ArticlePDF Available

Dependent development and authoritarian state capitalism: Democratic backsliding and the rise of the accumulative state in Hungary


Abstract and Figures

Democracy is in crisis around the globe. Hungary was long heralded as a champion of political and economic liberalization in postsocialist Eastern Europe. However, the country recently emerged as a striking example of the current wave of autocratization. Starting from the premise that political regimes are the results of class compromises, in this paper, I argue that Hungary’s authoritarian turn is in part rooted in the reconfiguration of the dominant power bloc and the concomitant change in the state’s strategy. The aim of this article is twofold. Firstly, I analyze the socio-economic roots of Hungary’s authoritarian turn and propose a new, theoretically driven causal narrative challenging and extending existing accounts. Relying on macro-statistics and a new dataset on the economic elite, I describe how the collapse of the class compromise that sustained the post-socialist liberal competition state engendered the revolt of the national bourgeoisie and the rise of the new authoritarian regime of accumulation. Secondly, I offer a new conceptualization regarding the political-economic nature of the new regime: the accumulative state. I empirically identify the political instruments through which the accumulative state props up capital accumulation and the ensuing social conflicts. Instead of portraying Hungary as a divergence from liberal capitalist norms based on a textbook view of markets, I situate authoritarian politics in the logic of capital accumulation. However, I stress that the post-2010 accumulative state serves only short-term capital accumulation and fails to enact long-term structural transformation.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Dependent development and
authoritarian state capitalism:
Democratic backsliding and the rise of the accumulative state in Hungary
Gábor Scheiring, PhD
ISRF Political Economy Research Fellow, Department of Sociology, University of Cambridge, 16
Mill Lane, CB2 1SB, Cambridge, UK. Email:
© 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license
Cite as: Scheiring, Gábor (2019) Dependent development and authoritarian state capitalism:
Democratic backsliding and the rise of the accumulative state in Hungary. Geoforum, Published
online: 5 September 2019. doi:
Democracy is in crisis around the globe. Hungary was long heralded as a champion of political and
economic liberalization in postsocialist Eastern Europe. However, the country recently emerged as
a striking example of the current wave of autocratization. Starting from the premise that political
regimes are the results of class compromises, in this paper, I argue that Hungary’s authoritarian
turn is in part rooted in the reconfiguration of the dominant power bloc and the concomitant
change in the state’s strategy. The aim of this article is twofold. Firstly, I analyze the socio-
economic roots of Hungary’s authoritarian turn and propose a new, theoretically driven causal
narrative challenging and extending existing accounts. Relying on macro-statistics and a new
dataset on the economic elite, I describe how the collapse of the class compromise that sustained
the post-socialist liberal competition state engendered the revolt of the national bourgeoisie and the
rise of the new authoritarian regime of accumulation. Secondly, I offer a new conceptualization
regarding the political-economic nature of the new regime: the accumulative state. I empirically
identify the political instruments through which the accumulative state props up capital
accumulation and the ensuing social conflicts. Instead of portraying Hungary as a divergence from
liberal capitalist norms based on a textbook view of markets, I situate authoritarian politics in the
logic of capital accumulation. However, I stress that the post-2010 accumulative state serves only
short-term capital accumulation and fails to enact long-term structural transformation.
Dependent development led to economic polarisation in Hungary
Hungary’s authoritarian turn is in part rooted in the revolt of the national capital
New class alliance between the national capital, TNCs, and nationalist politicians
The new authoritarian regime is an accumulative state
The accumulative state is a way to manage the tensions of dependent capitalism
authoritarianism, state capitalism, political economy, democratic backsliding, dependent
development, accumulative state.
I am grateful to the Independent Social Research Foundation (ISRF) for their financial support
that I received as a Political Economy Research Fellow at the Department of Sociology of the
University of Cambridge. It provided an unmatched opportunity to embark on a new research
project after my Ph.D. I am equally grateful for the financial and intellectual support of the Social
Theory Working Group of the Hungarian Institute of Political History. The National Endowment
for Democracy’s fellowship allowed me to spend half a year in Washington D.C., which, among
others, proved to be an excellent opportunity to refine the theoretical framework. Szilárd Gulyás
provided invaluable research assistance in collecting data on the economic elite, while the staff of
the Library of the Hungarian Parliament helped me to compile a unique press database. I am also
indebted to numerous colleagues at the University of Cambridge and in Hungary for their excellent
critical feedback as well as encouragement at various stages of my research. It would be impossible
to list the conferences and workshops where I presented my research. These occasions all helped
me to refine the argument, and convinced me to separate the very first version of this paper into
multiple articles, eventually leading to a book. Finally, I am also grateful for the dedication of three
anonymous reviewers, whose feedback undoubtedly helped me to polish the article.
This work was supported by the Independent Social Research Foundation (ISRF); the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED); and by the Social Theory Working Group of the Hungarian
Institute of Political History. The sponsors did not have any role in study design; in the collection,
analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the
article for publication.
1. Introduction
Democracy is in crisis around the globe. Each year since 2006, the number of transitions to
nondemocratic regimes worldwide has outnumbered the transitions to democratic regimes
(Diamond, 2017). Authoritarian practices are gaining a foothold in countries of the capitalist core
and the periphery alike. The world is facing a new wave of autocratization (Lührmann and
Lindberg, 2019).
For two decades after the fall of actually existing socialism” (Bahro, 1977), Hungary was heralded
as a champion of political and economic liberalization (Linz and Stepan, 1996). The country was
one of the first to liberalize its economy and political system from the second half of the 1980s.
Nationalist mobilization during the 1990s did not reach the political mainstream with centrist
politicians dominating the public sphere until the second half of the 2000s. High levels of foreign
investment (FDI), a technologically sophisticated export structure, a well-institutionalized party
structure, and well-developed independent institutions characterized the country. EBRD ranked
Hungary as the leading post-socialist country based on the Transition Index between 1995 and
2001 consecutively every year (Pogátsa, 2009:600). The development of the party structure also
seemed to point towards consolidation (Tóka, 2004). The two major parties of the early transition
years (the conservative Democratic Forum and the liberal Free Democrats) have shrunken to small
parties and a bipolar party system emerged dominated by the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP)
on the Left and Viktor Orbán’s party, the Federation of Young Democrats (Fidesz) on the Right.
However, in 2010, following eight years of the Socialists-Liberal coalition, Viktor Orbán conquered
the parliament with a sweeping electoral success, leading to a new coalition government
comprising Fidesz and the insignificant Hungarian Christian Democrats (KDNP). The new
government immediately embarked on a massive restructuring of the country’s political and
economic institutions, building a regime that Orbán himself infamously labeled the “illiberal state”
(Orbán, 2014). As part of this, the new parliamentarian majority unilaterally passed a new
constitution, and has dismantled the system of checks and balances (Bánkuti et al., 2012; Bozóki,
2011), starting with the constitutional court and most recently attacking the judiciary in general
(The New York Times, 2018b). By now, party-loyalists control all independent institutions
(Sargentini, 2018). The government transformed public broadcasting into a political mouthpiece
(Bajomi-Lázár, 2012), and facilitates the expansion of right-wing media oligarchs (Associated
Press, 2018; Wilkin, 2016). Government communication campaigns directly underpin Fidesz-
propaganda, with a budget outweighing the total budget of the opposition by a factor of ten
(, 2018).
In an attempt to encumber the opposition’s political possibilities, the government rewrote the
electoral law to favor Fidesz (Tóka, 2014), uses state resources for electoral corruption (Mares and
Young, 2019), the State Audit Office hands out arbitrary fines to opposition parties (Freedom
House, 2018b), while seemingly random but well-organized skinheads physically prevent the
opposition from initiating referendums (Freedom House, 2018a:226-227). Showing the
government’s dislike for pluralism, it banned gender programs from Hungarian universities,
stripped Central European University of its right to issue American-accredited diplomas in
Budapest (CEU, 2018), and wrestled control of research institutions from the Hungarian Academy
(Scheiring, 2019a). While state-owned companies graciously fund loyal civil society groups
organized from above (Hungarian Spectrum, 2017), trade unions’ organizational possibilities have
been severely curtailed (Laki et al., 2013), and independent NGOs face recurrent attacks (The New
York Times, 2018a).
So far neither national nor international capitalists have risen up to challenge these attacks on
liberal institutions. National capitalists are better off than any time before, while major
transnational corporations in the technological sectors, such as German car manufacturers, are also
crucial pillars of Hungary’s capitalism with authoritarian characteristics. Many political scientists
have concluded that Hungary is not a democracy anymore, but a hybrid regime, a competitive
authoritarian system (Bozóki and Hegedűs, 2018). How could we explain Hungary’s puzzling
authoritarian turn? What are its causes, and how could we conceptualize the political-economic
nature of the emerging new regime? These are the research questions that I am contributing to in
this article.
I argue that conceptualizing political regimes as results of class compromises offers a fruitful way
of analyzing democratic backsliding (Korpi, 1983; Przeworski and Wallerstein, 1982;
Rueschemeyer et al., 1992; Therborn, 1977). I employ a non-deterministic class concept, influenced
by Gramscian political economy, power structure analysis and dependency theory, that treats the
state and politics as important actors who are not only constrained by economic structures but are
also capable of reshaping them (Cox, 1983; Domhoff, 2006[1967]; van der Pijl et al., 2011). Forging
and maintaining class compromises is one of the most critical tasks of politics. However,
challenging the arguments that question the role of economics in the authoritarian turn
(e.g.Dawson and Hanley, 2016; Ekiert, 2012), I situate authoritarian politics in the logic of capital
Relying on the theory of dependent development, I demonstrate that Hungary’s international
economic integration led to an internal economic disintegration that polarized the capitalist class
and engendered the revolt of the national capitalists. This led to the collapse of the class
compromise that sustained the post-socialist liberal competition state. Fidesz utilized this crisis to
build a new regime and facilitate a new class coalition comprising the national and transnational
capital and the nationalist faction of the political class. I propose to conceptualize the post-2010
regime as a new accumulative state, which combines authoritarian politics with contradictory tools
of capital accumulation as a possible way to manage the tensions of democratization in the context
of dependent development. I empirically identify the political instruments of the accumulative state
to prop up capital accumulation. Finally, I analyze how Fidesz relies on authoritarian fixes to
neutralize the ensuing social conflicts.
The article contributes to the existing literature in multiple ways. Firstly, it enhances our
understanding of the causes of democratic backsliding in Hungary by drawing attention to the
active role of the national capital. Secondly, it proposes a new concept about the political-economic
nature of the regime, the accumulative state, and identifies its most critical political instruments
used to prop up capital accumulation. Thirdly, the article challenges accounts that see no role for
the economy in democratic backsliding in Hungary and situates authoritarian politics in the logic
of capital accumulation. Fourthly, the article also contributes to the more general literature on the
political economy of democratization and authoritarianism. Although we cannot generalize from
one case, the article demonstrates the usefulness of conceptualizing democratic backsliding in the
context of various stages of industrialization and dependent development. Thus, the lessons of the
article should be relevant for everyone interested in understanding the political-economic
dimension of the contemporary crisis of democracy.
The article proceeds as follows. In the next section, I identify the main competing accounts in the
research on the causes and the outcomes of Hungary’s authoritarian turn and explore the limits of
the existing knowledge. Next, I present the theoretical framework guiding the analysis and
introduce the concept of the accumulative state drawing on the work of Alan Wolfe, followed by a
concise description of the methodology in section three. In part four, I explore how Hungary’s
international integration resulted in the collapse of the class alliance that sustained the post-socialist
competition state, paying particular attention to the composition and dynamism of the national
capitalist class. In section five, I analyze the key instruments of the post-2010 accumulative state
and their primary beneficiaries. In part six, I present data on the social impact of these instruments
and their relationship to the authoritarian turn. Finally, in section seven I conclude with pointing
out the theoretical implications of the analysis.
2. Theoretical controversies
2.1 The limits of the existing literature
The literature on the causes of the authoritarian turn in Hungary mirrors the broader debates on the
contemporary crisis of democracy. One strand analyses the supply side of authoritarian populism,
arguing that excessive political polarization propelled politicians to violate liberal norms, thus
corrupting democracy from above (Ekiert, 2012; Fukuyama, 2012a, 2012b; Greskovits, 2015;
Herman, 2016; Lendvai, 2017). Political agency is, of course, a crucial factor in regime change that
cannot be explained away by economic determinism. However, we have to look at the structural
environment of politics to understand what strategies are “historically viable” (cf. Cardoso and
Faletto, 1979).
