Introduction

International policy transfer is an extensive global phenomenon, evident not least in Central and Eastern Europe. In the early 1990s, drawing lessons from international policy ideas was considered a means of the region ‘catching up’ with its Western counterparts – both politically and economically (Rose, 1993). Policy transfer appeared an appealing solution to the unversed policymaker, promising a quick fix to policy problems with no necessity to reinvent the wheel (Rose, 2005; Stead et al, 2010). New policymaking standards presented a challenge to politicians and civil servants who lacked skills and experience in policy formulation. Thus, it appeared easier to emulate or adapt foreign programmes than to start from scratch (Stead et al, 2010). Furthermore, European Union (EU) accession – or, at least, the goal of accession – required the harmonisation of many policy issues. Indeed, beyond accession, EU membership requires certain policy recommendations to be accounted for in national policymaking, many bearing little relation to a previous policy path.

This kind of policy transfer was evident in the process through which Hungary's first mental health policy programme was formulated. This development, introduced in Chapter Four, was prompted by the Mental health declaration and Action plan agreed at Helsinki. The symbolic enactment of the Declaration and Action Plan set off an indirect coercive transfer process (Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996), through the course of which the first Hungarian National Programme for Mental Health (NPMH) – a domestic re-inscription of the original content – was created. The story of the Hungarian mental health policy began with a ceremonial enactment – the signing of the World Health Organization (WHO) documents in Helsinki – followed by the appearance of inscribed knowledge forms – translation of the policy documents and the drafting of the NPMH. However, the extent to which the original ideas are embodied and internalised in the process remains questionable, as every transition of knowledge from one phase to the next opened up opportunities for local interests to influence and deflect it.

Knowledge is enacted at very different scales throughout the policy process. The ceremonial enactment introduced here stands as an extreme form, a large-scale event that involves a wide range of players in interaction with one another. Policymaking, however, involves micro-enactments, as every item of knowledge considered must be enacted: voiced, debated, written down, displayed.