id176496343 pdfMachine by Broadgun Software - a great PDF writer! - a great PDF creator! - http://www.pdfmachine.com http://www.broadgun.com

Cross-border connections on three Hungarian borderlands

(in Austrian-Hungarian, Slovakian-Hungarian and Ukrainian-Hungarian reference areas)

ÁR JUDIT MOLN

School of Geography, Queen’s University, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK

INTRODUCTION

EU enlargement caused worries among former EU members and sometimes also for Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs), as we learn from some recent academic papers É (ANDERSON, J. 1998; BCHIR, H, FONTAGN , L. AND ZANGHIERI, P. 2003; TUPY, M. L. 2003. etc.) and as we could hear from some EU politicians. Certainly Europe has more problems after enlargement, at least in the short-term. Apparently it is advantageous for the new European Union as a whole, but we have to be wary of giving conclusions now and we have to think about the future watchfully if we would like to predict it. In the European Union, in spite of globalization, the Single European Market (SEM) and a proliferation of transnational ’Dowd, bodies, there are still national, economic and other conflicts here. Liam O concluded “As the meaning of national borders change that s, existing borders are challenged, old borders re-emerge and new ones are established often in the midst of bloody conflict. The whole process reminds us that we should never see boundaries as natural, fixed or immutable, rather ‘temporary’ constructions dependent on they should be understood as the balance of forces at ” ’D specific times in history. (O OWD, L. 1994).

“dependent on It is very important that borders are the balance of forces at specific times in ”, because we could be misled history into analysing situations without enough of a grasp of “subject positions”( their history. We can approach conflicts from the point of view of DIEZ, T, STETTER, S, ALBERT, M. 2004). Certainly it will help us to understand the actual situation ’ because finally the result will depend always on the actors in the conflicts positions, and who has more power, resources and a bigger hinterland. The example of the former Yugoslavia also shows us that conflicts were latent during the Communist era, but afterwards turned into a manifest ones (DIEZ, T, STETTER, S, ALBERT, M. 2004).

’ In such processes, old borders disappear and new ones are born. This can change peoples lives dramatically on the borderlands. This paper tries to show contacts through and across the ’ lives borders of Hungary and the some of the impact of those redrawn borders on peoples .

Method

The study is based on survey by questionnaire, which is a common procedure in borderland studies. An empirical study was made, at the household level, of the:  existence of relatives beyond the border  level of relations maintained with the relatives from the other side  frequency of border crossings  purpose of the border crossings  municipal attraction centers in these areas - places visited for the use of retail and services. We used a non-probability sample in the villages and a probability sample in Sopron town.

Research areas The study is based on three border regions:  98 settlements running of the full length of the Hungarian-Ukrainian border, called the “Szatmár árpátalja borderland” (Figure 1) -Bereg-K  ó and Hernád rivers of the 105 settlements along the border section between the Saj “Sajó ád borderland” (Figure 2) Hungarian-Slovakian border, called the -Hern  the Sopron region of the Austrian-Hungarian border with 35 settlements including the õ “Kékfrankos borderland” (Figure city of Sopron and the Fert -lake region, called the 3).

á Ungv r

N Slovakia Ukraine W E á Munk cs S

á Beregsz sz õ õ Nagysz l s

á á é V s rosnam ny b o r d e r

R e s e a r c h a r e a : é Feh rgyarmat

Hungary H u n g a r i a n s i d e á é M t szalka í á U k r a i n i a n s i d e Ny regyh za Romania

ár árpátalja borderland research area Figure 1 The Szatm -Bereg-K

Kassa

N

W E

S

main roads roads railways Miskolc

Hungarian part of the research area Slovakian part of the research area ó ád borderland research area Figure 2 The Saj -Hern