The second strand explains the success of authoritarian politics by reference to voters’ anti-liberal
attitudes, which corrupt democracy from below (Dawson and Hanley, 2016; Pop-Eleches and
Tucker, 2011; Rupnik, 2016). Researchers also identified the historical legacy of nationalism and
conservativism in Hungary (Bartha, 2011; Buzogány and Varga, 2018) as well as the inheritance
of politics in the interwar years (Fekete, 2016; Skidelsky, 2019) as precursors to the current wave
of democratic backsliding. Some proponents of these arguments posit that economics has little to
do with Hungary’s authoritarian turn (e.g.Dawson and Hanley, 2016; Ekiert, 2012). Others argue
that the “noisy politics” of economic nationalism is only rhetorical, and in reality, not much has
changed in the Hungarian economic model, leading to the conclusion that it cannot explain the
institutional change in the sphere of politics (Bohle and Greskovits, 2018).
In contrast, the third strand of the literature on the causes of democratic backsliding emphasizes
the failures of liberalism. They analyze how rising precariousness, inequalities, low wages,
indebtedness, and higher death rates among rural populations and working-class families in
Hungary’s rustbelt undermined the legitimacy of liberal institutions (Appel and Orenstein, 2018;
Fabry, 2019; Hann, 2018; Kalb, 2018; Krastev, 2016; Pogátsa, 2016; Scheiring et al., 2018; Szalai,
2011; Szombati, 2018). These analyses have deepened our understanding of the causes of
democratic backsliding in Hungary. However, scholars have so far paid less attention to the active
role of economic elites in the crisis of democracy and the consolidation of the new authoritarian
regime. Challenging and extending the existing literature, in this paper I argue that we cannot fully
understand Hungary’s case without analyzing the polarization of the economic elite, and how the
members of the national capitalist class came to support Fidesz both before and after the
authoritarian turn.
We can also identify three main strands in the literature on the political-economic outcomes of the
regime change. The first body of the research conceptualizes the post-2010 regime as a captured
state. This argument itself comes in two variants, a sociological version, and a neo-utilitarian
version (see Evans, 1989). The sociological version of state capture theory portrays the interactions
between the state and capital without presupposing the superiority of market forces (Csillag and
Szelényi, 2015; Innes, 2014). In contrast, the neo-utilitarian version treats rent-seeking strictly as a
divergence from liberal capitalist practices. They argue that the post-2010 state implements
“business unfriendly” changes “against the private sector to the benefit of a narrow clan around
Prime Minister (PM) Viktor Orbán” (Sallai and Schnyder, 2018:4), while “members of the out-
group are the most exposed to unpredictable political risks in their economic activities”
(Transparency International, 2017:18). The neo-utilitarian approach is most prominently
exemplified by the concept of the “post-communist mafia state” (Magyar, 2016), which portrays
Orbán as a Godfather, who uses his political office to illegitimately further the economic interests
of his “extended family” against the will of society.
The second strand on the political-economic nature of the new regime portrays the post-2010
Hungarian system as a developmental state aimed to correct the policy mistakes of the neoliberal
transition (Bod, 2018; György, 2017; Wilkin, 2016). The developmental state theory approach
differs from the state capture approach in emphasizing the relative autonomy of the state vis a vis
capital. Finally, a third strand in the literature analyses how the marriage of neoliberalism and
authoritarian governance is a mutually beneficial arrangement for both sides (Antal, 2019; Artner,
2018; Fabry, 2018; Gagyi, 2016; Szalai, 2016). Proponents of this argument follow the more
general stream of recent critical scholarship, which has linked the authoritarian turn to the
contemporary wave of neoliberal capital accumulation (Arsel et al., 2016; Bloom, 2016; Bruff,
2014; Fabry and Sandbeck, 2018; Hendrikse, 2018; Tansel, 2017).
This literature on the political-economic nature of the new regime also has many strengths but also
some limitations. Firstly, the neo-utilitarian version of state capture theory fails to grasp how a
large section of the economic elite going beyond the “inner circle” of the “mafia family”
contributed to and benefits from the authoritarian turn (Scheiring, 2018). It also neglects that the
state has been historically involved in creating markets and facilitating capital accumulation (Block,
2008; Chang, 2002; Mazzucato, 2013; Polanyi, 1957; Roy, 1997). Secondly, we also have to
distinguish between interventionism and developmentalism. The new regime is an example of
authoritarian economic interventionism. However, I will show that it has been unable to chart a
trajectory of long-term industrial upgrading, thus falls short of a developmental state (Evans, 1995;
Wade, 1990). Thirdly, I offer an extension of the neoliberal authoritarianism thesis by going beyond
its inherent structuralist functionalism. Instead of explaining the forms of the state by the “needs of
capital”, I propose to analyze the competing factions of the economic elite and their conflictual
relationship to the new state.
2.2 Authoritarian capitalism and the accumulative state
The first building block of my theoretical approach is a specific understanding of the relationship
between dominant classes and state power. Democracy does not follow automatically from
economic development nor through the institutionalization of liberal culture. Instead, democracy
is a result of historically contingent class conflicts and compromises (Korpi, 1983; Przeworski and
Wallerstein, 1982; Rueschemeyer et al., 1992; Therborn, 1977). In this article, I pay specific
attention to the relationship between the factions of the capitalist class, politics, and the state.
Politicians are central actors who can facilitate the emergence and consolidation of particular class
coalitions through political instruments available to the state. I depart from structuralist Marxism
that treats the structural power of capital as the defining moment in political economy (Jessop,
2008; Poulantzas, 1982), and follow a more empirically oriented approach to the power of capital
influenced by neo-Gramscian political economy and power structure theory (Cox, 1983; Domhoff,
2006[1967]; van der Pijl et al., 2011). I treat the state and politicians as relatively autonomous actors
who are not only bound by structural constraints but are also capable of transforming them.
The second theoretical pillar of my approach rests on the assertion that we have to analyze the
dynamism of specific class factions in the context of the phases of industrialization and economic
internationalization (Kurth, 1979). Specifically, in the case of Hungary, we have to contextualize
classes in the late, extensive phase of dependent development (Gagyi, 2016; Gerőcs and Pinkasz,
2018). The presence of a high number of technologically sophisticated transnational corporations
characterizes the late, extensive phase of dependent development, which provide the backbone of
industrial production and export (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979; Evans, 1979; Saad Filho, 2005).
Challenging structuralist determinism and political voluntarism alike, theorists of dependent
development suggest that states can employ policies to break out of the deadlock of semi-peripheral
economic integration by facilitating technological upgrading to allow domestic companies to
capture a higher value-added share of global value chains (Evans, 1995; Wade, 1990). If governing
elites fail to install a developmental state, the domestic sector of the economy remains
underdeveloped, and international integration might lead to an internal structural disintegration of
the economy, and the subsequent polarization of the capitalist class.
Third, following from these considerations, I assert that we have to pay specific attention to the
role of the national bourgeoisie in democratic backsliding. In the spirit of Adam Smith, liberal
economists and structuralist neo-Marxists alike often portray capital as an entity imbued with a
unitary logic, stressing the fundamental commonality between various factions of capital: “the
proprietor of stock is properly a citizen of the world, and is not necessarily attached to any particular
country” (Smith, 2007[1776]:552). Very often, they focus on transnational corporations (TNCs) as
the dominant actors of contemporary capitalism, leading to an emerging transnational capitalist
class that has allegedly subsumed national capital (Sklair, 2001). Both liberal-minded economists
and structuralist Marxists often conclude that the capitalist class is therefore hostile to the nation-
state and propels the de-territorialization of politics. Instead of presupposing a unified capitalist
class, I suggest analyzing competing capitalist factions.
Following Andrew Schrank, I define the national bourgeoisie as the native-born (or naturalized)
members of the capitalist class (Schrank, 2005:92). Core capitalist countries use a series of overt
and covert developmental state instruments, coercive diplomacy, and restrictions on intellectual
property rights to lock in the current international division of labor and their advantage in the most
In this article, the state does not refer to the totality of the state but to the specific regime that was installed
with a specific purpose to manage dependent capitalism in Hungary. I do not wish to equate the state with
politics or with the dominant classes.
I use capital in a sociological sense. First, as a reference to the people who possess capital. Second, referring
to “wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available for a purpose
such as starting a company or investing”, as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary. This definition is
broader than the usual economic definition used in national or corporate accounts, and corresponds to
Piketty’s (2014) usage of the term.
lucrative high-tech sectors (Block, 2008; Chang, 2002). The semi-peripheral national bourgeoisie
also often lacks access to global networks, which makes it harder to relocate production, and is
therefore characterized by more place-specific investments into “land, physical capital, and human
relationships” (Schrank, 2005:94). All of this makes penetrating the most valuable international
markets difficult for semi-peripheral economies’ national bourgeoisie. Therefore, the national
capital of peripheral states is structurally prone to rely directly on big business diplomacy to compete
with transnational companies and nurture the rise of national champions (Evans, 1979; Nölke,
2014; Schrank, 2008). I will demonstrate that the exclusion of the national capitalists from the high-
tech sectors of the economy in Hungary led to a polarization of the capitalist class, and the
concomitant revolt of the national bourgeoisie against transnational capital and technocratic
Finally, I also offer a conceptual clarification about the nature of the post-2010 Hungarian regime.
I posit that the post-2010 state is an accumulative state that has replaced the competition state
(Drahokoupil, 2008a; Hay, 2004). The accumulative state is an authoritarian political solution to
manage the internal contradictions of dependent development, institutionalized as a compromise
between transnational capital, national capital and the nationalist faction of the political class,
designed to help each wing of the power bloc to accumulate capital. Alan Wolfe (1977) coined the
concept of the accumulative state. For Wolfe, the accumulative state represented the compromise
between the landed aristocracy and the nascent commercial and industrial bourgeoisie in the 18th
and 19th centuries in Western Europe and North America. Both the landed aristocracy and the
bourgeoisie had an interest in an active state to repress agricultural labor and the growing urban
proletariat to ensure inexpensive inputs for production. The repressive regime combined elements
such as the limited suffrage, limits on trade unionism, as well as the institutionalization of the slave
trade, slave work, and prison work (see also Staples, 1991). The state also protected the economic
interests of the dominant classes at home and abroad through tariffs, diplomacy, securing exclusive
rights to trade, and offering military protection for risky commercial ventures. Without these
authoritarian fixes, the primitive accumulation of capital in core capitalist countries would have
been impossible.
I propose to update the theory of the accumulative state to contemporary realities of semi-
peripheral countries. In the case of Hungary, the nascent national bourgeoisie plays the role of the
landed aristocracy, while transnational corporations replace the commercial and industrial
bourgeoisie of the early version of the accumulative state. Since nationalist politicians and the
national bourgeoisie are not able to overthrow the rule of TNCs, they make a compromise with
them. The new consensus that emerges between transnational capitalists, the national bourgeoisie
and nationalist politicians leads to the institutionalization of short-term capitalist needs in the form
of reduced welfare spending, repression of labor unions, and various types of increased direct and
indirect support to capital. These policies result in a series of new social conflicts, prompting a turn
to authoritarian solutions against the victims of capital accumulation, leading to the birth of
authoritarian capitalism and the accumulative state. Thus, the authoritarian nature of the new
regime is in part a corollary to the accumulative compromise among the factions of the new power
3. Methods
This article aims to provide a deep understanding of causal mechanisms and to propose a new
theoretical framework for future research. Methodologically, the paper follows the tradition of
historical political economy. I treat the 2010 collapse of democracy in Hungary as a critical juncture
that can be unpacked to reveal deeper fundamental processes behind the surface (Capoccia and
Kelemen, 2007). In other words, I present "an analysis of agency and experience that is fully
grounded in the relational vehicles of power in space and time" (Kalb and Tak, 2004:vii).
I use multiple empirical approaches to underpin the analysis. First, in section 4, I describe how
international economic integration led to internal disintegration and the polarization of the
economic elite utilizing various statistics from international and domestic agencies and the
Second, to provide evidence for the revolt of the national bourgeoisie, I created a new dataset on
the top 100 billionaires in Hungary. The dataset relies on the reports published annually since 2002
by the Hungarian newspaper Economic Daily (Napi Gazdaság). With the help of a research assistant,
I recorded every billionaire who entered any of the top 100 reports since 2002, altogether 222
people. With the help of the Library of the Hungarian National Assembly I collected every
interview made with them as well as reports on their activities covering the 2000-2018 period. The
advantage of the parliamentary library is that I could obtain a broad set of articles not available
online. I compiled information on 163 billionaires from the 222, encompassing 3659 pages in total.
I further extended this dataset with online desk research.
