From cultural policy towards cultural politics? The case of the Hungarian cultural sphere

References

• Ágh, A. 2015. “De-Europeanization and De-Democratization Trends in Ece: From the Potemkin Democracy to the Elected Autocracy in Hungary.” Journal of Comparative Politics 8 (2): 4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barna, E., M. Madár, K. Nagy, and M. Szarvas. 2019. “‘Dinamikus Hatalom.” Kulturális Termelés És Politika Magyarországon 2010 Után’, No 2: 227–251.
   Google Scholar
• Bocskor, Á. 2018. “‘Anti-immigration Discourses in Hungary during the “Crisis” Year: The Orbán Government’s “National Consultation” Campaign of 2015ʹ.” Sociology 52 (3): 551–568. doi:10.1177/0038038518762081.
   Google Scholar
• Bozóki, A. 2013. “Családi Tűzfészek. A Kultúra A Szimbolikus Politika Csapdájában.” In Magyar Polip. A Posztkommunista Maffiaállam, edited by B. Magyar, 346–367. Budapest: Noran Libro.
   Google Scholar
• Bozóki, A., and D. Hegedüs. 2017. “Így Írunk Mi - Az Orbán-Rezsim Értelmezései.” Mozgó Világ 43 (2): 3–21.
   Google Scholar
• Bozóki, A., and D. Hegedüs. 2018. “An Externally Constrained Hybrid Regime: Hungary in the European Union.” Democratization 25 (7): 1173–1189. doi:10.1080/13510347.2018.1455664.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csillag, T., and I. Szelényi. 2015a. “Drifting from Liberal Democracy. Neo-Conservative Ideology of Managed Illiberal Democratic Capitalism in Post-Communist Europe.” Intersections. East European Journal of Society and Politics 1 (1): 18–48. doi:10.17356/ieejsp.v1i1.28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csillag, T., and I. Szelényi. 2015b. “Drifting from Liberal Democracy. Neo-Conservative Ideology of Managed Illiberal Democratic Capitalism in Post-Communist Europe.” Intersections. East European Journal of Society and Politics 1: 1. doi:10.17356/ieejsp.v1i1.28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dragićević-Šešić, M., M. D. Šešić, and D. Sanjin. 2005. Arts Management in Turbulent Times: Adaptable Quality Management : Navigating the Arts through the Winds of Change. Amsterdam: European Cultural Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, C. 2012. “Democratic Cultural Policy: Democratic Forms and Policy Consequences.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 18 (5): 505–518. doi:10.1080/10286632.2012.718911.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyulai, A. 2017. “Magyarország A Szürke Zónában? A Magyar Politikai Rendszer Hosszú Hibridizációja.” In Trendek A Magyar Politikában 2. A Fidesz És A Többiek: Pártok, Mozgalmak, Politikák, edited by Z. Boda and S. Andrea, 15-42. Budapest: MTA PTI - Napvilág.
   Google Scholar
• Hadley, S., and C. Gray. 2017. “Hyperinstrumentalism and Cultural Policy: Means to an End or an End to Meaning?” Cultural Trends 26 (2): 95–106. doi:10.1080/09548963.2017.1323836.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillman-Chartrand, H., and C. McCaughey. 1989. “The Arm’s Length Principle and the Arts: An International Perspective – Past, Present and Future.” In Who’s to Pay for the Arts? The International Search for Models of Support, edited by M. Cummings and M. Schuster, 43-80. New York: American Council for the Arts.
   Google Scholar
• Kornai, J. 2015. “Hungary’s U-Turn”. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2629592. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2629592.
   Google Scholar
• Körösényi, A., G. Illés, and A. Gyulai. 2020. The Orbán Regime. Plebiscitary Leader Democracy in the Making. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Krastev, I. 2007. “Is East-Central Europe Backsliding? The Strange Death of the Liberal Consensus.” Journal of Democracy 4: 56–63.
   Google Scholar
• Kristóf, L. 2017a. “‘Cultural Policy in an Illiberal State. The Case Study of Hungary after 2010ʹ.” Intersections. East European Journal of Society and Politics 3 (3): 8–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristóf, L. 2017b. “Elite Circulation in the Hungarian Cultural Elite. A Case Study of Theatres.” Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 8: 3. doi:10.14267/cjssp.2017.3S.13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitsky, S., and L. A. Way. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mazzuca, S. L. 2010. “Access to Power versus Exercise of Power Reconceptualizing the Quality of Democracy in Latin America.” Studies in Comparative International Development 45 (3): 334–357. doi:10.1007/s12116-010-9069-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merkel, W. 2004. “Embedded and Defective Democracies.” Democratization 11 (5): 33–58. doi:10.1080/13510340412331304598.
   Google Scholar
• Schedler, A. 2013. The Politics of Uncertainty: Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J. A. 1976. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vestheim, G. 2012. “Cultural Policy-Making: Negotiations in an Overlapping Zone between Culture, Politics and Money.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 18 (5): 530–544. doi:10.1080/10286632.2012.708862.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wigell, M. 2008. “Mapping “Hybrid Regimes”: Regime Types and Concepts in Comparative Politics.” Democratization 15 (2): 230–250. doi:10.1080/13510340701846319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zombory, M. 2017. “The Birth of the Memory of Communism: Memorial Museums in Europe.” Nationalities Papers 45 (6): 1028–1046. doi:10.1080/00905992.2017.1339680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zombory, M. 2019. Traumatársadalom. Budapest: Kijárat Kiadó.
   Google Scholar