e N e d S õ t r r e l e d F Eisenstadt e f i o s u e W E e k N a L S

Mattersburg

m a i n r o a d s

o t h e r r o a d s

r a i l w a y s Sopron

u r b a n a r e a s

õ r e s e a r c h a r e a : Fert d

H u n g a r i a n s i d e

A u s t r i a n s i d e

2 0 0 2 0 4 0 K i l o m e t e r s

ékfrankos borderland research area Figure 3 The K

After the two world wars, the new borders of Hungary were not created to take notice of the ethnic compositions of the areas they bisected. As a result of these treaties, many Hungarian people found themselves left out of their original home country. After the Treaty of Trianon, Hungary lost 67% of its territory; its population decreased dramatically from 18,264,533 to 7,990,202; and its territory decreased even more dramatically from 282,870 km2 to 93,073 km2. 1,7 million Hungarian people were left in Romania, 0.5 million Hungarian people in the Serb-Croatian-Slovenian Kingdom, 1.1 million Hungarian people in Czechoslovakia, and 26,000 Hungarian people in Austria (ZEIDLER, M. 2001) (Figure 4). Two of our research areas contain ethnic Hungarian majorities on the non-Hungarian side of ár árpátalja borderland and the Sajó ád borderland. Within the border: the Szatm -Bereg-K -Hern these areas there are settlements with Hungarian minorities and settlements with Hungarian majorities.

Figure 4 Ethnic Hungarians (outside Hungary) in Central Europe (Pink colour shows Hungarian majorities, orange colour shows Hungarian minorities, green circles show approximately the research areas) (in: http://www.htmh.hu/terkep/hatterk.jpg)

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES OF THE BORDERS

The existence of relatives across the border

In all of three research borderlands connections were found with relatives from the other side of the border (Figure 5) and social interweaving across borders is often strongly felt. Hungarian people living in the Ukrainian and Slovakian research areas, have the most relatives across the border in Hungary. More than 70% of the people asked in each of these areas have relatives. It is interesting that those living in the same borderlands on the other side apparently have many fewer relatives on the other side of the border (20% in Hungarian side ár árpátalja borderland and around 40% in Hungarian side of the Sajó of the Szatm -Bereg-K - ád borderland Hern ).

’s In these areas lives the Hungarian diaspora, people living abroad (from Hungary point of view), and these people would like to keep contact strongly with their native country so they keep tally on more distant cousins than people who live in Hungary do. In the Austrian- Hungarian research area, there are very few Hungarians on the Austrian side and also just a few Austrians on the Hungarian side, so they have few relatives across the border. But the Hungarians on the Hungarian side would like to keep the contact with their families who live west, so they also keep count of distant cousins on the Austrian side. % 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 d d d d d d n n n n n n a a a a a a l l l l l l r r r r r r e e e e e e d d d d d d r r r r r r o o o o o o b b b b b b

s s a a d d j j l l o o á á a a k k n n t t r r n n á á e e a a p p r r r r f f H H - - k k á á ó ó é é j j K K - - a a K K

g g f f S S

e e o o f f r r

o o e e e e

B B d d e e i i - - d d r r s s i i

á á s s n n

m m a a n n t t i i r r a a a a i t i a r z z s k g a u a S S

n g v f f A u n o o o l

u H S e e H d d i i s s

n n a a i i r n i a a g r n k u U

H Figure 5 The Proportion of relatives living across the border

The level of relations maintained with relatives across the border

We can see that, in all research areas, most people meet their relatives rarely - more rarely than monthly, or only for an important family occasion (Figures 6-8). % % 50 Hungarian side 70 45 Ukrainian side 60 40 Hungarian side 35 50 Slovakian side 30 40 25 20 30 15 20 10 10 5 0 0 t k k y y y k k y n n l l l l c e e e e o o h h h h i a i t t t t e e t e e s s n n n n n w w w w a a

o o o o o c c a d a d c c c

m m m m n n

o o e y e

o o r n r n n y y c c o a o a l l a i i e e

h h m t m t s s p

m m

r r y e y a a y y l l f f o o r r e

e e t t e e k r r e e

n n v v t a a c c ' r a r a e e n t n t

n r r o e o e e e o r o r o c c d o p o p n n o o m m m m i i

n n a a

r r o o f f

y y l l n n o ár árpátalja and Sajóo Figures 6-7 The intensity of visits to relatives in the Szatm -Bereg-K - ád borderlands Hern % 60 Hungarian side Austrian side 50

40

30

20

10

0 k k y y n l l e e o h h i t t e e s n n w w a

o o c a d c

m m n

o e

o r n y c o a l i e h t m s m

r y a y l f o r

e t e r e n v a c r a e n t

r e o e r o c p o n o m m i

n a

r o f

y l n

o

ékfrankos borderland Figure 8 The intensity of visits to relatives in the K

The frequency of border crossings

“ ” Despite the Schengen border the frequency of travelling across the border is highest in the ékfrankos borderland. In K all three research areas most people never or very rarely go cross the border (Figures 9-11). Really very few people go to Ukraine from Hungary (20%) and ó ád Hungarian people who live in the Saj -Hern borderland on the Slovakian side travel most “tourists”, who go to often to Hungary. In two of the three research areas, we find the neighbouring country for business or to work as cheap labour. These border crossings are illegal, so these people do not always want to tell us the truth about them.