Based on this press dataset, I recorded the wealth, the investment profile, and the political affiliation
of the billionaires. I followed a conservative approach, and only coded political affiliations if there
was indisputable evidence for this in the articles I collected. When referring to political affiliations,
I use the categories Left and Right as political positions specific to the Hungarian political scene:
the left refers to the political camp dominated by the Hungarian Socialists, the right denotes the
political field dominated by Fidesz. These terms do not imply ideological positions, as very often
the Left implemented economically more liberal reforms than the Right (see Fabry, 2019).
Journalists’ perceptions of billionaires admittedly bias this methodology. Also, it only covers the
top of the economic elite. These are limitations that we have to consider when evaluating the
results. However, the top billionaires have the best chance to influence political outcomes, and their
public activities are better documented than less wealthy investors. Thus, this dataset is currently
the best available information and is suitable to analyze macro-trends.
Finally, to demonstrate the functioning of the accumulate state as a result of the new class collation,
I analyze the political tools used to prop up capital accumulation in section 5. Based on a close
reading of the literature and news coverage on economic policymaking in Hungary, I identified the
most significant policy decisions and political tools during the 2010-2018 period that have a
substantial effect on the institutional foundations and the structure of the economy. I grouped these
into 11 broader categories and identified their impact on the various segments of the economic
4. The exhaustion of the competition state and the revolt of the
national capital
With the exhaustion of socialist import substitution industrialization in the 1980s, policymakers
saw domestic and foreign economic liberalization as the way ahead (Amsden et al., 1994).
Advocates of liberal modernization were aware that this would lead to deindustrialization but
thought that by rapidly creating the conditions for private markets to function, primarily through
the liberalization of investment, new and more efficient enterprises would quickly emerge (Sachs,
1994). Inspired by this agenda, Central and Eastern European countries competed fiercely for
foreign investment (Bandelj, 2009; Bohle and Greskovits, 2012; Böröcz, 1999; King, 2007; Nölke
and Vliegenthart, 2009). The resulting state structure was described as the competition state,
institutionalized by the dominant power block of transnational corporations and technocratic
politicians (Drahokoupil, 2008a; Hay, 2004).
These technocratic politicians dominated economic policymaking in every Hungarian government
before 2010. Though their approach to privatization differed, there was a consensus among them
about the need to compete for foreign investment (Bandelj, 2008; King and Váradi, 2002; Szalai,
1999). The policy instruments of the liberal competition state included generous tax incentives,
direct subsidies, deregulation, flexible labor standards, and low wages for a relatively well-educated
labor force (Szanyi, 2004). The tax incentives and the continuously decreasing corporate tax
positively discriminated TNCs at the expense of the national bourgeoisie. Almost 90% of all tax
reductions went to foreign-owned companies in 2000 (Pitti, 2010:55).
As a result, foreign investment penetration in Hungary was unprecedentedly fast-paced by
international standards (Böröcz, 2001). There were 15,205 foreign affiliates located in Hungary in
1994, representing 6% of the total number of foreign affiliates all over the world, and 28% of foreign
affiliates in entire East-Central Europe (UNCTAD, 1995:9). Fifteen years later, the total stock of
foreign direct investment (FDI) reached 76.2% of GDP by 2009. Also, the domination of TNCs in
the financial sector affected other sectors of the economy. Foreign-owned banks favored lending to
TNCs and households in the form of mortgage credits instead of domestic enterprises (Weller,
2000). The years between 1990 and 2006 were the years of externally funded growth: the arrival of
TNCs increased the capital stock significantly, which in itself boosted growth. It also led to
significant technological upgrading of Hungary’s industrial base (Greskovits, 2003).
Even though a large segment of TNCs was engaged in high-tech production, they still used
imported technology and focused on assembly activities. There is little sign that they would relocate
research and development, branding, marketing, distribution, or consumer services to Hungary
(Szalavetz, 2014). There is even less sign that the technological superiority of TNCs would spill
over to Hungarian-owned companies. The Audi plant in Győr, a significant town close to the
Austrian border, is a flagship TNC investment in Hungary. However, the local value-added of
Audi’s production was a meager 1-2% in the 1990s and reached only 10% by the second half of the
2000s (Keune et al., 2009:102-105). As empirical research has demonstrated, the contribution of
TNCs to national economic development and technological upgrading was minimal (Iwasaki and
Tokunaga, 2014; Rugraff, 2008).
The high level of investment internationalization led to an internal economic disintegration. The
highly productive and profitable transnational sector and the less productive and less profitable
labor-intensive national sector of the economy are not integrated, that is forward, and backward
linkages are weak. In 2004, the employee of a foreign company produced 3.5 times as much added
value as the employee of a Hungarian company (Grell, 2007). This ratio is higher than in other
countries of the region. Deloitte’s report on the 500 largest Central and Eastern European
companies contains 67 Hungarian firms, out of which 53 are foreign-owned multinational
companies, the state owned nine, and domestic private investors owned only two (Deloitte,
2016:20). The new economic structure thus was characterized by a weak national capitalist class
and a dominant international capital (Eyal et al., 1998).
Economic disintegration polarized the capitalist class. Transnational corporations, the very few
successful technological companies owned by Hungarian investors, and the domestic service class
that directly profited from TNCs were satisfied with the liberal competition state (see the notion of
the “comprador service sector” by Drahokoupil, 2008b). However, the overwhelming majority of
the national bourgeoisie grew dissatisfied during the 2000s, as the elite-interviews by Kolosi and
Szelényi demonstrate (Kolosi and Szelényi, 2010). Even though between 1998 and 2002, the
technocratic wing of Fidesz dominated economic governance, Fidesz changed its economic policy
strategy following its defeat in 2002 (Naczyk, 2014). The party has begun to put much more
emphasis on economic nationalism and has started to voice criticism against the dominance of
TNCs. Fidesz has actively infiltrated the associations of national capitalists as well. By the end of
the 2000s, several heads of these business associations were ready to publicly declare their support
for Fidesz, such as Laszlo Parragh, head of Organization of the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce.
Figure 1. The revolt of the national bourgeoisie
Figure 1 presents the changing political affiliation of the top billionaires in Hungary. Confirming
the existing literature (Stark and Vedres, 2012), I found that the majority of the national bourgeoisie
was leaning towards the Left-Liberal coalition at the beginning of the 2000s. However, even though
they were in government, they lost support among billionaires, and the support for Right-wing
parties (mostly Fidesz) grew significantly. The national bourgeoisie was dominantly leaning
towards the Right by 2005. Some of them dropped out of the top 100 during the financial crisis.
However, already before the 2010 elections, Right-leaning billionaires outweighed Left-leaning
billionaires by 28 to 11. Altogether, between 2002 and 2017 the number of Left-leaning billionaires
declined from 22 to 6, whereas the number of Right-leaning billionaires grew from 16 to 37.
It would be misleading to characterize all of these investors as creations of Orbán, or members of
the inner circle of friends and family, as neo-utilitarian theorists do. A broad segment of the national
capitalist class has started to support Fidesz at the end of the 2000s, going well beyond the inner
circle. Based on the role of political connections in their capital accumulation, I identified the
following major groups within the national capitalist class:
(1) Political capitalists: Their capital accumulation largely depends on public procurement and
other state-created markets by Fidesz. This group corresponds to neo-utilitarian theory, and
their activities are widely reported on both in the national and international press.
(2) Emerging capitalists: Their capital accumulation is not directly related to the state as in the
case of political capitalists, they accumulated their wealth on the market. The key reason
for their loyalty to Fidesz is their belief that Fidesz is more capable of tackling internal
economic disintegration and nurturing the rise of the national capital.
(3) Co-opted capitalists: This group comprises capitalists who maintained good connections with
Left-wing politicians, but changed their allegiance later, in part because of the high costs of
dissenting and in part for the same reason as emerging capitalists: they hoped to receive
more help from Fidesz. The accumulation of their original wealth was unrelated to Fidesz.
(4) Passive capitalists: They are investors who do not support Fidesz actively, but accept the
post-2010 regime in part because of the perceived lack of alternatives, in part because of the
high costs of dissenting, and partly because the government also treats them favorably.
Their capital accumulation is also directly not connected to Fidesz.
The list of the members of the national bourgeoisie trying to compete with TNCs and actively
complaining about the policies of the competition state is extensive. The wealthiest person in
Hungary in 2019, Sándor Csányi, head of Hungary’s largest bank (OTP) and a massive agricultural
empire, actively supported Orbán already in 2009 (Figyelő, 2009), and has been doing so ever since.
One of Hungary’s most prominent investors in the plastics industry, Béla Karsai, was complaining
about the negative discrimination that Hungarian companies were facing before 2010 (Kolosi and
Szelényi, 2010:101-102). He later entered politics as a mayoral candidate with the support of
Fidesz. Levente Balogh, the head of the largest nationally owned mineral water company
(Szentkirályi), summed up the sentiment among the national bourgeoisie: transnational
corporations can only mistreat Hungarian companies this way because they see how the political
leadership is treating Hungarian companies (Magyar Demokrata, 2011).
At the same time, Orbán, both as a leader of the opposition and later as PM, paid frequent visits to
the national bourgeoisie. Visiting a plant supported by the government in 2011, he said the
following: While Europe is becoming a unified economic area, and while the world is
transforming into a global economy, there is still a role for national industry, for national capital.
This very fact that a Hungarian employs a Hungarian, a German employs a German [] is the
basis of national economies in Europe (Heti Válasz, 2011). Thus, building on their growing
disillusionment and revolt against the competition state, Orbán actively facilitated the emergence
of a new class alliance incorporating the national bourgeoisie.
5. The instruments of the accumulative state
The revolt of the national capitalist class against the power structure that sustained the liberal
competition state was an essential structural condition that allowed Viktor Orbán back to power.
In this section, I demonstrate that the active role of the national bourgeoisie and their new
compromise with transnational capital is not only a significant causal factor behind Hungary’s
authoritarian turn but also key to understand the nature and stability of the emerging new regime.
Table 1 presents an overview of the impact of the accumulative state’s principal political
instruments on the factions of capital. The sign (+) indicates that the particular instrument is
favorable to the group, (-) indicates the opposite, whereas (0) suggests that the measure is neutral
to the group. As we can see, except the new public procurement system, none of the instruments is
solely dedicated to political capitalists but target a much broader segment of the economic elite.
Table 1. Political instruments of the accumulative state and their beneficiaries
National capital
Transnational capital
& co-opted
1) Public procurement
2) Property rights actions
3) Surtaxes/crisis taxes
4) Revolving doors and
5) Financial subsidies
6) Cheap credits
7) Low taxes
8) Tax allowances
9) Austerity
10) Low-skilled labor supply
11) Flexible labor supply
The instrument best fitting neo-utilitarian theory is (1) public procurement. Corruption related to
public procurement has significantly increased after 2010 (Fazekas and Tóth, 2016). Journalists
have extensively documented the scandals involving close political allies and the members of
Orbán’s family. However, public procurement not only benefits political capitalists but also serves
as a tool to prop up dwindling private investment, primarily the reduction in foreign investments.
FDI as percentage of gross fixed capital formation was 22.4% on average between 1991 and 2010,
dropping to 6.6% on average between 2011 and 2017, amounting to a 71% decline, by far exceeding
the reduction in Poland (10%) or the Czech Republic (41%) (UNCTAD, 2018). In parallel to the
declining share of FDI, the role of EU transfers has increased. Transfers from the EU account for
around 50% of public investments, with a significant increase in the effective use of EU cohesion
and structural funds following 2010 (Fazekas and King, 2018). As a result, the state’s expenses on
economic functions has increased from 11.3% to 18.2% of the total central government budget
between 2009 and 2015 (Eurostat, 2018b). Between 2011 and 2015, the economy grew by 6.8%,
out of which public investments explain 3.9 percentage points, with public investment accounting
for more than 30% of total investment (, 2016). We thus cannot consider investors
outside the inner circle of political capitalists as apparent victims of public procurement.
(2) Property rights actions are “state activities that define and enforce property rights” (Campbell and
Lindberg, 1990:635). These activities include administrative tools that influence property structure,
such as competition laws; punitive regulation intended to change the property structure of a sector;
and nationalization and privatization, which could involve management rights, concessions or
sometimes the assets themselves. The value of state assets grew 2.5 times between 2010 and 2015
(Voszka, 2018:1282).
The forced integration of regional savings and loans into a national bank (Takarékbank) is a good
example (Király, 2016). A key national capitalist, Zoltán Spéder, initiated the process. The
government threatened local savings and loans, that were not willing to hand over management
and marketing rights to the new nationwide bank, with the suspension of their license. The
Parliament passed the bill itself within three days after its introduction to minimize the potential
for resistance. This way, the state crafted a large bank for private investors, which has become the
second most influential financial service provider in Hungary, controlling almost 10% of the market
(Király, 2016). For further cases involving a broad segment of national capitalists see Gonda
(2019), Ángyán (2014) or Scheiring (2018). The victims of these property rights actions are either
non-technological transnational investors (in the case of media, energy or advertising), or small-
scale Hungarian investors (as in the case of savings and loans).
