Opposition Discourse About National Recovery and Resilience Plans. Poland and Hungary Compared

A. Dudzinska, G. Ilonszki
{"title":"Opposition Discourse About National Recovery and Resilience Plans. Poland and Hungary Compared","authors":"A. Dudzinska, G. Ilonszki","doi":"10.33067/se.1.2023.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the governments of Poland and Hungary seem to similarly contest the conditionality mechanism that requires one to respect the rule of law when using EU funds, there are differences between these countries. They become visible in the framing of political communication as regards the opposition parties. This article seeks to identify the grounds of the competition from parliamentary opposition of the governments in relation to the EU Recovery and Resilience Fund. An analysis of 2021’s parliamentary debates on national recovery and resilience plans revealed three communication frameworks: the financial frame (the policy dimension), the quality of governance frame (the politics dimension), and the European integration frame which shaped domestic political rivalry (the polity dimension). Differences within these framings between the narrative of the Polish and Hungarian opposition resulted from different institutional and structural contexts. The study confirms the importance of national opposition parties for the analysis of the process of European integration. The existence of a liberal opposition may promote the salience of the topic of European integration in domestic political debate.","PeriodicalId":365693,"journal":{"name":"Studia Europejskie - Studies in European Affairs","volume":"149 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Europejskie - Studies in European Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33067/se.1.2023.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although the governments of Poland and Hungary seem to similarly contest the conditionality mechanism that requires one to respect the rule of law when using EU funds, there are differences between these countries. They become visible in the framing of political communication as regards the opposition parties. This article seeks to identify the grounds of the competition from parliamentary opposition of the governments in relation to the EU Recovery and Resilience Fund. An analysis of 2021’s parliamentary debates on national recovery and resilience plans revealed three communication frameworks: the financial frame (the policy dimension), the quality of governance frame (the politics dimension), and the European integration frame which shaped domestic political rivalry (the polity dimension). Differences within these framings between the narrative of the Polish and Hungarian opposition resulted from different institutional and structural contexts. The study confirms the importance of national opposition parties for the analysis of the process of European integration. The existence of a liberal opposition may promote the salience of the topic of European integration in domestic political debate.
关于国家恢复和恢复计划的反对言论。波兰和匈牙利比较
尽管波兰和匈牙利政府似乎同样反对要求人们在使用欧盟资金时尊重法治的条件机制,但这些国家之间存在差异。它们在与反对党的政治沟通框架中变得明显。本文试图找出与欧盟复苏和弹性基金有关的政府议会反对派竞争的理由。对2021年议会关于国家复苏和韧性计划的辩论的分析揭示了三个沟通框架:金融框架(政策维度)、治理质量框架(政治维度)和影响国内政治竞争的欧洲一体化框架(政治维度)。波兰和匈牙利反对派叙事在这些框架内的差异源于不同的制度和结构背景。该研究证实了国家反对党对于分析欧洲一体化进程的重要性。自由主义反对派的存在可能会促进欧洲一体化话题在国内政治辩论中的突出地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信