% % 50 90 Hungarian side Hungarian side Slovakian side 80 Ukrainian side 40 70 60 30 50 40 20 30 10 20 10 0 0 r r y y y y y k y y y y y y k k y l l l l l l l l l l e e a e r r r r a e e r r r r h h v v t t d e e a a a d e e e a a a t

t

e e n e e n e e e e w w w y a y a n n

o y y y o y y y r r

u - u - a a d e f f e

m l n m l n q q n v v e e a a a a o e e c c h h h h c t t n n

e o o y y s l l

r r y a a r e e e r r

v e e e r r o o

m m

ár árpátalja and Figures 9-10 The intensity of journeys across the border in the Szatm -Bereg-K ó ád borderlands Saj -Hern % 30 Hungarian side 25 Austrian side 20

15

10

5

0 r y k k y y y y y l l l l l e a e e r r r r h v t d e e e a a a t e n e e e w w y a n

o y y y r

- u d a f e

m l n q n v e a a o e c h h c t n

e o y s l

r y a r e e r

v e e r o

m

ékfrankos borderland Figure 11 The intensity of journeys across the border in the K

In Ukrainian-Hungarian borderland is an illegal petrol trade and lot of Hungarian people from Ukrainian side have no alternative to this for earning money. In the Austrian-Hungarian borderland Hungarians go to Austria to work as a cheap labourers. In both cases they these things secret and only when we talked informally would they tell us their true situations.

The purpose of the border crossings

There is a large difference between the research borderlands, and between the difference sides of the borders, in the purposes people have for crossing the border (Figures 12-14).

ár árpátalja Mostly, people travel to Hungary from the Ukrainian side of Szatm -Bereg-K borderland to visit their relatives, and for foodstuffs, clothes and manufactured goods. Hungarians travel to the Ukrainian side also to visit their relatives and to buy petrol and as tourists (Figure 12).

ó ád borderland go to Hun People living on the Slovakian side of the Saj -Hern gary to shop for clothes, foodstuffs and manufactured goods and to visit their relatives and for a holiday. Hungarian families go to Slovakia to visit their relatives, as tourists and for shopping something (Figure 13).

In Hungarian-Austrian research area we can find intense contacts between people living two sides of the border. Austrians travel to Hungary for holiday, for services and shopping, Hungarians go to Austria to buy foodstuffs, clothes and manufactured goods and to visit their relatives (Figure 14). % % 90 60 Hungarian side 80 Hungarian side 50 Slovakian side 70 Ukrainain side 60 40 50 30 40 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 l t l f t t t f s s s k s o s s s k s f o f r o s r o s r n i e d e e i e e g r d e u g r u o r

t o r t t o e t c v c h v o h o r r i i p i i t u s t e u s e t w t w o o m e v s e v

o o d o p o d p r a l r a l g t v g t v e l l o o

o y o r r c e c e t t s e e e e

d a o n d a o o s o s r r r r

f u n f n f f

e

e a

r r o s o s

r r r r e e f f m o o a a o u o u o f h f h

a t f t f t l t l

d

c c r t e t e i i a o a o v v f f t s s f i i a a u u r r v v t t

n n

o o a a o o t t t t m m

r r o o f f

ár árpátalja Figures 12-13 The purpose of travelling across the border in the Szatm -Bereg-K ó ád borderlands and Saj -Hern

% Hungarian side 35 Austrian side

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 l t t t f s s y k s s s o h f r o r r n u t e e e a d g r u o t e o e o a t c v h d o

r p i i i t s e h b l t w o t m g s e v

o l d p r a o l g v o e n l o i y a o

r c e h t s t e e r

d n o o s r r r u a m f n f o

e a

r f r o o e r r e f f m e o o u r o f h a t h f t d o t

c r f t i r a o o f t f s o i f u v

n o a t m

r o f

ékfrankos borderland Figure 14 The purpose of travelling cross the border in the K

Municipal attraction centers based on the use of retail and services

When a political frontier does not run on a natural border, it can divide areas that rely on same resources of nature, humans, and economy etc. This happens easily when a new border is born after the settling of an area and it happened in the last century after each of the two world “forgot” wars and their peace treaties. All of the new Hungarian borders to consider the original connections and structures and made difficulties for the border people and indeed for the whole country. From this point of view the situation was same in Hungary as it was in ’ “ Ireland, as O Dowd has described it: The meandering 280-mile boundary confirmed in 1925 cross-cut 1,400 agricultural holdings, approximately 180 roads and 20 railway lines. It “ ’D bisected villages and, in some cases, private houses. (O OWD, L. 1994).