The government also introduced (3) various surtaxes on financial institutions, advertising activity,
telecommunication services, and energy companies. These surtaxes mostly though not
exclusively hit transnational investors in the non-technological sectors. For example, the
surcharge on financial institutions was 0.53% levied on the assets (not on profits or income),
reduced to 0.24% after 2016 for banks with assets exceeding 50 billion forints ($175 million
Smaller mostly Hungarian owned financial institutions had to pay a significantly lower
percentage (0.15%). The secondary, unofficial aim of these taxes is to aid the property rights actions
of the government. Punitive taxes on advertising or the announcement of a media tax contributed
to the withdrawal of international investors, making space for national capitalists. In the case of
media and advertising, these are close political allies; in the case of the financial sector, co-opted
national capitalists play an essential role, while passive capitalists and non-tech TNCs are the
apparent victims.
A next significant tool serving capital accumulation is (4) revolving doors and partnerships. Oligarchs
closely allied to Fidesz land their personnel in the ministries responsible for the distribution of EU
funds. However, the government also invites less politicized capitalists to occupy official posts.
One of Hungary’s wealthiest entrepreneurs, György Wáberer, founder of Hungary’s most
prominent road transportation companies, Waberer’s International, took up the position of the
special governmental commissioner on logistical issues. István Krankovics, the owner of a major
bus manufacturing company, is working as a special advisor to the minister of finance, who also
launched a program to regenerate bus manufacturing capacities in Hungary (, 2016). The
government has also signed Strategic Partnership Agreements with the largest, mostly
transnational corporations in the country (Bartha, 2015), altogether 79 until the end of 2018. These
agreements helped to pacify tech-intensive producers. According to the editor of Budapester Zeitung,
a leading German-language newspaper in Hungary, 90% of German investors in Hungary would
vote for Orbán (WirtschaftsWoche, 2018).
1 USD = 285 HUF as of 5 December 2018
The accumulative state also (5) distributes direct financial subsidies both to national and international
capital. These exceed the pre-2010 level and are more targeted towards national capitalists than
before. Since the launch of the scheme after Hungary’s accession to the EU, there were 238
subsidized investment projects (Hungarian Government, 2018). Between 2004 and 2010, the total
value of subsidies was 130 billion forints ($456 million), between 2011 and 2018, this has grown to
347 billion forints ($1.22 billion). Between 2004 and 2010, national capitalists carried out only 7%
of the subsidized projects, between 2011 and 2018 this has grown to 21%. The Orbán-regime has
significantly increased the subsidies to large corporations in addition to increasing the share of
Hungarian capital. The clear winners of this increase are emerging, and co-opted capitalists, as well
as TNCs in the tech sector. Interestingly, these subsidies do not directly fund political capitalists,
who can gain more through public procurement.
An essential new instrument that was incompatible with the liberal competition state is (6) the
increased availability of cheap loans. After Orbán’s close ally, the heterodox economist György
Matolcsy was appointed as the President of the Hungarian National Bank, he began to aggressively
reduce the central bank interest rate. Also, the National Bank launched a new lending for growth
program in 2013. The program allowed banks to borrow from the central bank at a 0% interest rate
if they lent the money forward to Hungarian-owned enterprises with a maximum 2.5% interest
rate. According to the central bank, the lending for growth program injected 1,700 billion forints
($5.95 billion) into the Hungarian economy and boosted growth by 2-2.5 percentage points between
2013 and 2017 (MNB, 2017b).
Another tool supporting the creation of private wealth and the accumulation of capital is (7)
reducing taxes. In 2011, the government introduced a flat 16% personal income tax. The new flat tax
is estimated to cost ca. 500 billion forints ($1.75 billion) annually compared to the previous tax
regime, equal to a 40% decline in personal income tax revenue (Bartha, 2014). In parallel to
reducing the top tax rate, the government increased the taxation at the bottom of the income scale
by eliminating the tax exemption for low-income workers. The winners of the new personal income
tax system are concentrated at the top 20% of income earners, whereas the majority of the bottom
80% is worse off (Tóth and Virovácz, 2013). The government also eliminated the second tier of the
corporate tax (previously 19%) and introduced a flat 9% tax in 2016.
The government has a further tool to allow the largest corporations to pay much less tax (8) using
various tax allowances. The government calculated with an effective corporate tax rate of 5% for the
2019 tax year (Menedzsment Fórum, 2018). The largest companies can reduce even this level
further with intra-company transfer pricing and other mechanisms. The actual corporate tax paid
by the 30 largest companies in Hungary on their income before taxes is only 3.6% (, 2018).
National capitalists are also able to reduce their corporate tax base, through financially supporting
sports clubs, mostly headed by Fidesz-politicians. Corporate money has been pouring into
professional sport clubs over the last years, which represents an essential informal mechanism
linking private capitalists to the state. This type of instrument benefits every capitalist faction.
(9) Austerity is a further crucial tool to redistribute wealth towards capital. To begin with, the new
constitution passed in 2011, abolished the constitutional protection of social rights (Szikra, 2014).
It also includes a mandatory debt brake at 50% of the GDP, which implies that public debt has to
decrease each year until it is below the ceiling. Public services and social benefits are the most
important targets of austerity. Public health care spending declined from an internationally already
low 5.2% of GDP in 2009 to 4.8% in 2016. Spending on social protection was reduced from 18.2%
of the GDP in 2009 to 14.3% in 2016 (Eurostat, 2018b). Austerity and macroeconomic
conservativism are again beneficial for every capitalist faction.
An essential instrument of the accumulative state is (10) increasing the supply of low-skilled labor.
Altogether, the government slashed education spending from 5.4% of GDP to 4.9% between 2009
and 2016 (Eurostat, 2018b). The government reduced the compulsory education age from 18 to 16,
curtailed state-funded higher education, which led to a 15% decline in tertiary school enrolment
from 2010 to 2016 (World Bank, 2018). These reforms are openly directed to serve the interests of
capital, especially national capital. While some TNCs with a large share of low-skilled workers also
benefit, others are complaining about the lack of skilled labor. Hungarian national capital is
overwhelmingly located in low-skill, non-tech sectors of the economy and needs low-payed
workers with low education. szló Parragh, chair of the Organization of the Hungarian Chamber
of Commerce and Industry, one of the central lobby groups of Hungarian national capital, was a
key figure behind the government’s educational reforms. Although he thinks that as a matter of
economic rationality the compulsory education age should have been reduced to 15 (,
2017). The economy’s declining innovation-potential led to a decrease in the share of high-tech
goods in the export following 2010, with a continuous decline in MIT’s economic complexity index
for Hungary, which measures the relative knowledge intensity of an economy (MIT, 2018).
Finally, the government (11) significantly increased the flexibility of labor and decreased its protection
(Szabó, 2013; Tóth, 2012). Parallel to introducing a new Labor Code in 2012, the government
disbanded the standing tripartite body and changed the strike law-making strikes for public service
workers almost impossible. Lobby groups connected to the national capitalist class hailed the new
labor code. Ferenc Dávid, the secretary-general of the National Association of Entrepreneurs and
Employers, approved of the new regulation by pointing out that the previous law “tied the hands
of employers and employees too much” (MGYOSZ, 2010).
Massive emigration from the country and the concomitant labor shortage prompted the
government to amend the Labor Code again in December 2018 upon the request of corporations,
as a member of the government admitted in an interview (Világgazdaság, 2018). This time they
increased the maximum overtime per person per year from 250 hours to 400 hours, i.e., 20% of the
basic labor time. At the same time, companies can postpone payment for overtime to three years,
an increase from one year in the previous Labor Code. This amendment, labeled as “slave law” by
trade unions, led to fierce protests both within and outside the parliament (Gagyi and Gerőcs, 2019;
Scheiring and Szombati, 2019).
6. From accumulation to authoritarianism
To conclude mapping how the accumulative state functions, in this section, I point out the social
tensions emanating from the political tools listed in Table 1, and their relationship to the
governments authoritarian practices.
Figure 2 plots the accumulation of total financial wealth against the declining ratio of the income
of the bottom 20% compared to the income of the top 20%. We cannot directly compare the two
processes, as one indicator shows the total stock of wealth
and the other the ratio of incomes.
However, the graph shows two significant trends that adequately summarize the broader social
implications of the accumulative state. The net financial assets of Hungarian families fluctuated
around 65% of the GDP between 2002 and 2010. This trend changed dramatically following 2010,
with a massive creation of new wealth, with the new financial assets of households exceeding 100%
of the GDP by 2016, the most significant jump in private wealth in Eastern Europe measured by
gross domestic savings (World Bank, 2018).
Figure 2. The accumulation of wealth and the concentration of incomes
However, it would be misleading to think that this wealth is distributed equally across society. The
instruments of the accumulative state favor the wealthiest groups and the highest income segments.
According to data from the central bank of Hungary, the overwhelming majority of Hungarians
only owns cash and bank deposits (40% of which is owned by the top 10%); whereas the 88% of
securities (shares, bonds, derivatives) was owned by the top 10% of income earners in 2015 (MNB,
2017a:68). The value of cash holdings and bank deposits grew only by 14% between 2010 and 2015,
the value of securities owned by Hungarians grew by 68% (MNB, 2017a:95), revealing a
disproportionately large increase in the wealth of the wealthiest. This increase in wealth inequality
was in part driven by the rise in income inequality, as the other line in Figure 2 shows. The income of
the bottom 20% declined from 29% of the income of the top 20% in 2010 to 23% in 2017. The
political instruments listed above directly and intentionally contributed to this. For example, the
social income (i.e., income that individuals receive from the state in addition to their wage) of the
bottom 40% has been reduced by 6.45%-12.06% between 2009 and 2016, while the social income
support of the top ninth decile has increased by 26.1%, and that of the top 10% by 42.05% (HCSO,
Unfortunately, there is no reliable time series information available that directly measures the share of the
wealthiest in the total wealth of Hungarians over the recent years.
The increased demand for precarious work combined with the massive outmigration and the public
works program has significantly reduced unemployment. At the same time, the capacity of the
Hungarian economy to create high-quality jobs has also decreased. Following 2016, the favorable
international economic environment, the high level of EU subsidies, and chronic shortages in the
labor supply led to a moderate increase in wages, amounting to a 4.3% increase in the average real
wage between 2010 and 2017 (OECD, 2018). However, the real income of the bottom 10% has
remained unchanged until 2016, whereas the income of the top 10% skyrocketed (HCSO, 2018).
The share of working poor (those who earn below the 60% of the median wage) has increased by
6.8% between 2010 and 2017, which is one of the worst increases in the whole EU (Eurostat,
In sum, the instruments employed by the governing elite to prop up the capital accumulation, hurt
the majority of society, from members of the working class, through small and medium-sized
entrepreneurs to urban liberal middle classes. Orbán won in 2010 with the support of the working
middle class. His neoconservative policies favor the economic elite and alienate a large segment of
the working class and the poor. In 2014, Fidesz received fewer votes than in 2006, when they lost
the election. Orbán is popular in a significant segment of Hungarian society; however, the stability
of the regime depends in part on the authoritarian solutions it employs. To protect themselves
against a possible political backlash emanating from the losers of capital accumulation, Fidesz
curtailed the institutions of liberal democracy. In other words, Orbán’s authoritarianism is, in part,
a corollary to the acceleration of capital accumulation in reaction to the exhaustion of the extensive
phase of dependent development.
The government knows that direct repression in the 21st century is very costly and inefficient and
seeks a limited electoral legitimacy by the majority, therefore it combines institutional
authoritarianism with authoritarian populism, that is political instruments aimed at constructing
consent among the victims of accumulation (we discuss this two-pronged authoritarian strategy in
more detail elsewhere, see Scheiring and Szombati, 2019). The migration crisis that unfolded after
2015 provided a new opportunity for the regime to do so. The redirection of class cleavages and
distributional conflicts along cultural lines targeting the ‘undeserving poor,’ minorities, as well as
migrants, helps to construct consent. Targeting the figure of George Soros in the most recent
parliamentary election was a strategic move to connect the enemy images of the “reckless global
investor” and the “fearful migrant,” portraying both as threats to the vulnerable working-class, and
allowing Orbán to pose in the role of the protector. The strategic use of the nation as a community
of solidarity is a significant source of legitimacy for the governing elite (Fabry, 2018; Scheiring,
2019b; Szombati, 2018).
