25 Years After 2015
DOI: 10.1515/9783110509380-003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Civil Society in Hungary

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our analysis has revealed that the main sources of external financing in CEE are closely related to the EU. 15 Hungary (Szabó and Márkus 2015) and Poland greatly benefited from pre-accession funds, and EU funds available after the accession boosted the SE field. Right after the accession of ten new EU member states, 16 in 2004, SE initiatives were rapidly integrated into the ongoing EQUAL Community Initiative (2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008).…”
Section: Eu Funds and Pre-accession Programmesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our analysis has revealed that the main sources of external financing in CEE are closely related to the EU. 15 Hungary (Szabó and Márkus 2015) and Poland greatly benefited from pre-accession funds, and EU funds available after the accession boosted the SE field. Right after the accession of ten new EU member states, 16 in 2004, SE initiatives were rapidly integrated into the ongoing EQUAL Community Initiative (2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008).…”
Section: Eu Funds and Pre-accession Programmesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Analysing the present situation and the effects of the hybrid regime on the civil sphere in Hungary, Szabó proposes the application of Ekiert and Kubik's framework, where the Hungarian civil society can be described by a corporatist, top-bottom structure, with low levels of organizational pluralism and participation (Szabó, 2015). On an organizational level elements of the Hungarian civil sphere according to Szabó and Márkus are etatism, a dependence on international grants and low levels of grassroots activity (Szabó & Márkus, 2015). Analysing the dynamics of protest activities, Ekiert and Kubik differentiate between contentious and accommodating types (Ekiert & Kubik, 2014).…”
Section: Social Movementsmentioning
confidence: 99%