The settlements of these bisected areas had to rebuild their relationships, the border people ’s areas had to make new centres and form new catchment , but sometimes these cannot work successfully. Is it possible to reform the original texture when the border becomes opened and permeable again? Is it necessary or not? Is there any claim to be made for it or not? And what is the situation in those areas where the border obstructs movement across it?

Method

This research also based on a questionnaire survey. We asked where people usually go buy 1. foodstuffs, 2. clothes, and 3. manufactured goods. Then, where do they usually go 4. to shop at the market, 5. to fill up their gas bottle, 6. to amuse themselves, 7. for the theatre, 8. for the cinema, 9. for the hairdresser, 10. for the tailor, 11. for the shoemaker, 12. for the repairman, 13. for petrol, and 14. for the car garage? They were able to name a maximum of two places used for each activity. A town or village got 1 point each time it was mentioned for any activity (i.e. if one person named the same town for every activity it would receive 14 points). The number of mentions received by each (possible) centre of attraction was summed. If the respondent named their home settlement it was not counted: only places travelled to were. ’s score was divided by the maximum possible score (14 Each centre *total number of We call this the respondents) and multiplied by 1000 to give a per-thousand score. ‘attraction index’.

We also gave a score to each area from which people were attracted to these centres based on how attracted people from these settlements were to particular centres. The number of mentions that one particular centre received from each settlement was divided by the maximum possible score (number of people asked in the settlement*14) and multiplied by We call this the ‘attracted’ (or ‘attracted-ness’) index. 100 to give a per cent score.

Results

‘ ’ The attraction index shows us which settlements work as centres in the research area. In the ár árpátalja borderland ász Szatm -Bereg-K (Figure 15), there are two main centres: Beregsz ásárosnamény from Hungary from Ukrainian side and V (Figures 16-17). If our research based on the local reference area, which means that we observe whether is there any attraction centre on the other side of the border. We can see no single place on the Ukrainian side that ász ár, works as a centre for Hungary, despite the traditions of the past, when Beregsz , Ungv ács, Nagyszõlõs had Munk a complementary region in this area (when the whole region still íregyháza belonged to Hungary). From the Ukrainian side people go to Ny (Figure 18), ásárosnamény and Fehérg V yarmat on the Hungarian side, but not so many people and not so often (Figure 15). In this research area on the Hungarian side we can find good structures of settlements, there are some well-working centres with their catchment areas close to them (Figure 19). But on the Ukrainian side there is only one big centre from this research area with a high score on the attraction index and in some cases the villages forming its complementary region are very far from it (Figure 16). 180 170 attraction strength based on the entire RA 160 based on Hungarian RA 150 based on Ukrainian RA 140 130 h t 120 g n e

r 110 t s

n 100 o i t c 90 a r t t a

80 f o

x 70 e d n

i 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 t r y y k s z s s a a p a g a á c s c n z n k o õ d á a l l v r e á á é á o d z s m õ a g á r z k b s h h n z z C m r v n s a n y a á á s s a s o y g z u g i U y Z r é n M g s t e e K i g a r r M s r á í y a é T e o y r g h M N B á a e N s F M á

V

ár árpátalja Figure 15 Centres and their scores on the attraction index in the Szatm -Bereg-K borderland

N

á Ungv r W E Ukraine Slovakia r i v e r S

b o r d e r l i n e

á Munk cs

a t t r a c t i o n c e n t r e

b o r d e r o f r e s e a r c h a r e a

á á H u n g a r i a n s i d e Kisv rda Beregsz sz õ õ Nagysz l s U k r a i n i a n s i d e

a t t r a c t e d i n d e x á á é V s rosnam ny 0

é Hungary Feh rgyarmat 0 . 0 1 - 1 5 á é M t szalka 1 5 . 0 1 - 3 0 í á Ny regyh za Romania 3 0 . 0 1 - 4 5