7. Conclusions
In this article, I demonstrated that dependent development led to the disintegration of the
Hungarian economy. The postsocialist competition state failed to correct the inherent structural
imbalances of the foreign-investment-led model. This process of structural disintegration
(sometimes called disarticulation) has been well analyzed in the literature of dependent
development (De Janvry and Sadoulet, 1983; Hirschman, 1978; Stokes and Anderson, 1990). This
also underscores my argument about the relevance of analyzing democracy against the backdrop
of the stages of industrialization (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979; Kurth, 1979). This internal
disintegration led to a polarization of the capitalist class. Utilizing insights from international
political economy (Evans, 1979; Nölke, 2014; Schrank, 2005, 2008), I showed that we could not
treat the capitalist class as a unified global class as Sklair (2001) for example argues, and cannot
posit that it would be equally interested in a weak state.
I showed that in alliance with nationalist politicians, the national capitalist class revolted against
the dominant power bloc of TNCs and technocratic politicians. I demonstrated that the stability of
the new regime in part rests the support of a broad segment of the national capitalist class, going
beyond political capitalists, including emerging co-opted and passive capitalists as well. Unable to
challenge the dominance of transnational capital, the national bourgeoisie and nationalist
politicians entered into a new class compromise with TNCs. Foreign capital in the technological
sectors is also an important pillar underpinning the stability of the regime. Therefore, instruments
of the accumulative state cannot be characterized as “business unfriendly” (Sallai and Schnyder,
2018) or as an illegitimate “mafia state” (Magyar, 2016).
Modernization theory maintained that the capitalist class has a natural tendency to support liberal
democracy. Several experts, followers of shock therapy economics, suggested during the early
transition years to proceed with economic reforms rapidly before political reforms to produce a
strong bourgeoisie that would support further democratization (Blanchard et al., 1993). The case
of Hungary shows that the dynamics of global economic integration at the semi-periphery of the
world economy might lead to opposite outcomes. It illustrates what happens when governing elites
neglect the promotion of national economic interests entirely and fail to prevent the polarization
of the economic elite. In contrast to the proposition of liberal theories of democracy, the national
bourgeoisie did not engage in any form of systematic fight to protect liberal rights, to battle against
recursive legislation or discriminatory, anti-market and anti-competition policy measures that
violate the rights of investors. However, the Hungarian case also demonstrated that international
capital also does not necessarily always support liberal institutions, as many theorists believed.
Foreign capitalists in the tech sectors are among the most important beneficiaries of Hungary’s
authoritarian regime and are willing to contribute to its stability.
I showed how the incorporation of the national bourgeoisie into the dominant power bloc and the
resulting new class compromise resulted in a tighter fusion of economic power and state power
than previously. This led to the emergence of a series of new political tools intended to prop up
capital accumulation. I argued that this new state regime is a reinvention of the historical model of
the accumulative state (Staples, 1991; Wolfe, 1977). I have also shown that the accumulative state
prioritizes short-term accumulation, as evidenced by the declining education spending, the drop in
the enrolment rate, and the declining technological complexity of the economy. The compromise
between the nationalist politicians, the national bourgeoisie, and the transnational capital
subsumes the developmental capacities of the state. Thus, the post-2010 state is not a
developmental state, as some argue (György, 2017; Wilkin, 2016).
Finally, I demonstrated that the accumulative state not only locks in the economy into a low-value-
added precarious mode of production, it also intensifies structural tensions between capital
accumulation and democratic legitimacy. A two-pronged authoritarian strategy comprising
institutional authoritarianism and authoritarian populism so far helped to stabilize the regime. In
addition to institutionally pre-empting organized dissent, authoritarian populism utilizes inherited
nationalist frames, but the success of the nationalist framing is also tightly related to the
disillusionment with economic change (Scheiring, 2019b). Thus, the cultural dimension of
authoritarianism cannot be interpreted in opposition to political-economic processes, as some
scholars maintain (e.g. Skidelsky, 2019).
The long-term stability of the regime in part depends on its continued ability to maintain support
across broad sections of the capitalist class. A tightening of the EU budget and a worsening of the
global economic climate could potentially destabilize this alliance. Another challenge could
possibly come from an oppositional movement that organizes the victims of accumulation.
However, the authoritarian measures employed by the state to suppress dissent has so far
successfully hindered the emergence of a capable opposition. Institutional authoritarianism is
aimed at pre-empting organized dissent by political parties, trade unions, and NGOs. Fidesz
combines institutional authoritarianism with authoritarian populism to reframe distributive
grievances as cultural and to generate conflicts in fields where it can prevail. Thus, in short to
medium term, the accumulative state in Hungary appears to be a contradictory but solid strategy
to manage dependent capitalism.
Future comparative research could investigate the role of economic elite polarization and changes
in dominant class coalitions to analyze the dynamism of autocratization in other countries. For
example, one could hypothesize that the relative weakness of the Polish authoritarian populist
government compared to the Hungarian is related to its weaker embeddedness in the economic
elite. The main oppositional party in Poland, the Civic Platform (PO), has excellent connections
to national capitalists and used state apparatuses to facilitate the growth of domestic businesses
(Naczyk, 2014). Polish governments were more inclined to utilize developmental state policies
throughout the transition years (Bruszt and Karas, 2019; Bruszt and Langbein, 2019). Therefore,
the Polish economic elite was less polarized, and there was less room for Kaczynski’s party to
organize disillusioned capitalists. The polarization of the economic elite might take place in the
capitalist core as well. The US economy is polarized between the new economy / old economy
elite, as well as between domestically oriented and internationally oriented segments, with the two
partially overlapping. Future research could analyze Trump’s ability to attract the support of locally
oriented economic elites outside the new economy.
The theoretical framework developed in the article is relevant nut just for specialists concentrating
on Hungary, but for everyone analyzing the political-economic dimension of the contemporary
crisis of democracy.
References, 2017. László Parragh: I Admit That We Have Been Partners in Crime with the
Government (in Hungarian: 'Parragh László: Tettestársak Voltunk a Kormánnyal'). Attila
Buják, 30 November 2017, 168 óra, URL:
Amsden, A.H., Kochanowicz, J., Taylor, L., 1994. The Market Meets Its Match: Restructuring the
Economies of Eastern Europe. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Ángyán, J., 2014. Vi. Report on Land Policy: Report on the State Administration of Hungarian
Agriculture. Manuscript, 20 July 2014, Gödöllő.
Antal, A., 2019. Orbán Bárkája. Noran-Libro Kiadó, Budapest.
Appel, H., Orenstein, M., 2018. From Triumph to Crisis: Neoliberal Economic Reform in Post-
Communist Countries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Arsel, M., Hogenboom, B., Pellegrini, L., 2016. The Extractive Imperative and the Boom in
Environmental Conflicts at the End of the Progressive Cycle in Latin America. The
Extractive Industries and Society 3 (4), 877-879.
Artner, A., 2018. Can Capitalism Be Truly Democratic? Review of Radical Political Economics 50
(4), 793-809.
Associated Press, 2018. Huge Pro-Government Media Conglomerate Formed in Hungary. Pablo
Gorondi, AP News, 28 November 2018, URL:, 2018. Hungarian Government Spent €40 Million on Anti-Soros Propaganda in 2017.
Katalin Erdélyi,, 4 February 2018, URL:
Bahro, R., 1977. The Alternative: Critique of the Really Existing Socialism (in German: 'Die
Alternative: Zur Kritik Des Real Existierenden Sozialismus'). Europäische Verlagsanstalt,
Bajomi-Lázár, P., 2012. The Party Colonisation of the Media: The Case of Hungary. East European
Politics and Societies 27 (1), 69-89.
Bandelj, N., 2008. Economic Objects as Cultural Objects: Discourse on Foreign Investment in
Post-Socialist Europe. Socio-Economic Review 6 (4), 671-702.
Bandelj, N., 2009. The Global Economy as Instituted Process: The Case of Central and Eastern
Europe. American Sociological Review 74 (1), 128-149.
Bánkuti, M., Halmai, G., Scheppele, K.L., 2012. Hungary's Illiberal Turn: Disabling the
Constitution. Journal of Democracy 23 (3), 138-146.
Bartha, A., 2015. Politically Driven Policy-Making, Lobbying and Understanding the Role of
Strategic Partnership Agreements from a Narrative Policy Framework Perspective,
Mapping the System of National Cooperation Conference, IWM/IHS Institut für die
Wissenschaften vom Menschen, 26-27 June 2015, Vienna.
Bartha, E., 2011. "It Can't Make Me Happy That Audi Is Prospering": Working-Class Nationalism
in Hungary after 1989, in: Kalb, D., Halmai, G. (Eds.), Headlines of Nation, Subtexts of
Class: Working Class Populism and the Return of the Repressed in Neoliberal Europe, 1
ed. Berghahn Books, New York and Oxford, pp. 92-112.
Bartha, Z., 2014. Mid-Term Effects of the Flat Rate Personal Income Tax in Hungary. Humanities
and Social Sciences 19 (3), 25-42.
Blanchard, O., Boycko, M., Dabrowski, M., Dornbusch, R., Layard, R., Shleifer, A., 1993. Post-
Communist Reform: Pain and Progress. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Block, F., 2008. Swimming against the Current: The Rise of a Hidden Developmental State in the
United States. Politics & Society 36 (2), 169-206.
Bloom, P., 2016. Authoritarian Capitalism in the Age of Globalization. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Bod, P.Á., 2018. Wages, Profits and Rents - a Hungarian Perspective (in Hungarian: 'Bérek,
Profitok És Járadékok Harca Magyar Szemmel'). Századvég 2018 (2), 51-76.
Bohle, D., Greskovits, B., 2012. Capitalist Diversity on Europe's Periphery. Cornell University
Press, New York.
Bohle, D., Greskovits, B., 2018. Politicising Embedded Neoliberalism: Continuity and Change in
Hungary’s Development Model. West European Politics, 1-25.
Böröcz, J., 1999. From Comprador State to Auctioneer State: Property Change, Realignment, and
Peripheralization in Post-State-Socialist Central and Eastern Europe, in: Smith, D.A.,
Solinger, D.J., Topik, S.C. (Eds.), States and Sovereignity in the Global Economy.
Routledge, London & New York, pp. 193-209.
Böröcz, J., 2001. Change Rules. American Journal of Sociology 106 (4), 1152-1168.
Bozóki, A., 2011. Occupy the State: The Orbán Regime in Hungary. Journal of Contemporary
Central and Eastern Europe 19 (3), 649-663.
Bozóki, A., Hegedűs, D., 2018. An Externally Constrained Hybrid Regime: Hungary in the
European Union. Democratization 25 (7), 1173-1189.
Bruff, I., 2014. The Rise of Authoritarian Neoliberalism. Rethinking Marxism 26 (1), 113-129.
Bruszt, L., Karas, D., 2019. Diverging Developmental Strategies Beyond “Lead Sectors” in the Eu’s
Periphery: The Politics of Developmental Alliances in the Hungarian and Polish Dairy
Sectors. Review of International Political Economy Forthcoming.
Bruszt, L., Langbein, J., 2019. Manufacturing Development: How Transnational Market
Integration Shapes Opportunities and Capacities for Development in Europe’s Three
Peripheries. Review of International Political Economy Forthcoming.
Buzogány, Á., Varga, M., 2018. The Ideational Foundations of the Illiberal Backlash in Central and
Eastern Europe: The Case of Hungary. Review of International Political Economy 25 (6),
Campbell, J.L., Lindberg, L.N., 1990. Property Rights and the Organization of Economic Activity
by the State. American Sociological Review 55 (5), 634-647.
Capoccia, G., Kelemen, R.D., 2007. The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and
Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism. World Politics 59 (03), 341-369.
Cardoso, F.H., Faletto, E., 1979. Dependency and Development in Latin America. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
CEU, 2018. Ceu Forced out of Budapest: To Launch U.S. Degree Programs in Vienna in September
2019. Press release, 3 December 2018, Central European University, URL:
Chang, H.J., 2002. Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective.
Anthem Press, London.
Cox, R.W., 1983. Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method.
Millennium 12 (2), 162-175.
Csillag, T., Szelényi, I., 2015. Drifting from Liberal Democracy: Traditionalist/Neo-Conservative
Ideology of Managed Illiberal Democratic Capitalism in Post-Communist Europe.
Intersections: East European Journal of Society and Politics 1 (1), 18-48.
Dawson, J., Hanley, S., 2016. The Fading Mirage of the “Liberal Consensus”. Journal of Democracy
27 (1), 20-34.
De Janvry, A., Sadoulet, E., 1983. Social Articulation as a Condition for Equitable Growth. Journal
of Development Economics 13 (3), 275-303.
