This article explores the evolution of local government — voluntary and community sector relationships in Hungary since `The Change' of 1989. It does this in the context of a national policy framework concerned to develop the role of the latter sector as a key provider of essential public services at the local level. The article finds that the organic networks that enabled public policy development and implementation in the communist era continue to persevere in Hungary. This perseverance has meant that local voluntary and community groups privilege network skills above service domain skills — and that the pressure to provide public services has crowded out much of the capacity for civil society activity by these groups. The article concludes by considering the implications of this research for the wider group of accession states in Eastern Europe.
Agh, A. (1994) `The Social and Political Actors of Democratic Transition', in A. Agh (ed.) The Emergence of East Central European Parliaments: The First Steps , pp. 291-306. Budapest: Hungarian Centre of Democracy Studies.
2.
Balogh, B., Meszaros, G. and Sebesteny, I. (2003) Ten Years in Nonprofit Statistics 1992-2002. Budapest: Hungarian Central Statistical Office.
3.
Bernhard, M. (1996) `Civil Society after the First Transition: Dilemmas of Post-communist Democratization in Poland and Beyond', Communist and Post-Communist Studies29(30): 309-30.
4.
Brinkerhoff, J. (2002) `Government-Nonprofit Partnerships: A Defining Framework', Public Administration and Development22(1): 19-30.
5.
Brooks, A. (2000) `Is there a Dark Side to Government Support for Nonprofits?', Public Administration Review60(3): 211-18.
6.
Brown, L. and Troutt, E. (2004) `Funding Relations between Nonprofits and Government: A Positive Example', Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly33(1): 5-27.
7.
Bryce, H. (2006) `Nonprofits as Social Capital and Agents in the Public Policy Process: Towards a New Paradigm', Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly35(2): 311-18.
8.
Carroll, P. and Steane, P. (2007) `Public-Private Partnerships: Sectoral Perspectives' , in S. Osborne (ed.) Public Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective , pp. 36-56. London: Routledge.
9.
Cho, S. and Gillespie, D. (2006) `A Conceptual Model Exploring the Dynamics of Government: Nonprofit Service Delivery', Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly35(3): 493-509.
10.
Deacon, B. and Hulse, M. (1997) `The Making of Post-communist Social Policy: The Role of International Agencies', Journal of Social Policy26(1): 43-62.
11.
Directorate for Civil Relations (2004) Civil Strategy of the Government. Budapest: Directorate for Civil Relations.
12.
Downley, K. (2006) `Local Government Transparency in East Central Europe', Local Government Studies32(5): 563-83.
13.
Gadoros, J. (1992) `A Lelki Sérült Gyermekekért Alapítvány Történetéről' [On the History of the Foundation for Mentally Handicapped Children], in E. Kuti (ed.) A Nonprofit Szektor Magyarországon. Budapest: Nonprofit Kutatócsoport.
14.
Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2007) `What makes partnerships work?', in S. Osborne (ed.) Public Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective, pp. 293-310. London : Routledge.
15.
Jenei, G. and Kuti, E. (2003) `Duality in the Third Sector: The Hungarian Case' , Asian Journal of Public Administration25(1): 133-57.
16.
Jenei, G. and Szalai, A. (2002) `Modernizing Local Governance in a Transitional Nation: Evaluating the Hungarian Experience', Public Management Review4(3): 367-404.
17.
Jenei, G. and Vari, A. (2000) `Partnership between Local Government and the Local Community in the Area of Social Policy: An Hungarian Experience', Public Management Review2(2): 239-50.
18.
Jenei, G., Kuti, E., Horvath, A. and Palotai, Z. (2005) `Local Governments, Civil Society Organizations and Private Enterprises - Partnerships in Providing Social Services: The Case of Eger, Hungary', Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis7(1): 73-94.
19.
Korkut, U. (2005) `The Relationship between Democratization and Invigoration of Civil Society: The Case of Hungary and Poland', East European Quarterly39(2): 149-77.
20.
Kostovicova, D. (2006) `Civil Society and Post-communist Democratization: Facing a Double Challenge in post-Milosevic Serbia', Journal of Civil Society2(1): 21-37.
21.
Kozponti Statistikai Hivatal (1994- 2007) Nonprofit Szervezetek Magyarorszagon 1992-2005 [Annual Statistical Review of the Hungarian Non-profit Sector]. Budapest: Kozponti Statistikai Hivatal.
22.
Kuti, E. (1995) `Tradition, Changes and Issues: The Hungarian Non Profit Sector', in A. Kenderessy (ed.) The Voluntary Sector in Hungary, pp. 5-6. Budapest : Non-profit Information and Training Centre.
23.
Kuti, E. (1996) The Non Profit Sector in Hungary. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
24.