4 5 . 0 1 - 5 2 . 9

1 6 0 1 6 3 2 4 8 6 4 K i l o m e t e r s

ász and its catchment ár árpátalja borderland Figure 16 Beregsz area in the Szatm -Bereg-K

N

á Ungv r W E Ukraine Slovakia r i v e r S

b o r d e r l i n e

á Munk cs

a t t r a c t i o n c e n t r e

b o r d e r o f r e s e a r c h a r e a

á á H u n g a r i a n s i d e Kisv rda Beregsz sz õ õ Nagysz l s U k r a i n i a n s i d e

a t t r a c t e d i n d e x á á é V s rosnam ny 0

é Hungary Feh rgyarmat 0 . 0 1 - 1 5 á é M t szalka 1 5 . 0 1 - 3 0 í á Ny regyh za Romania 3 0 . 0 1 - 4 5

4 5 . 0 1 - 5 2 . 9

1 6 0 1 6 3 2 4 8 6 4 K i l o m e t e r s

ásárosnamény and its catchment ár árpátalja borderland Figure 17 V area in the Szatm -Bereg-K

N

á Ungv r W E Ukraine Slovakia r i v e r S

b o r d e r l i n e

á Munk cs

a t t r a c t i o n c e n t r e

b o r d e r o f r e s e a r c h a r e a

á á H u n g a r i a n s i d e Kisv rda Beregsz sz õ õ Nagysz l s U k r a i n i a n s i d e

a t t r a c t e d i n d e x á á é V s rosnam ny 0

é Hungary Feh rgyarmat 0 . 0 1 - 1 5 á é M t szalka 1 5 . 0 1 - 3 0 í á Ny regyh za Romania 3 0 . 0 1 - 4 5

4 5 . 0 1 - 5 2 . 9

1 6 0 1 6 3 2 4 8 6 4 K i l o m e t e r s

íregyháza, capital of ár Figure 18 Ny local county, and its catchment area in Szatm -Bereg- árpátalja borderland K

N

á Ungv r W E Ukraine Slovakia S r i v e r á á Csap Munk cs b o r d e r l i n e Z hony r e s e a r c h a r e a

á H u n g a r i a n s i d e M ndok á Beregsz sz U k r a i n i a n õ õ Nagysz l s a t t r a c t i o n i n d e x á Kisv rda 1 - 2 p e r t h o u s a n d

2 . 1 - 1 0 p e r t h o u s a n d á á é V s rosnam ny 1 0 . 1 - 2 0 p e r t h o u s a n d

é 2 0 . 1 - 5 0 p e r t h o u s a n d Hungary Feh rgyarmat 5 0 . 1 - 1 0 0 p e r t h o u s a n d á é M t szalka Romania í á Ny regyh za

1 6 0 1 6 3 2 4 8 6 4 K i l o m e t e r s ár Figure 19 The main centres and their scores on the attraction index in the Szatm -Bereg- árpátalja borderland K

ó ád research area, t ’s (Figure 20). In the Saj -Hern he situation is opposite to the previous area Here the Slovakian side has the more favourable structure of centres and catchment areas and on the Hungarian side we can find really a very bad situation. The main centre of this side is Miskolc (Figures 20, 21), which is as far as 50-70 kilometres from the villages forming its complementary area in several cases, and the road network is also very bad. On the Slovakian ó (Roz side the main centres are Kassa (Kosice) (Figure 22), Rozsny nava), Tornaalja ’ (Tornal a) and Szepsi (Moldava Nad Bodvou), and every town is very close to the villages attracted towards it. On the Hungarian side the main centres are Miskolc (Figure 23), Encs, Ózd, and in several cases to go to these centres Kazincbarcika, Putnok, is very difficult from ó, Rimaszombat the little villages. The traditional centres were Rozsny (Rimaska Sobota), Kassa, but these towns were dislocated from their catchment areas after the two world wars. On the Hungarian side the new centres do not work well, so the people from this area have to go a greater distance, to the capital of the county, Miskolc. But Miskolc is very far from these villages. The structure of settlements is the worst from the three research areas here. % 100 Attraction strength based on the entire RA 90 based on Hungarian RA 80 based on Slovakian RA 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 i t c c s k y s a a ó a a a d õ l s i j a r l c s y õ k o z n a n o i l k p b d r i s a s n é n n k l c Ó l á e t n z o r a s n m E s v z e e u r i s e z T a K o o d o S P z a P l o b z M v z T E c S s R d n S a i ó z m B i a R K