Deloitte, 2016. Central Europe Top 500: An Era of Digital Transformation 2006-2016. Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu Limited, Budapest.
Diamond, L., 2017. Is There a Crisis of Liberal Democracy? Presentation at the National
Endowment for Democracy, 30 November 30 2017, Washington, D.C.
Domhoff, W.G., 2006[1967]. Who Rules America? Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Drahokoupil, J., 2008a. The Rise of the Competition State in the Visegrád Four:
Internationalization of the State as a Local Project, in: van Apeldoorn, B., Drahokoupil, J.,
Horn, L. (Eds.), From Lisbon to Lisbon: Contradictions and Limits of Neoliberal European
Governance. Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Drahokoupil, J., 2008b. The Rise of the Comprador Service Sector: The Politics of State
Transformation in Central and Eastern Europe. Polish Sociological Review 2 (162), 175-
Ekiert, G., 2012. The Illiberal Challenge in Post-Communist Europe Surprises and Puzzles.
Taiwan Journal of Democracy 8 (2), 63-77.
Eurostat, 2018a. Employment (Main Characteristics and Rates) - Annual Averages. Eurostat,
(last access: 22/01/2018).
Eurostat, 2018b. General Government Expenditure by Function (Cofog). Eurostat, gov_10a_exp,
( Last access: 14/12/2018).
Evans, P.B., 1979. Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational, State, and Local
Capital in Brazil. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Evans, P.B., 1989. Predatory, Developmental, and Other Apparatuses: A Comparative Political
Economy Perspective on the Third World State. Sociological Forum 4 (4), 561-587.
Evans, P.B., 1995. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Eyal, G., Szelényi, I., Townsley, E., 1998. Making Capitalism without Capitalists: Class Formation
and Elite Struggles in Post-Communist Central Europe. Verso, London.
Fabry, A., 2018. Neoliberalism, Crisis and AuthoritarianEthnicist Reaction: The Ascendancy of
the Orbán Regime. Competition & Change First Published: 23 November 2018.
Fabry, A., 2019. The Political Economy of Hungary: From State Capitalism to Authoritarian
Neoliberalism. Palgrave Pivot, London.
Fabry, A., Sandbeck, S., 2018. Introduction to Special Issue on ‘Authoritarian Neoliberalism’.
Competition & Change First Published: 23 November 2018.
Fazekas, M., King, L.P., 2018. Perils of Development Funding? The Tale of EU Funds and Grand
Corruption in Central and Eastern Europe. Regulation & Governance 2018 (First
published: 04 January 2018), 1-26.
Fazekas, M., Tóth, I.J., 2016. From Corruption to State Capture: A New Analytical Framework
with Empirical Applications from Hungary. Political Research Quarterly 69 (2), 320-334.
Fekete, L., 2016. Hungary: Power, Punishment and the ‘Christian-National Idea’. Race & Class 57
(4), 39-53., 2016. The Revival of the Domestic Bus Industry Based on Domestic Needs (in
Hungarian: 'A Hazai Igényekre Épül a Nemzeti Buszgyártás Megújítása'). Press release,, 20 May 2016, URL:
Figyelő, 2009. Political Frontlines: Csányi Sándor's Public Affairs (in Hungarian: 'Politikai
Frontvonalak: Csányi Sándor Ügyei'). Figyelő, 2009/6, 3 February 2009.
Freedom House, 2018a. Hungary, in: Puddington, A. (Ed.), Freedom in the World 2017: The
Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. Rowman & Littlefield / Freedom
House, New York & Washington DC, pp. 224-231.
Freedom House, 2018b. Nations in Transit 2018: Hungary. Freedom House, Washington, DC,
Fukuyama, F., 2012a. Do Institutions Really Matter? The American Interest 23 January, 2012.
Fukuyama, F., 2012b. What’s Wrong with Hungary? The American Interest 6 February, 2012., 2018. 30 of the Largest Multinational Companies Could Siphon Off 48 Billion Forints Each
Year from Hungary (in Hungarian: 'Évi 48 Milliárd Forintnyi Társasági Adót Trükközhet
Ki Az Országból 30 Magyarországi Multi'). Péter Bucsky,, 12 November 2018, URL:
Gagyi, Á., 2016. 'Coloniality of Power' in East Central Europe: External Penetration as Internal
Force in Post-Socialist Hungarian Politics. journal of world-systems research 22 (2), 349-
Gagyi, Á., Gerőcs, T., 2019. The Political Economy of Hungary’s New “Slave Law”. Lefteast blog,, 1 January 2019, URL:
Gerőcs, T., Pinkasz, A., 2018. Debt-Ridden Development on Europe’s Eastern Periphery, in:
Boatcă, M., Komlosy, A., Nolte, H.-H. (Eds.), Global Inequalities in World-Systems
Perspective: Theoretical Debates and Methodological Innovations. Routledge, New York,
pp. 131-153.
Gonda, N., 2019. Land Grabbing and the Making of an Authoritarian Populist Regime in Hungary.
The Journal of Peasant Studies, 1-20.
Grell, M., 2007. The Impact of Foreign-Controlled Enterprises in the EU. Statistics in focus,
67/2007, KS-SF-07-067-EN-N, Eurostat, European Communities.
Greskovits, B., 2003. Sectors, States, and the Paths of Post-Socialist Development, in: Campos,
N.F., Fidrmuc, J. (Eds.), Political Economy of Transition and Development: Institutions,
Politics and Policies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 97-116.
Greskovits, B., 2015. The Hollowing and Backsliding of Democracy in East Central Europe. Paper
Presented at the Departmental Seminar of the Department of Political Science, Central
European University, 9 April 2015 Budapest.
György, L., 2017. Rebalancing - the Mission of Economic Policy (in Hungarian:
'Egyensúlyteremtés - a Gazdaságpolitika Missziója'). Századvég Kiadó, Budapest.
Hann, C., 2018. Marketization and Development on a European Periphery: From Peasant Oikos
to Socialism and Neoliberal Capitalism on the Danube-Tisza Interfluve. Environment and
Planning A: Economy and Space 2018 (First Published 22 June 2018).
Hay, C., 2004. Re‐Stating Politics, Re‐Politicising the State: Neo‐Liberalism, Economic
Imperatives and the Rise of the Competition State. The Political Quarterly 75 (s1), 38-50.
HCSO, 2018. Data of Total Households by Deciles, Regions and Type of Settlements (2010).
Hungarian Central Statistical Office, URL: (last access:
Hendrikse, R., 2018. Neo-Illiberalism. Geoforum 95, 169-172.
Herman, L.E., 2016. Re-Evaluating the Post-Communist Success Story: Party Elite Loyalty, Citizen
Mobilization and the Erosion of Hungarian Democracy. European Political Science
Review 8 (02), 251-284.
Heti Válasz, 2011. Viktor Orbán: The National Economy Is the Base of Strength and Success (in
Hungarian: 'Orbán Viktor - Az Erő És a Siker Alapja a Nemzeti Gazdaság'). Heti Válasz, 2
October 2011, URL:
Hirschman, A.O., 1978. The Strategy of Economic Development. Norton, New York.
Hungarian Government, 2018. Projects Funded from the Discretionary Fund of the Government.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 December 2018, URL:
Hungarian Spectrum, 2017. Fidesz’s Very Own 'Ngos' Stuffed with Public Money. Éva Balogh,
Hungarian Spectrum, 13 May 2017, URL:
Innes, A., 2014. The Political Economy of State Capture in Central Europe. JCMS: Journal of
Common Market Studies 52 (1), 88-104.
Iwasaki, I., Tokunaga, M., 2014. Macroeconomic Impacts of FDI in Transition Economies: A Meta-
Analysis. World Development 61 (0), 53-69.
Jessop, B., 2008. State Power : A Strategic-Relational Approach. Polity, Cambridge.
Kalb, D., 2018. Upscaling Illiberalism: Class, Contradiction, and the Rise of the Populist Right in
Post-Socialist Central Europe. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 11
(3), 303321.
Kalb, D., Tak, H., 2004. Critical Junctions: Anthropology and History Beyond the Cultural Turn.
Berghahn Books, New York.
Keune, M., Piotti, G., Tóth, A., Crouch, C., 2009. Testing the West German Model in East Germany
and Hungary: The Motor Industry in Zwickau and Győr, in: Crouch, C., Voelzkow, H.
(Eds.), Innovation in Local Economies: Germany in Comparative Context. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 91-120.
King, L., 2007. Central European Capitalism in Comparative Perspective, in: Hancké, B., Rhodes,
M., Thatcher, M. (Eds.), Beyond Varieties of Capitalism: Conflict, Contradictions, and
Complementarities in the European Economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
King, L., Váradi, B., 2002. Beyond Manichean Economics: Foreign Direct Investment and Growth
in the Transition from Socialism. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 35 (1), 1-21.
Király, J., 2016. Bank Ownership and Crisis Resilience. Manuscript, October 2016, Budapest.
Kolosi, T., Szelényi, I., 2010. How to Become a Billionaire? Neoliberal Ethics and the Spirit of
Postcommunist Capitalism (in Hungarian: 'Hogyan Legyünk Milliárdosok: A Neoliberális
Etika És a Posztkommunista Kapitalizmus Szelleme). Corvina, Budapest.
Korpi, W., 1983. The Democratic Class Struggle. Routledge & K. Paul, London.
Krastev, I., 2016. Liberalism's Failure to Deliver. Journal of Democracy 27 (1), 35-38.
Kurth, J.R., 1979. Industrial Change and Political Change: A European Perspective, in: Collier, D.
(Ed.), The New Authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton University Press, Princeton,
pp. 319-362.
Laki, M., Nacsa, B., Neumann, L., 2013. The Impact of the New Labour Code on Employee-
Employer Relations [in Hungarian], MTA-KRTK-KTI Magyar Tudományos Akadémia
Közgazdaság- és Regionális Tudományi Kutatóközpont Közgazdaságtudományi Intézet,
Műhelytanulmányok, 2013/2.
Lendvai, P., 2017. Orbán: Europe's New Strongman. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Linz, J.J., Stepan, A., 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: South America,
Southern Europe, and Post-Communist Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, MD.
Lührmann, A., Lindberg, S.I., 2019. A Third Wave of Autocratization Is Here: What Is New About
It? Democratization, 1-19.
Magyar, B., 2016. Post-Communist Mafia State: The Case of Hungary. Central European
University Press, Budapest.
Magyar Demokrata, 2011. Szentkirályi Is Not for Sale: Interview with Levente Balogh (in
Hungarian: 'A Szentkirályi Nem Eladó: Interjú Balogh Leventével'). Magyar Demokrata,
20 July 2011.
Mares, I., Young, L., 2019. Varieties of Clientelism in Hungarian Elections. Comparative Politics
51 (3), 449-480.
Mazzucato, M., 2013. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public Vs. Private Sector Myths.
Anthem Press, London.
Menedzsment Fórum, 2018. Here Is the Proof That Hungary Is a Tax Haven (in Hungarian: 'Íme a
Bizonyíték, Hogy Magyarország Adóparadicsom'). Zoltán F. Baka,, 5 July 2018,
MGYOSZ, 2010. Which Taboos Will Fall This Autumn? (in Hungarian: 'Milyen Tabuk Dőlnek Meg
Ősszel?'). Miklós Kis, Economic News, Confederation of the Hungarian Employers and
Industrialists (In Hungarian: 'MGYOSZ Gazdasági hírek', 12 August 2010.
MIT, 2018. Economic Complexity Rankings (Eci). The Observatory of Economic Complexity, MIT
Media Lab, last accessed on 20 December 2018, URL:
MNB, 2017a. Financial Assets of Households Based on Micro-and Macrostatistical Data (in
Hungarian: 'A Háztartási Szektor Pénzügyi Megtakarításai Mikro- És Makrostatisztikai
Adatok Alapján). Magyar Nemzeti Bank Statisztikai Igazgatóság, Budapest.
MNB, 2017b. A Növekedési Hitelprogram Eredményei. Magyar Nemzeti Bank, 2017. június 13.,
Naczyk, M., 2014. Budapest in Warsaw: Central European Business Elites and the Rise of
Economic Patriotism since the Crisis, 26th SASE Annual Meeting, 10-12 July 2014,
Nölke, A., 2014. Multinational Corporations from Emerging Markets: State Capitalism 3.0.
Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke.
Nölke, A., Vliegenthart, A., 2009. Enlarging the Varieties of Capitalism: The Emergence of
Dependent Market Economies in East Central Europe. World Politics 61 (04), 670-702.