Kuti, E. (2004) Szandekok, szereplok, eredmenyek. A Nemzeti Civil Alap Program elso palyazati fordulojanak tapasztalatai az adatok tukreben [`Intentions, Actors, Outcomes. Experiences of the First Round of Applications for the Grants of the National Civil Fund as Reflected in the Empirical Data'] . Budapest: ICsSzEM/NCA.
25.
Kuti, E. (2006) `The Experience of the National Civil Fund in Hungary' , Public Management Review8(2): 351-66.
26.
Levitas, T. and Peteri, G. (2005) Providing More Services with Less Money?: Intergovemental Financial Reforms in Central Europe. Budapest: LGI.
27.
McLaughlin, K. (2004) `Towards a "Modernized" Voluntary and Community Sector? Emerging Lessons from Government-Voluntary Sector Relationships in the UK', Public Management Review6(4): 555-62.
28.
McQuaid, R. (2007) `The Theory of Partnership: Why Have Partnerships?' , in S. Osborne (ed.) Public Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective , pp. 9-35. London: Routledge.
29.
Murray, V. (2007) `Evaluating the Impact of Public-Private Partnerships: A Canadian Perspective', in S. Osborne (ed.) Public Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective, pp. 277-92. London: Routledge .
30.
Osborne, S. (2000) `Reformulating Wolfenden?: The Roles and Impact of Local Development Agencies in Supporting Voluntary and Community Action in the UK', Local Government Studies26(4): 23-48.
31.
Osborne, S. and Kaposvari, A. (1997) `Towards Civil Society? Exploring its Meanings in the Context of Post-communist Hungary', Journal of European Social Policy7(3): 209-22.
32.
Osborne, S. and Kaposvari, A. (1998) `Non-governmental Organizations and the Development of Social Services: Meeting Social Needs in Local Communities in Post-communist Hungary', Public Administration and Development18(4): 365-80.
33.
Osborne, S. and McLaughlin, K. (2002) `Trends and Issues in the Implementation of Local "Voluntary Sector Compacts" in England', Public Money & Management22(1): 55-63.
34.
Osborne, S. and Murray, V. (2007) `Understanding the Process of Public-Private Partnerships' , in S. Osborne (ed.) Public Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective , pp. 70-83. London: Routledge.
35.
Osborne, S., Jenei, G., Kuti, E. and Fabian, G. (2005) `Government/Non-profit Partnerships, Public Services Delivery, and Civil Society in the Transitional Nations of Eastern Europe: Lessons from the Hungarian Experience', International Journal of Public Administration28(9-10): 767-86.
36.
O'Toole, L. (1994) `Economic Transition, Constitutional Choice, and Public Administration: Implementing Privatization in Hungary', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory4: 493-519.
37.
Plowden, W. (2003) `The Compact: Attempts to Regulate Relationships between Government and the Voluntary Sector in England', Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly32(3): 415-32.
38.
Rose-Ackerman, S. (2007) `From Elections to Democracy in Central Europe: Public Participation and the Role of Civil Society', East European Politics and Societies21(1): 31-47.
39.
Salamon, L. and Associates (2004) Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector. Baltimore, MD: Kumarian Press.
40.
Selsky, J. and Parker, B. (2005) `Cross-sectoral Partnerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory and Practice', Journal of Management31(6): 849-73.
41.
Snaveley, K. and Desai, U. (2001) `Muncipal Government-Nonprofit Sector Collaboration in Bulgaria: An Attitudinal Analysis', American Review of Public Administration31(1): 49-65.
42.
Stowe, K. (1998) `Compact on Relations between Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector in England and Wales', Public Administration and Development18(5): 519-22.
43.
Struyk, R. (2002) `Nonprofit Organizations as Contracted Local Service Providers in Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States', Public Administration and Development22(5): 429-37.
44.
Stubbs, P. (1996) `Nationalisms, Globalization and Civil Society in Croatia and Slovenia', Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change9.
45.
Szeman, Z. (1996) `Links between the Civil Sphere and the Local Authorities' , in J. Straussman and K. Levai (eds) Innovative Local Authorities , pp. 13-22. Budapest: Local Society Research Group .
46.
Szeman, Z. (2000) The Role of NGOs in Social Quality in Different Regions in Hungary: Possibilities of a New Concern. Vienna : Institute for Human Science.
47.
Walzer, M. (1995) `The Concept of Civil Society', in M. Walzer (ed.) Toward a Global Civil Society , pp. 7-28. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books.
48.
Williams, C. (2005) `Community Capacity Building: A Critical Evaluation of the Third Sector Approach', Review of Policy Research21(5).
49.
Yin, R. (1989) Case Study Research. Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE.
50.
Young, D. (2000) `Alternative Models of Government-Nonprofit Sector Relations: Theoretical and International Perspectives', Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly29(1): 149-72.
