104
the era “created greater economic growth than would have occurred under continuing free trade and reliance on foreign markets”.
2.4 Autonomy, Capacity and Consent
To conclude this analysis on the development regimes prior to the current development regime of FDI-led export-orientation, despite the obvious differences, both
countries show similarities. In both cases, the previous development regimes failed
to produce an internationally competitive indigenous sector. They both remained
backward peripheral economies upon resorting to the development strategy of FDI
attraction.
Both countries were constrained in regards to their external autonomy, although
to different degrees. On the one hand, Hungary formulated its policies in accordance
with the principles of the regional hegemonic power. On the other, the Irish Free
State and the later Irish Republic was able to contend with less direct interference.
Irish external autonomy was defined by international economic events. Irish economic policies had to be formulated to take the country’s economic dependency on
UK markets and imports into account.
Initially, the internal autonomy was high. In Hungary, authoritarianism and the
undemocratic structure of the political system insulated the state apparatus from
interference, enabling the predominance of the incumbent elites. The high level of
internal autonomy in the Irish case was provided by the locally focused political
system, the strongly centralised bureaucracy and the existence of two catch-all parties and the export of dissent. However, internal autonomy in Ireland during its
phase of protectionism and in the later phase of Hungarian state-socialism was
eroded by the evolution of different interest groups within the political elites. These
factions followed dissimilar agendas in regard to the economic policies and the role
of the state in the modernisation and development process.
In terms of capacity, both countries differed substantially. Hungary’s response to
international economic repercussions was to increase the capacity of the state to
generate economic growth. Instead of accommodating and adapting to international
economic events, the economy was increasingly shielded from external influences in
order to preserve the incomes of its major economic actors. The era of statesocialism was an extreme form. The centrally administered economy resulted in
over-capacity, causing the malfunctioning of the Hungarian economy and resulting
in the development regime’s eventual demise. In contrast, state capacity throughout
Ireland’s past development regimes was restrained and low. On the one hand, this
continuity displayed the predominance of those interests within the Irish state which
favoured fiscal conservatism and non-interventionism. On the other hand, low capacity also reflected the traditionalist notions regarding the restrained role of the
Irish state in the society and economy.
Turning to the issue of consent/dissent, again the picture differs for both countries. The erosion of the state’s capacity to deliver the required goods of prosperity
105
following the underperformance of the respective developmental agent resulted in
popular dissent. This in turn eroded the internal autonomy of the respective development regime. In authoritarian Hungary, popular only led to the peaceful replace of
state-socialism. In contrast, the continuity of the other development regimes was
attained via suppression. In Ireland, popular dissent towards the development regime
arose only after the “Exit” safety valve of emigration temporarily ceased to work,
leading to a decline in popular consent. Hence, emigration was one of the factors of
stability and responsible for the Irish state’s high level of autonomy, as dissent was
exported.
Chapter Preview
References
Zusammenfassung
Irland und Ungarn verfolgen eine Entwicklungsstrategie, die in bewusster Abhängigkeit von Globalisierungsprozessen in Form von ausländischen Direktinvestitionen steht und sich als Paradigma in der Peripherie durchgesetzt hat. Doch dieser Entwicklungspfad hat zu einer ungleichen und abhängigen Entwicklung geführt. Dies ist laut dem Autor das Resultat des mangelnden Gestaltungswillens beider Staaten, für einen gleichgewichtigen Wachstumsprozess zu sorgen. Die historische Analyse zeigt, dass eine auf ausländische Firmen fußende Entwicklungsstrategie nicht ausreicht, um traditionelle Peripheralität zu überwinden. Der Autor fordert eine Reform des Entwicklungsparadigmas, um eine gleichgewichtige Entwicklung zu ermöglichen.