ó ád borderland Figure 20 Centres and their attraction indexes in Saj -Hern

N

Kassa W E ó õ Szepsi J svaf S

Tornalja r a i l w a y

m a i n r o a d s

r o a d s

n o n r e s e a r c h p l a c e

c e n t r a l p l a c e Perkupa r e s e a r c h a r e a

H u n g a r i a n s i d e

Ózd S l o v a k i a n s i d e

a t t r a c t e d i n d e x :

0 . 1 - 5 %

Miskolc 5 . 1 - 1 0 %

1 0 . 1 - 2 5 %

2 5 . 1 - 4 0 %

4 0 . 1 - 6 5 %

ó ád borderland Figure 21 Miskolc, capital of local county and its catchment area in Saj -Hern

N

Kassa W E

S

Tornalja r a i l w a y

m a i n r o a d s

r o a d s

n o n r e s e a r c h p l a c e

c e n t r a l p l a c e

r e s e a r c h a r e a

H u n g a r i a n s i d e

Ózd S l o v a k i a n s i d e

a t t r a c t e d i n d e x :

0 . 1 - 5 %

Miskolc 5 . 1 - 1 0 %

1 0 . 1 - 2 5 %

2 5 . 1 - 4 0 %

4 0 . 1 - 6 5 % ó ád borderland Figure 22 Kassa and its catchment area in Saj -Hern

N

Kassa W E Szepsi

S Tornalja

r a i l w a y

m a i n r o a d s

o t h e r r o a d s

r e s e a r c h a r e a

H u n g a r i a n s i d e

S l o v a k i a n s i d e

Ózd a t t r a c t i o n i n d e x

1 - 2 p e r t h o u s a n d

2 . 1 - 1 0 p e r t h o u s a n d

Miskolc 1 0 . 1 - 2 0 p e r t h o u s a n d

2 0 . 1 - 5 0 p e r t h o s a n d

5 0 . 1 - 1 0 0 p e r t h o u s a n d

ó ád Figure 23 The main centres and their scores on the attraction index in the Saj -Hern borderland

ékfrankos borderland, especially if we The smallest area is the K focus on the Hungarian side. Here we have the Sopron as the main centre with its complementary region, as we can see in Figure 25. Sopron has the highest level of attraction (or it is the most attractive), in particular if our assessment is based on only the Hungarian reference area (Figure 24). On the Hungarian side there is no other important centre in this research territory. On the Austrian side there are two main centres, Eisenstadt (Kismarton) (Figure 26) and the capital, Wien (or ‘Vienna’) (Figure 27). We can find an important role from a very local point of view, if we observe the magnitude of Mattersburg, as a local centre. The people asked from Hungary, they did not mark any centre on the Austrian side, but marked Austria in general. But we can see that Sopron, as a centre, is working a little from Austrian side (Figure 24). There is good structure of settlements in this borderland, with favourable central places hierarchies (Figure 28). 350

300 Attraction strength based on the entire RA based on Hungarian RA 250 based on Austrian RA

200

150

100

50

0 t t f r r k k a n n a t n r s i d g á õ z a n r d e o e r o l e i t a v y r á e t h a u d p p z t u p c h s c G W b n é s a s r p o y u i õ s e z u t n d a l r g k S e l s e u e A e a K n u õ t N s t P t B

i e p N r r r a u E e e e a M n F r b e F i O ékfrankW os b orderland Figure 24 Centres and their attraction index scores in the K

e e d N S õ t r r e l e d F

e f i o s W E u e e k N a L Rust S

ö m a i n r o a d s M rbisch am See Klingenbach Apetlon o t h e r r o a d s ß õ á r a i l w a y s Dra burg Fert r kos

A u s t r i a n R A Marz Schattendorf

Pamhagen H u n g a r i a n R A Rohrbach bei Mattersburg

a t t r a c t i o n c e n t e r

u r b a n - a r e a s Sopron

ó a t t r a c t e d i n d e x õ Sarr d ó á Hegyk õ Harka K ph za é Fert d 0 . 0 1 - 1 0 Hidegs g Ritzing õ Nagycenk Fert homok õ é 1 0 . 0 1 - 2 0 Neckenmarkt Fert sz plak