OECD, 2018. Average Annual Wages. OECD, URL: (last access:
Orbán, V., 2014. The Age of the Workfare State Begins Now ('in Hungarian: A Munkaalapú Állam
Korszaka Következik'). Speech of Viktor Orbán delivered at XXV. Summer Academy in
Bálványos, Tusnádfürdő (Băile Tuşnad), 26 July 2014., URL:
Pitti, Z., 2010. Economic Performance Contra Social Expectations (in Hungarian: 'Gazdasági
Teljesítmények Kontra Társadalmi Elvárások'. Napvilág Kiadó, Budapest.
Pogátsa, Z., 2009. Hungary: From Star Transition Student to Backsliding Member State. Journal
of Contemporary European Research 5 (4), 597-613.
Pogátsa, Z., 2016. The Political Economy of Hungary: The Chances of the Nordic Model (in
Hungarian: 'Magyarország Politikai Gazdaságtana - Az Északi Modell Esélyei'). Osiris,
Polanyi, K., 1957. The Economy as Instituted Process, in: Polanyi, K., Arensberg, C.M., Pearson,
H.W. (Eds.), Trade and Market in the Early Empires. Gateway Edition, Henry Regnery
Company, Chicago, pp. 243-270.
Pop-Eleches, G., Tucker, J.A., 2011. Communism's Shadow: Postcommunist Legacies, Values, and
Behavior. Comparative Politics 43 (4), 379-408., 2016. This Is How We Wood Look without EU Funds (in Hungarian 'Így Festenénk
Az EU-Támogatások Nélkül'). István Madár,, 14 April 2016, URL:
Poulantzas, N., 1982. Political Power and Social Classes. Verso, London.
Przeworski, A., Wallerstein, M., 1982. The Structure of Class Conflict in Democratic Capitalist
Societies. The American Political Science Review 76 (2), 215-238.
Roy, W.G., 1997. Socializing Capital: The Rise of the Large Industrial Corporation in America.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Rueschemeyer, D., Stephens, E.H., Stephens, J.D., 1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Rugraff, E., 2008. Are the FDI Policies of the Central European Countries Efficient? Post-
Communist Economies 20 (3), 303-316.
Rupnik, J., 2016. Surging Illiberalism in the East. Journal of Democracy 27 (4), 77-87.
Saad Filho, A., 2005. The Rise and Decline of Latin American Structuralism and Dependency
Theory, in: Sundaram, J.K., Reinert, E.S. (Eds.), The Origins of Development Economics:
How Schools of Economic Thought Have Addressed Development. Zed Books, London,
pp. 128-145.
Sachs, J., 1994. Understanding Shock Therapy. Social Market Foundation, London.
Sallai, D., Schnyder, G., 2018. The Transformation of Post-Socialist Capitalism from
Developmental State to Clan State? Greenwich Paper in Political Economy No. GPERC57,
University of Greenwich, London.
Sargentini, J., 2018. Report on a Proposal Calling on the Council to Determine, Pursuant to Article
7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the Existence of a Clear Risk of a Serious Breach
by Hungary of the Values on Which the Union Is Founded A8-0250/2018. Committee on
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Wednesday, 12 September 2018, Strasbourg.
Scheiring, G., 2018. Lessons from the Political Economy of Authoritarian Capitalism in Hungary.
Transnational Institute, Challenging Authoritarianism Series, No 1, April 2018,
Scheiring, G., 2019a. Academic Freedom in Hungary’s Authoritarian State Capitalism. Foreign
Policy Centre, London, 18 February 2019, URL:
Scheiring, G., 2019b. Left Behind in the Hungarian Rust Belt: The Political Economy of Working-
Class Neo-Nationalism. Sociology Forthcoming (Special Issue: Nationalism's Futures).
Scheiring, G., Stefler, D., Irdam, D., Fazekas, M., Azarova, A., Kolesnikova, I., Köllő, J., Popov, V.,
Szelényi, I., Marmot, M., Murphy, M., McKee, M., Bobak, M., King, L., 2018. The Gendered
Effects of Foreign Investment and Prolonged State Ownership on Mortality in Hungary:
An Indirect Demographic, Retrospective Cohort Study. The Lancet Global Health 6 (1),
Scheiring, G., Szombati, K., 2019. The Structural Trap of Labour Politics in Hungary. Rupture
Magazine, 2019/3, URL:
Schrank, A., 2005. Conquering, Comprador, or Competitive: The National Bourgeoisie in the
Developing World, in: Buttel, F.H., McMichael, P. (Eds.), New Directions in the Sociology
of Global Development. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK, pp. 91-120.
Schrank, A., 2008. Homeward Bound? Interest, Identity, and Investor Behavior in a Third World
Export Platform. American Journal of Sociology 114 (1), 1-34.
Skidelsky, R., 2019. Rhymes from Central Europe. Project Syndicate, 15 January 2019, URL:
Sklair, L., 2001. The Transnational Capitalist Class. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Smith, A., 2007[1776]. The Wealth of Nations. Harriman House, Petersfield, Hampshire.
Staples, W.G., 1991. Castles of Our Conscience: Social Control and the American State, 1800-
1985. Rutgers University Pres, New Brunswick, N.J.
Stark, D., Vedres, B., 2012. Political Holes in the Economy: The Business Network of Partisan
Firms in Hungary. American Sociological Review 77 (5), 700-722.
Stokes, R.G., Anderson, A.B., 1990. Disarticulation and Human Welfare in Less Developed
Countries. American Sociological Review 55 (1), 63-74.
Szabó, I., 2013. Between Polarization and Statism: Effects of the Crisis on Collective Bargaining
Processes and Outcomes in Hungary. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research
19 (2), 205-215.
Szalai, E., 1999. Post-Socialism and Globalization. Új Mandátum, Budapest.
Szalai, E., 2011. The Crisis of the New Capitalism in Eastern Europe: The Hungarian Example.
Vlaams Marxistisch Tijdschrift 44 (4), 34-50.
Szalai, E., 2016. A Refeudalizáció. Replika 2016 (96-97), 207-222.
Szalavetz, A., 2014. Innovation in Hungary-the Impact of EU Accession and Integration into
Global Value Chains. International Journal of Management and Economics 42 (1), 40-59.
Szanyi, M., 2004. State Aid to the Hungarian Manufacturing Sector 1990-2000. IWE Working
Papers 146, Institute for World Economics - Centre for Economic and Regional Studies -
Hungarian Academy of Sciences. , Budapest.
Szikra, D., 2014. Democracy and Welfare in Hard Times: The Social Policy of the Orbán
Government in Hungary between 2010 and 2014. Journal of European Social Policy 24
(5), 486500.
Szombati, K., 2018. The Revolt of the Provinces: Anti-Gypsyism and Right-Wing Politics in
Hungary. Berghahn Books, New York and Oxford.
Tansel, C.B., 2017. States of Discipline: Authoritarian Neoliberalism and the Contested
Reproduction of Capitalist Order. Rowman & Littlefield, London & New York.
The New York Times, 2018a. How Viktor Orban Bends Hungarian Society to His Will. Patrick
Kingsley, The New York Times, 27 March 2018, URL:
The New York Times, 2018b. Hungary’s Judges Warn of Threats to Judicial Independence.
Benjamin Novak and Patrick Kingsley, The New York Times, 2 May 2018, URL:
Therborn, G., 1977. The Rule of Capital and the Rise of Democracy. New Left Review May-June
1977 (103), 3-41.
Tóka, G., 2004. Hungary, in: Berglund, S., Ekman, J., Aarebrot, F.H. (Eds.), The Handbook of
Political Change in Eastern Europe. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 289-333.
Tóka, G., 2014. Constitutional Principles and Electoral Democracy in Hungary, in: Bos, E., Pócza,
K. (Eds.), Constitution Building in Consolidated Democracies: A New Beginning or Decay
of a Political System? Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden.
Tóth, A., 2012. The New Hungarian Labour Code: Background, Conflicts, Compromises,
Budapest, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Working Paper, June 2012.
Tóth, G.C., Virovácz, P., 2013. Winners and Losers: An Analysis of the Hungarian Flat Tax Using
Micro-Simulation (in Hungrian: 'Nyertesek És Vesztesek: A Magyar Egykulcsos
Adóreform Vizsgálata Mikroszimulációs Módszerrel'). Pénzügyi Szemle 58 (4), 385-400.
Transparency International, 2017. Democratic Backsliding and Economic Performance: ‘Building
Unity and Support for Democratic and Free Market Values in Central and Eastern
Europe’. Country Report on Hungary. Transparency International Hungary, Budapest.
UNCTAD, 1995. World Investment Report 1995. UNCTAD, New York & Geneva.
UNCTAD, 2018. Foreign Direct Investment: Inward and Outward Flows and Stock, Annual.
UNCTAD,, URL: (last
access: 12/29/2018).
van der Pijl, K., Holman, O., Raviv, O., 2011. The Resurgence of German Capital in Europe: EU
Integration and the Restructuring of Atlantic Networks of Interlocking Directorates after
1991. Review of International Political Economy 18 (3), 384-408.
Világgazdaság, 2018. Palkovics: We Will Not Overtax Small and Medium Size Enterprises (in
Hungarian: 'Palkovics: Nem Adóztathatjuk Túl a Kkv-Kat'). László Nándor Nagy, Péter
Ráski, Világgazdaság, 12 December 2018, URL:
Voszka, É., 2018. Nationalisation in Hungary in the Post-Crisis Years: A Specific Twist on a
European Trend? Europe-Asia Studies 70 (8), 1281-1302.
Wade, R.H., 1990. Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East
Asian Industrialization. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Weller, C.E., 2000. Financial Liberalization, Multinational Banks and Credit Supply: The Case of
Poland. International Review of Applied Economics 14 (2), 193-211.
Wilkin, P., 2016. Hungary and the Road to Serfdom. Lexington Books, Lanham, Maryland.
WirtschaftsWoche, 2018. Deutsche Firmen in Osteuropa: Geschäfte Machen Beim Europafeind.
Simon Book, WirtschaftsWoche,, 30. Januar 2018, URL:
Wolfe, A., 1977. The Limits of Legitimacy: Political Contradictions of Contemporary Capitalism.
Free Press, New York.
World Bank, 2018. World Development Indicators. The World Bank, Washington D.C., URL: (last access:
... This representation has much to commend it. Orbán's decade in power has been characterised in terms of 'democratic backsliding' (Cianetti et al. 2018;Scheiring 2021) and 'illiberalism' (Wilkin 2018;Scheiring 2020b). 4 My approach interprets the 2010s as a new phase of embeddedness, following an exemplary Polanyian double movement. ...
... While overall public spending on health and education has declined, strategic subsidies give the impression of a caring government. Meanwhile a new national bourgeoisie benefits from opaque mechanisms to channel transfer income from Brussels (Magyar 2016;Scheiring 2021). ...
Full-text available
This essay applies Karl Polanyi’s concepts of embedding and countermovement to provincial Hungary during and after socialism. Comprehensive state socialist repression in the 1950s was a politics-led disembedding. An economy-led countermovement began in the 1960s, later augmented by elite discourses of civil society. The 1970s and 1980s were decades of socialist embeddedness. Neoliberal configurations after 1990 dislocated both economic and associational life. The illiberal democracy of Viktor Orbán is a more consequential countermovement than the earlier countermovements to state socialism. The argument is illustrated with data from long-term fieldwork in southern Hungary, in the region of the Danube-Tisza Interfluve.
... The emerging political science consensus treats Hungary as a hybrid, competitive authoritarian regime (Bozóki and Hegedűs 2018). Authoritarian practices are used to bolster the legitimacy of a regime that increases inequalities and redistributes resources from the poor to the national bourgeoisie and productive transnational capital (Scheiring 2019). Poland is following a similar, though not identical path (Kalb 2018). ...
... Fidesz used this rupture in the business class to engineer a new class compromise between the political class, national bourgeoisie, and transnational corporations. This led to a regime elsewhere conceptualized as an authoritarian capitalist accumulative state(Sallai and Schnyder 2020;Scheiring 2019).Orbán's economic strategy offers a political solution to the internal contradictions of Hungary's liberal dependent capitalism by accelerating capital accumulation and promoting the embourgeoisement of the upper-middle class.Transnational corporations in the technological export sectors are among the most critical beneficiaries of these policies. The repression of labor rights, increased value of financial subsidies, record-low 9% corporate tax rate (extended with further tax breaks), new strategic partnership agreements, and conservative fiscal policy with low deficits and declining state debt are essential tools the Orbán regime uses to appease international businesses. ...
