Hungary, illiberal democracy
Corresponding author:
Gyorgy Hajnal, Department of Public Policy and Management, Corvinus University of Budapest, F}
ova
´mte
´r8,
Budapest 1093, Hungary.
Email: gyorgy.hajnal@uni-corvinus.hu
Teaching Public Administration
2016, Vol. 34(2) 206–225
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0144739415621784
tpa.sagepub.com
Introduction: Aims and relevance of the study
Who educates future civil servants and how is of great importance not only for those
individuals and organizations involved in this activity (either on the demand or the
supply side), but even more so from a systemic perspective: Public Administration (PA)
education is a key determinant of the operation of public administrations and, in par-
ticular, of the feasibility of the ruling government’s reformatory (or, for that matter,
maintenance-oriented) intentions. In addition to this practical relevance, the question
also has a more theoretical relevance. The conception of PA in the academia of different
countries and/or at different times tells much about the general concept – in a sense, the
culture – of PA as both an academic discipline and a societal practice.
There is a relative abundance of literature discussing how PA education changes or
develops content-wise, oftentimes in an internationally comparative manner (Bauer,
2005; Bouckaert, 2008; Geva-May and Maslove, 2007; Geva-May et al., 2006; Hajnal,
2003, 2014; Kickert, 2007; Nemec et al., 2012; Reichard and Ro¨ber, 2009).
Regarding the factors motivating these changes, several elements appear in recent
analyses. In addition to the ever-present factor of the internal disciplinary and institu-
tional dynamics of the academic world, there seems to be a certain consensus on the
western side of the Atlantic that the most important factor driving change is the pro-
liferation of horizontal, network-type governance arrangements. This involves an
increased reliance on for-profit and non-profit agents, most frequently as service pro-
viders (Denhardt, 2001; Ellwood, 2008; Kettl, 2001; Newswander and Newswander,
2012; Olewu, 2002).
In Europe, both the direction of change and the underlying factors driving change
seem, at least partly, to differ. Content-wise, probably the most significant change to
have happened within the field in the past few decades is the replacement of the tradi-
tional, fundamentally law-based curricula with other approaches usually incorporating
several disciplines such as political science, organization theory, policy and management
sciences, to mention but a few. (More details will be given in the next section.)
As to the factors explaining change, authors note, in comparison with the US scene,
some additional contextual explanatory variables. Probably the single most important of
these are related to two factors – and, in particular, the interplay between these two
factors. The first factor is the significant and historically rooted ‘national distinctiveness’
of PA traditions and education (Kickert, 2007). These national idiosyncrasies are
oftentimes reinforced, over long historical epochs, by institutional and cultural inertia
(Hajnal and Jenei, 2007; Reichard and Ro¨ber, 2009). The second factor, however, is
related to processes of increasing Europeanization (and, to a lesser extent, globalization),
including the Bologna reforms that introduced three-phase higher education in the 2000s.
This latter factor counteracts the aforementioned national distinctiveness by opening up
formerly entrenched national fields of PA education (Bouckaert, 2007; Geva-May and
Maslove, 2007; Verheijen and Connaughton, 2003).
Authors focusing on one or a few countries/regions occasionally highlight additional,
more idiosyncratic factors, too. For example, Reichard and Ro¨ ber (2009) note German
citizens’ preference for publicly provided, as opposed to privatized/contracted out,
Hajnal 207
To continue reading
Request your trial