 |
HUNGARIA |
|
HUNGARIA |
THE EUROPEAN AND COMPARATIVE DIMENSION
The following were the main courses with a comparative European public administration dimension in academic year 1999/2000 (all courses here are regular courses):
- European Integration (core course, PSMP Programme, Budapest University of Economic Sciences). Dr. Margit Rácz, Head of Department, Research Institute of World Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
European Public Law and Politics (core course, MA in Public Policy programme, Századvég School of Politics). Dr. Tamás Kende, Assistant Professor, Department of International Law, Eötvös Lóránd University. European Administrative Law and Politics (core course, MA in Law Programme, Eötvös Lóránd University, Budapest). Prof. László Valki, Head, Department of International Law. Legislative Processes and Rule-Making in the EU (elective, BA in Public Administration, College of Public Administration). Prof. Albert Takács, Department of Public Administration. Public Administration of the EU (elective, BA in Public Administration, College of Public Administration). Prof. András Baka. The European Union and Local Governments (elective, MA in Law, József Attila University, Szeged). Dr. Zoltán Józsa, Department of Administrative and Financial Law. Comparative Public Administration of EU Member States (elective, MA in Law, Kossuth Lajos University, Institute of Law, Debrecen). Dr. Gábor Szabó, Associate Professor, Department of Public Administrative Law. The European Union and its Administrative and Local Government System (elective, MA in Law, Miskolc University, Faculty of Law, Miskolc). Prof. András Torma, Head, Department of Administrative Law and Prof. Tibor Kalas, Dean, Faculty of Law. In addition to those listed above, several other courses discuss EU or comparative European public administration in one form or another. However, the emphasis on the European issues in these courses is not sufficient to include here (i.e., they are not “overwhelmingly” oriented towards comparative PA).
After the changes of 1989 and 1990, Hungary’s EU focus created a need to expand and improve the expertise available on various European topics. This need has been recognised by the university programmes as well. Stronger emphasis has been put on, and additional resources were made available for, pursuing research, producing course syllabi and creating teaching materials related to different topics of European integration. The two approaches most characteristic of this newly emerging research and teaching priority are (a) European integration from the viewpoint of integration theory and, specifically, from that of economic integration theory; and (b) the history, institutional development, administrative operations and the main sectoral fields of the European Union.
The dominant approach of courses on European public administration examines the field as a political-administrative system. In the data collection phase of preparing this report, no comparative PA courses focusing predominantly or exclusively on the EU were identified.
The comparative approach forms only a relatively minor component of general PA courses. Most classes deal with general issues and concepts of PA but with some comparative components. There are a few classes that are explicitly devoted to comparative issues: Comparative PA: the United States; Comparative PA: Germany, Austria, and Switzerland; and Comparative PA: France and Belgium. The focus of these courses is on national public administrative systems of both EU member and non-member states.
One probable cause of this development lies in the way in which, and the institutional and disciplinary background from which, contemporary PA programmes have emerged. Considering the three types of institutions where PA programmes are taught (see Section 2) might provide some explanation as to why the European Union is mainly examined as an administrative entity, and why comparative approaches to the EU are neglected to a relatively large extent.
In faculties of law, the characteristic disciplinary focus of programmes (i.e., law) and the resulting, relative “neglect” of some other PA topics in the curricula provides some explanation. Another probable answer is these programmes’ general and practical orientation. Since the majority of law graduates seek employment as lawyers, attorneys or other legal professionals and not as public administration professionals, the overall importance of comparative PA approaches within the curricula is arguably minimal.
In the College of Public Administration, the focus of the programme to date has been on the practical issues of the Hungarian national public administration. This and the limits resulting from the framework of bachelor’s-level education have prevented the college from developing courses on topics outside the main focus of the programme (however, preparations are being made to launch “European” courses in the near future).
The third category of institutions, university faculties other than those of law generally focus on public policy, management or political science. In their case, discussing the realities of the European administration might better suit the problem- and practice-oriented nature of these programmes, thus being more effective than a descriptive and theoretical comparative approach.
[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Part 1 ] [ Part 2 ] [ Part 3 ] [ Part 4 ] [ Part 5 ] [ Part 6 ] [ Part 7 ] [ Part 8 ] [ Part 9 ] [ Annexes ]