2 0 . 0 1 - 3 0 Deutschkreutz Horitschon 3 0 . 0 1 - 4 0

4 0 . 0 1 - 5 9 . 2 3

2 0 0 2 0 4 0 K i l o m e t e r s ékfrankos borderland Figure 25 Sopron and its catchment area in the K e e d S õ N t r r e l e d F

e f Eisenstadt i o s u e W E e k N a L Rust S Sankt Margarethen im Burgenland

Illmitz m a i n r o a d s Siegendorf ö M rbisch am See o t h e r r o a d s

r a i l w a y s

A u s t r i a n R A Schattendorf Pamhagen

H u n g a r i a n R A

u r b a n - a r e a s

a t t r a c t e d i n d e x

ó á 0 . 0 1 - 1 0 K ph za é Hidegs g õ 1 0 . 0 1 - 2 0 Fert homok

2 0 . 0 1 - 3 0 Lackendorf 3 0 . 0 1 - 4 0 Horitschon

4 0 . 0 1 - 5 9 . 2 3

2 0 0 2 0 4 0 K i l o m e t e r s ékf Figure 26 Eisenstadt and its catchment area in the K rankos borderland

e e d S õ N t r r e l e d F

e f Eisenstadt i o s u e Podersdorf am See W E e k N a L S

Illmitz m a i n r o a d s ö ß Klingenbach M rbisch am See o t h e r r o a d s Dra burg

r a i l w a y s

Baumgarten A u s t r i a n R A Marz

H u n g a r i a n R A Rohrbach bei Mattersburg Loipersbach im Burgenland u r b a n - a r e a s

a t t r a c t e d i n d e x

0 . 0 1 - 1 0

1 0 . 0 1 - 2 0

2 0 . 0 1 - 3 0 Lackendorf 3 0 . 0 1 - 4 0

4 0 . 0 1 - 5 9 . 2 3

2 0 0 2 0 4 0 K i l o m e t e r s ékfrankos borderland Figure 27 Wien and its catchment area in the K

e e N Eisenstadt d S õ t r r e l e d F

e f i o s W E u e e k N a L S

m a i n r o a d s

o t h e r r o a d s

r a i l w a y s

b o r d e r l i n e

A u s t r i a n R A Mattersburg H u n g a r i a n R A Sopron U r b a n - a r e a s . s h p

a t t r a c t i o n i n d e x

1 - 2 p e r t h o u s e n d

2 . 1 - 1 0 p e r t h o u s e n d

1 0 . 1 - 2 0 p e r t h o u s e n d

2 0 . 1 - 5 0 p e r t h o s e n d

5 0 . 1 - 1 2 0 p e r t h o u s e n d

2 0 0 2 0 4 0 K i l o m e t e r s ékfrankos borderland Figure 28 The main centres and their attraction index scores in the K

All three research areas can be defined as the main central places and their primary attracted settlements (Figures 29-31). We can find concentrated but heterogeneous complementary ár árpátalja and ó regions o the Hungarian side of Szatm -Bereg-K the Slovakian side of the Saj - ád borderlands Hern (Figures 29-30). There are concentrated and homogeneous attracted areas ár árpátalja and ékfrankos on the Ukrainian side of Szatm -Bereg-K the Hungarian side of the K borderlands (Figures 29, 31).

á Ungv r N

Slovakia Ukraine W E

Csap á Z hony S á Munk cs

r i v e r

b o r d e r l i n e

r e s e a r c h a r e a

á á õ õ H u n g a r i a n s i d e Kisv rda Beregsz sz Nagysz l s U k r a i n i a n s i d e

c e n t r a l p l a c e s a n d t h e i r c a t c h m e n t a r e a á á é V s rosnam ny V á s á r o s n a m é n y

F e h é r g y a r m a t é Feh rgyarmat N y í r e g h á z a í á Ny regyh za Hungary á é N y í r e g y h á z a , V á s á r o s n a m é n y M t szalka

N y í r e g y h á z a , Z á h o n y

Romania K i s v á r d a

Z á h o n y

B e r e g s z á s z

B e r e g s z á s z , H u n g a r y

N a g y s z õ l õ s

U n g v á r

C s a p

n o n r e s e a r c h p l a c e

1 4 0 1 4 2 8 4 2 5 6 7 0 8 4 K i l o m e t e r s

ár árpátalja Figure 29 Central places and their catchment areas in the Szatm -Bereg-K borderland ó ád borderland there are also concen On the Hungarian side of the Saj -Hern trated and scattered heterogeneous complementary regions (Figure 30). Finally, on the Austrian side of ékfrankos borderland there are v the K ery scattered areas attracted to the centres (Figure 31), some villages are a long distance from their central places.