Full-text available
The world is facing a new wave of autocratization. The coronavirus pandemic has further accelerated this global democratic backsliding. Though each country has its local history, some of the social foundations of illiberalism are similar worldwide. These divergent and convergent social requisites of illiberalism are the subject of this chapter. After clarifying the relationship between the concepts of "populism," "illiberalism," and "democratic backsliding," the chapter reviews the empirical literature related to these phenomena. Explanations of illiberalism cannot be reduced to mono-causal theories. Dominant cultural and overly agent-centric approaches have a proclivity to downplay the role of economic-structural tensions. The chapter shows how political-economic approaches to illiberalism in East-Central Europe can offer novel insights into the social foundations of illiberalism. The chapter concludes by arguing for complex, interdisciplinary approaches that refuse to pit culture, the economy, and politics against each other as separate variables. These factors act in concert through people's everyday perceptions of economic change and political entrepreneurs' maneuvers to maintain and forge class coalitions and shape institutions.
... While Wright's definition might better capture the nature and scope of state capitalism, a weakness is that it may not help us to appreciate what is distinctly capitalist about state capitalism. Here, we might usefully learn from the concept of the 'accumulative state', in which state power is directed towards propping up capital accumulation and managing any emergent social conflicts from that process (Scheiring, 2019). It is our view that the definition of state capitalism must acknowledge that the inherent purpose of any such project within a capitalist system is to promote and support capital accumulation, something we sought to place at the heart of our definition of state capitalism. ...
Full-text available
Britain is rarely considered an exemplar of ‘state capitalism’. In contrast, we argue that Britain should be treated as the prototype project of state capitalism in the world economic system, the primary contribution of our paper been to outline the parameters of state capitalism in Britain across two historical periods. Turning the conceptual lens of state capitalism towards Britain raises some challenging issues for the wider literature. Recent scholarship has started to consider greater diversity in regimes of state capitalism and moved beyond the typical nation-state geographical imaginary of state capitalism. Similarly, our paper seeks to introduce a new spatiality to state capitalism with deeper sensitivity to multi-scalar relations. State capitalism in Britain has rarely been bound to the geographical limitations of the nation-state; instead, it has been a transnational project, centred variably on empire, Europe, and the global market – with industrial policy tailored to enable the British economy to exploit and/or service these various spaces by ‘making markets’. We emphasize the often-financialized nature of this industrial policy intervention arguing it is constitutive of a ‘financial state capitalism’.
... Literature on the capitalist dimensions of CEE has recognised the erosion of liberal norms that were widely adopted after the transition to market capitalism and representative democracy (Cianetti et al., 2018) while observers of Hungarian illiberal capitalist development have acknowledged the role of state capitalism broadly defined though not specifically as a regime-enhancing aspect of the illiberal project (Fabry, 2019;Scheiring, 2019). There is no clear strain of analysis that connects the two, however: academic literature has often underestimated illiberalism's potential to dominate its polities and recalibrate its political economies (Nölke & Vliegenthart, 2009) and occasionally (over)emphasised the role of political leaders in steering these outcomes by focusing on core political agents (Lendvai, 2017) rather than the cross-country terrain of corrupt practice that underpins illiberalism (Rogers, 2020b;Szanyi, 2019a). ...
Full-text available
State-owned capital investment into so-called illiberal democracies in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) has risen to become a more significant feature of CEE political economies, although knowledge of the impact of such transnational flows on illiberal capitalist development remains limited. This article analyses this form of capitalist relation by contributing to and consequently fusing two strands of burgeoning academic literature: (1) the political economy of illiberalism and (2) state capitalism. The result is an expansion of the purview of each: the former by focusing on CEE illiberalism’s external (state) capitalist dimensions; the latter via an upgrading of the rigour of the term ‘state capitalism’ through analysis of ‘new territorialities’. Empirically, I use a Case Study Analysis of Chinese state-owned capital investment into Serbia with focus on two Sino-Serbian agreements and identify two issues that may come to characterise the broader relationship between CEE illiberalism and Chinese state-owned capital investment.
‘Neoliberal populism’, as both concept and mode of government, has peculiar capacities and strengths. But the concept should not be overstretched, and the strength of pure neoliberal populism should not be overestimated. The most resilient of the regimes that have been labelled ‘neoliberal populist’ (Erdoğan’s Turkey and Orbán’s Hungary) could not go beyond ten years without mobilising statist tools much more heavily than others. In comparison to them, earlier Latin American, Eastern European, and Southeast Asian neoliberal populist governments have had relatively short tenures. Moreover, our theoretical approach to populism needs to be thoroughly revised to make analytical sense of the mass organisational bases of some rightwing regimes. The strongest of today’s rightwing populist regimes are differentiated from earlier and contemporary neoliberal populist cases by their statist policy tools and mass organisational underpinnings.
Scholars have argued that megaprojects’ turn away from issues of employment, and mass housing are among the core traits of neoliberalism. Turkey, though once seen as a paragon of neoliberalism, problematizes this generalization. Erdoğanist megaprojects have created jobs and residence for millions, and garner consent. ‘Embedded neoliberalism’, a concept frequently used to explain increasing state involvement under neoliberalism, sheds light on the governing AKP’s power, but is insufficient in explaining its core dynamics. Whereas the ‘embedded neoliberalism’ literature downplays the role of the government as a producer, the ‘state capitalism’ literature, as applied to Turkey, overrates the extent to which this country has moved away from neoliberalism. The concept ‘neoliberal statism’ (which puts the emphasis on the consent-generating and political aspects of the new economy) better captures the AKP’s path. Megaproject-driven growth and popular consent, however, are restricted by vulnerabilities that also afflict neoliberal statism as a broader growth strategy.
This essay investigates whether the way in which Czech citizens relate to the commemoration of the fall of the Iron Curtain can shed light on the strong support for the currently dominant political party ANO, often labelled by political scientists as ‘centrist’ or ‘managerial’ populist. Based on ethnographic research in Czech Silesia, analysis of contemporary political discourse and follow-up fieldwork during the thirtieth anniversary of the Velvet Revolution in November 2019, the essay provides a case study of increasing political polarisation as a new form of populism emerges.
Full-text available
Nationalism is back with a renewed force. Hungary is a virulent example of the new nationalist ascendancy. As the country was a former liberal star pupil, Hungary's neo-nationalist turn has been puzzling researchers for years. This study goes beyond the entrenched polarisations in the literature by highlighting the dynamic interplay between culture, structure and identity. It proposes to conceptualise Hungary's neo-nationalist turn as a Polanyian countermovement against commodification, globalisation and deindustrialisation. The article presents the results of a thematic analysis of 82 interviews with workers in four towns in Hungary's rustbelt and highlights how the multiscalar lived experience of commodifying reforms violated an implicit social contract and changed workers' narrative identities. In the absence of a class-based shared narrative and lacking a viable political tool to control their fate, working-class neo-nationalism emerged as a new narrative identity to express workers' anger and outrage.
Full-text available
According to the dominating perspective in the literature, transnational market integration has the uniform effect of decreasing the room for development in peripheral economies that do not have the economic and political power of countries like China or Russia. Challenging this perspective, this Special Issue (SI) contrasts different integration strategies yielding dramatically different effects on developmental opportunities and capacities. By exploring various patterns of market integration, we show first, that states in peripheral economies vary in their institutional strengths to exploit developmental opportunities and that the existence of such capabilities depends on domestic political conditions. We also show, second, that depending on their integration strategy, transnational integration regimes (TIRs) can both improve and worsen developmental capacities and political conditions in these countries. The SI examines the different integration strategies used by the largest TIR, the European Union (EU), in its peripheries. The shallow model of integration allows for à la carte trade liberalization and regulatory integration. This model helps to consolidate pre-existing rent-seeking alliances and with it, the conservation of the institutional status quo. The pro-active version of the deep model of integration can promote upgrading in domestic developmental capacities in the period of preparing new countries for membership. Once peripheral economies gain membership, the EU has limited tools to help these countries to synchronize domestic developmental needs and transnational regulatory requirements. Increasing contestation of liberal ideas is the result.
Full-text available
In this article we seek to shed light on the decline of labour politics in Hungary,, which has been laid bare in a particularly stark manner by the failure of the ‘slave law’ protests and the Left’s dismal electoral performance at the last European parliamentary elections. We focus on political-economic processes that played out over a longer period of time: the generation of working-class discontents under the auspices of a neoliberal Left, the gradual fragmentation of labour in a dualised dependent economy, the rearticulation of working-class solidarities in the idiom of the nation and the subsequent incorporation of some popular demands into ‘illiberal’ politics. Our endeavour to theorise the demise of labour – and more broadly: class politics – we rely on the work of Karl Polanyi and more particularly his conceptualisation of the ‘double movement’ through which he sought to grasp the process whereby society reacts to the vicissitudes of marketisation. Elsewhere, we have demonstrated that Polanyi’s theory can be adapted to the context of contemporary financialised capitalism on Europe’s Eastern periphery and its usefulness for highlighting the tensions of postsocialist capitalist democracies. We combine Polanyi’s framework with neo-Gramscian political economy and power structure theory to describe the power blocs that compete to take control of the state and their strategies vis-à-vis capital and labour. To substantiate our theoretical narrative, we rely on empirical research we carried out over the last five years, as well as the existing literature. First, we outline the process whereby labour relations became disembedded during Hungary’s re-integration into the global capitalist economy under neoliberal governments. We then describe Fidesz’s strategy of authoritarian re-embedding, which combines pre-emptive repression with authoritarian populism, allowing the hegemonic ruling party to incorporate workers while neutralising discontents. We end by arguing that these processes have created a structural trap for labour politics.
Full-text available
In elections around the world, candidates seek to influence voters' choices using a variety of intermediaries and by relying on either positive electoral inducements or coercive strategies. What explains candidates' choices among different forms of clientelism? When do candidates incentivize voters using positive inducements and when do they choose coercive strategies? This article proposes a new typology of clientelism and tests two families of explanations for why candidates would choose to use state versus non-state brokers, and inducements versus coercion, as private incentives to voters. First, existing theory predicts that political conditions such as incumbency or co-partisanship with the national party should enable the use of public over private brokers and resources. In addition, we conjecture that clientelism carries programmatic signals, such that the choice between inducements and coercion depends on local political conditions. We test our predictions using a post-electoral survey fielded in 2014 in ninety rural Hungarian communities. We find little evidence that local political conditions are related to the choice between state versus non-state brokers, but significant support for the prediction that programmatic signals explain the choice between inducements and coercion.
The article presents a theory of class conflict between workers and capitalists who pursue their material interests under a form of societal organization that combines private ownership of instruments of production with representative political institutions. There exist economic and political conditions under which both classes would simultaneously choose courses of action that constitute a class compromise: workers consent to the institution of profit and capitalists to democratic institutions through which workers can effectively press claims for material gains. When these conditions hold and a compromise is in force, the role of the state consists in institutionalizing, coordinating, and enforcing the terms of a compromise that represents the preferences of workers as well as capitalists.
Due to its focus on high tech sectors and the role played by FDI, the literature dealing with developmental opportunities in Central and Eastern European (CEE) economies underestimates the room for domestic developmental agency. In this paper, we contrast diverging strategies of positioning the Polish and Hungarian dairy sector in European markets. In Hungary, ‘outsourcing’ the integration of fragmented producers to multinational corporations (MNCs) led to competitive downgrading, providing a fertile terrain for economic nationalism in the wake of the financial crisis. In Poland, a developmental alliance between state and farmers upgraded the competitiveness of domestic cooperatives under the constraint of EU accession. Contrary to narratives that describe passive competition states in CEE, we show that the domestic politics of developmental alliances determined whether EU integration resulted in the neoliberal outsourcing of development to MNCs or gave rise to a sector-level developmental state. Using the notion of dynamic institutional complementarity, we explore why lesser-developed countries with similar initial conditions diverge in developmental strategies and outcomes within the same transnational integration regime that imposes the same rules and provides the same opportunities to member states.
In elections around the world, candidates seek to influence voters' choices using a variety of intermediaries and by relying on either positive electoral inducements or coercive strategies. What explains candidates' choices among different forms of clientelism? When do candidates incentivize voters using positive inducements and when do they choose coercive strategies? This article proposes a new typology of clientelism and tests two families of explanations for why candidates would choose to use state versus non-state brokers, and inducements versus coercion, as private incentives to voters. First, existing theory predicts that political conditions such as incumbency or co-partisanship with the national party should enable the use of public over private brokers and resources. In addition, we conjecture that clientelism carries programmatic signals, such that the choice between inducements and coercion depends on local political conditions. We test our predictions using a post-electoral survey fielded in 2014 in ninety rural Hungarian communities. We find little evidence that local political conditions are related to the choice between state versus non-state brokers, but significant support for the prediction that programmatic signals explain the choice between inducements and coercion.