Hungary has been a member of WHO since it was established on 7 April 1948 with an intermission between 1949–1954, when all countries of the “Eastern Bloc” withdrew from their membership following the order of the Soviet Union. Since 1954 there has been a progressive cooperation between Hungary and WHO, becoming quite intense from the 1960s. Moreover, three of the European Regional Committee’s presidents were Hungarian (1969, 1988 and... Read more ...
This paper concentrates on the interaction of global and foreign ideas and domestic policies. More specifically, this paper discusses the activity of supranational, transnational and non-governmental actors involved in developing the discourse of equity and desegregation after 2010. Read more ...
The KnowandPol research applies a multi-level approach and pays particular attention to cross-national policy interactions, borrowing processes and the impact of supra-national actors on national policies. This paper discusses the diffusion and impact of supra-national knowledge flows on national policy-making, the forms of transmission of internationally produced knowledge and the patterns of national... Read more ...
Mental Health Declaration and Action Plan had regulatory effects on the national level, since an issue that had formerly been absent from the national agenda has been brought up, partly as a result of the formal collaboration between WHO and Hungary, but mainly as a result of self-regulation, i.e. the European/international ‘language’ of mental health policy was adopted partly as a way of conformity, partly as a rational step in the hope of funding... Read more ...
In this article we shall examine the connections and disconnections between WHO's Mental Health Declaration & Action Plan and the Hungarian National Programme for Mental Health (NPMH). Read more ...
In Europe, information and expertise are now both more widely distributed and more readily accessible than ever before. At the same time, expectations of transparency and public accountability have increased. In many ways, knowledge is coming to play a new role in policy: we can now distinguish ’post-bureaucratic’ from conventional ’bureaucratic’ regimes and show that each presupposes a specific kind of knowledge and a specific way of using it. While bureaucratic modes of governance require ‘established’ bodies of knowledge to be translated into ‘vertical’ regulations; post-bureaucratic modes of governance consist rather in attempting to turn actors’ autonomy and reflexivity into a means of governing.