ó N Rozsny Szepsi Kassa W E

Tornalja S

õ Szendr

Encs é Ó Edel ny zd

Kazincbarcika

Putnok r a i l w a y Miskolc

m a i n r o a d

r o a d

C e n t r a l p l a c e s a n d t h e i r c a t c h m e n t a r e a

M i s k o l c é s E n c s E d e l é n y M i s k o l c K a s s a E n c s

M i s k o l c é s S z e n d r õ S z e n d r õ é s E d e l é n y R o z s n y ó K a z i n c b a r c i k a S z e n d r õ

P u t n o k T o r n a l j a T h e c e n t r a l p l a c e i s i n H u n g a r i a n r e s e a r c h a r e a

Ó z d S z e p s i T h e c e n t r a l p l a c e i s i n S l o v a k i a n r e s e a r c h a r e a ó ád borderland Figure 30 Central places and their catchment area in the Saj -Hern

d S õ t r r e l e Eisenstadt d F

f N ie Frauenkirchen o s u e e k N a L W E

S Illmitz

Apetlon m a i n r o a d s

Mattersburg o t h e r r o a d s

r a i l w a y s

A u s t r i a n R A

H u n g a r i a n R A

Sopron c e n t r a l p l a c e s a n d

t h e i r c a t c h m e n t a r e a :

S o p r o n

W i e n Neckenmarkt E i s e n s t a d t

Lackendorf O b e r p u l l e n d o r f

Horitschon M a t t e r s b u r g

W i e n , M a t t e r s b u r g

F r a u e n k i r c h e n

2 0 0 2 0 4 0 K i l o m e t e r s ékfrankos area Figure 31 Central places and their catchment area in K It is important not to forget that this research (in terms of data gathering) finished before the 1st of May in 2004, that is, before Slovakia, Hungary became EU members. These relations may now change, especially if these countries are to have the same currency in future. Maybe the old connections can be rebuilt and help the lives of people living on the border.

SUMMARY

It may seem to us that these borders are mostly open without any real obstacles to crossing it. This research allows us to see what the real situation is. Despite the busy border check points, there were rather illegal movements across the border and only few proper connections between the border regions. This conclusion also could be drawn if we see the results of central places research. There are not any real central places, which could have attracted people from settlements on the other side of the border. In some cases the settlements ó ád and Ukrainian side of structures are highly unfavorable (Hungarian side of Saj -Hern ár árpátalja borderlan ékfrankos borderland as well). Szatm -Bereg-K ds, and Austrian side of K The original structures of social and economic communication were broken by the new borders imposed, and the new ones do not work well even after a considerable passage of time. After EU enlargement, we may guess that border crossing and connections across borders will improve in the Austrian-Hungarian and Slovakian-Hungarian borderlands, but this is only a hopeful hypothesis now, which new research from these areas will test in future. In the Ukrainian-Hungarian borderland, however, the situation may well become more difficult for the people still for those who live in this area. We know, however, that the processes of global and regional political-economic restructuring do not always have the effects anticipated of them.

REFERENCES

ANDERSON, J. 1998: Integrating Europe, Integrating Ireland: The Socio-Economic Dynamics. – In: Anderson, J. and Goodman (eds) Dis/Agreeing Ireland. Pluto Press, London, pp.73-88 É BCHIR, H, FONTAGN , L. AND ZANGHIERI, P. 2003: http://www.cepii.fr/anglaisgraph/workpap/pdf/2003/wp03-10.pdf , 24 p. DIEZ, T, STETTER, S, ALBERT, M. 2004: The European Union and Border Conflicts: The Unpublished manuscript Transformative Power of Integration. pp.1-43 ’D O OWD, L. 1994: Ireland Between Two Worlds. Whither the Irish Border? Sovereignty, – Democracy and Economic Integration in Ireland. Belfast, 43 p. – TUPY, M. L. 2003: EU Enlargement Costs, Benefits, and Strategies for Central and European Countries. Policy Analysis. No. 489. September 18, 2003 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa489.pdf , 20 p. íziós gondolat – ZEIDLER, M. 2001: A rev Osiris, Budapest, 256 p.