On Civil Society and the Social Economy in Hungary

Abstract

While the development of civil society organisations in Hungary has been impressive in terms of number and diversity, its influence has remained limited on policy-making. Administrative attempts to draw civil society under tight regulation and control have produced a blurring of the boundaries between the civil and the public spheres that, in turn, has impaired the independent voice and criticism of civil society. Therefore, economic acts based on solidarity and originating from civil society do not automatically form or increase a ‘social economy’ but become as contested by and as intermingled with political developments as other acts of civil society. This development also has affected the profile of civil activities: against the earlier impressive weight of anti-poverty, anti-racist and human rights engagements, the ‘non-risky’ activities of sports and leisure services have come to domination. A turn toward declining participation is a warning sign of the decreasing contribution of civil society to everyday democracy.

Interaction between social enterprises and key actors shaping the field: experiences from the social and health sectors in Hungary

“…Funding has also been more connected to short-term grants than long-term service contracts and statutory support, whilst the amount of support was often not enough to sustain operation (Bocz, 2009;T oth et al, 2011). Finally, a long-term, comprehensive strategy for the third sector was not developed at a policy level, and the influence of independent organisations on policymaking remained limited (Szalai and Svensson, 2018). Since 2010, new regulations and decreasing funding have made the autonomous functioning of organisations more difficult; previously existing partnerships and forums were eliminated (Kuti, 2017;Szalai and Svensson, 2018).…”

“…Finally, a long-term, comprehensive strategy for the third sector was not developed at a policy level, and the influence of independent organisations on policymaking remained limited (Szalai and Svensson, 2018). Since 2010, new regulations and decreasing funding have made the autonomous functioning of organisations more difficult; previously existing partnerships and forums were eliminated (Kuti, 2017;Szalai and Svensson, 2018). Opportunities for providing services have also become more limited for grassroots civil society organisations, as organisations owned by the major churches or the state have been preferred (USAID, 2017).…”

Introduction

“…Far from the immediate post-Soviet period assumptions around the 'inevitable' route to the development of democratic and rule-of-law norms, Hungarian society has been greatly economically (neo)liberalised over the past three decades, while societally it has remained relatively closed. Its civil society sector is made up of numerous local groups that are again increasingly apolitical and focused on activities that are deemed to have minimal political risk, such as sport and leisure (Szalai and Svensson, 2018), as the Orbán government tries to administratively and financially reign in the activities and power of these groups away from politically sensitive subjects (Cox, 2020).…”

Zwischen Regulierung und Repression

“…Ein im Juni 2017 vom ungarischen Parlament verabschiedetes Gesetz, stellte den vorläufigen Höhepunkt dieser Bemühungen dar. Es schreibt eine Reihe von Einschränkungen der ausländischen Finanzierung von Vereinen und Stiftung fest – beide Organisationsformen sind in Ungarn als Rechtssubjekte anerkannt (Szalai und Svensson 2017 ). Dazu gehört insbesondere die Pflicht zur Offenlegung ausländischer Finanzierung gegenüber den Behörde, deren öffentliche Benennung auf der Webseite und in Publikationen der Organisation, sowie eine zusätzliche Registrierung im Vereinsregister, sobald eine Organisation mehr als 7,2 Mio.…”