Discussion Papers 2002. No. 38. 
BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary
CENTRE FOR REGIONAL STUDIES 
OF HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 
 
 
DISCUSSION PAPERS 
 
No. 38 
BEFORE SCHENGEN – 
READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New 
Interregional Formations at the Eastern 
Borders of Hungary 
by 
Béla BARANYI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Series editor 
Zoltán GÁL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pécs 
2002 

---

Discussion Papers 2002. No. 38. 
BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary
 
Publishing of this paper is supported by the 
Research and Publishing Fund of the Centre for Regional Studies, Hungary 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ISSN 0238–2008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
© 2002 by Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences 
Technical editor: Ilona Csapó, Zoltán Gál 
Typeset by Centre for Regional Studies of HAS Printed in Hungary by Sümegi 
Nyomdaipari, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Ltd., Pécs 
2   

---

Discussion Papers 2002. No. 38. 
BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary
CONTENTS 
 
1 Introduction   5 
2  Cross-border relations in peripheral situation  / 6 
3 Euroregional organisations – macro-regions  / 9 
4  New euroregional formations – micro-regions  / 20 
5  Other possible levels of transboundary co-operation  / 31 
6  Schengen and future challenges  / 32 
References  / 36 
 
3 

---

Discussion Papers 2002. No. 38. 
BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary
List of figures 
Figure 
1 
 The characteristics of cross-border relations of the borderland 
settlements   / 8 
Figure 2  Euro-regions and transboundary interregional co-operation projects with 
East-Hungarian involvement in year 2001  / 13 
Figure 3   The Carpathian Euroregion with its existing and emerging euroregion-
type  interregional organisations / 14 
Figure 4   The opinion of frontier settlements in the Carpathian Euroregion  / 18 
Figure 5   How much are the borderland settlements familiar with the objectives of 
the Carpathian Euroregion?  / 18 
Figure 6   Potential and emerging interregional co-operation between frontier 
regions  / 21 
Figure 7  The historic Bihar County after the 1949/50 administrative reforms  / 25 
Figure 8  The statistical district of Berettyóújfalu (BEZ) with settlements and 
population  / 29 
List of tables 
Table 1  The territory, population and population density of the Carpathian 
Euroregion in year 2000  / 16 
Table 2  The territory, population and population density of the Danube–Körös–
Maros–Tisza Euroregion in year 1999  / 17 
 
 
4   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
1 Introduction 
It’s more than fifteen years that European regional policy and regional sciences 
have shifted towards political borders, the issues of borderland and transboundary 
co-operation. Borderland issues, the research on the dividing and connective func-
tions of borders has vital importance in the transitional countries of East Central 
Europe too. The political changes of the turn of the 1980s and 1990s opened new 
prospects in the Carpathian Basin as well. As the ‘iron-curtain’ disappeared the 
strict dividing role of state borders seemed to decrease and the prospect of cross-
border relations seemed to broaden in the Carpathian Basin. But with new perspec-
tives, the old problems of co-operation have also been preserved. 
For a long time the unlimited expansion of economic space was halted by state 
borders, even in the countries of the European Union. This hindered and partly 
slowed down the dynamism of co-operation. But this phenomenon was much more 
felt in the countries of central and Eastern Europe. Even with the opening of the 
European horizon, state borders have been preserved and with the emergence of 
new states the dividing role of borders, splitting internal macro-regions, country-
parts and districts has become more realistic. The spatial structure of several East-
European countries has become fragmented, natural relationships have been broken 
up, and the difficulties in making new contacts have hindered the integration of the 
European spatial structure. In several cases much bigger disparities have been 
formed among frontier regions, which is partly the result of core-periphery rela-
tions, changes in spatial structure, of differences in the socio-economic features of 
the areas intercepting on the border, partly of inherited and new differences. It is 
not accidental that the 1990s with bringing new chances for the integration of 
frontier regions separated them at the same time. These changing tendencies re-
sulted a mixture of disadvantageous with favourable tendencies for cross-border 
co-operations (Ruttkay, É. 1995, Rechnitzer, J. 1997, 2000, Nemes Nagy, J. 1998, 
Horváth, Gy. 1998). 
It’s also true that the change of regime even if revealed some earlier problems, 
contradictions, fears and suspicions, has created more favourable conditions for 
regional co-operation in the Carpathian Basin. However, on the one hand, ‘…it is 
evident that the Pan-European integration model has no alternatives, but on the 
other hand, European integration is a hard, painful and very long process. Every-
thing that may facilitate and shorten the integration process is very important for all 
the parties. This explains why the importance of regional co-operation has in-
creased in East Central Europe and in the Carpathian Basin as well’. (Tóth, J. 
1996). 
The study of the questions, the role and importance of transboundary co-
operations, the redefinition of the functions of state borders has been recognised 
not only by regional scientists but also by European regional policymakers, with 
 
5 

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
special regard to the current European integration processes. The spatial-ethnic 
problems of the past make the European co-operation and integration more diffi-
cult along the borders of East Central Europe. The borders where unsettled socio-
economic-ethnic problems accumulate and still exist mean considerable obstacles 
to globalisation and integration tendencies. The borderlands and settlements of 
Eastern Hungary – the ‘peripheries of periphery’ can be considered as such a 
problematic territory. As the most important mid-term objective of Hungary is the 
accession to the EU, it is of special importance that the resolutions, measures taken 
to reduce the current problems and tensions regarding the East Hungarian border, 
should contribute to the fulfilment of accession requirements. Regional sciences 
should assess the improvement chances of border regions from socio-economic 
aspects, they should prepare for the challenges of European integration and for the 
management of the Schengen ‘border syndrome’. 
Hungary’s coming European accession may offer an optimistic perspective for 
the future but the moving of Schengen borders to East Hungary may ‘drop a black 
shadow’ on improving Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian relations 
and worsen the situation of Hungarian ethnic minorities as well as inter-ethnic re-
lations. All these verify the special scientific and national importance of prepara-
tion for the situation following the European accession. 
2  Cross-border relations in peripheral situation 
Due to Hungary’s Euro-Atlantic accession, the importance of questions regarding 
the state and opportunities of cross-border relations, especially to their relevance to 
the East-Hungarian border, has significantly increased nowadays, As a future result 
of Hungary’s accession to the European Union, the Hungarian–Romanian and the 
Hungarian–Ukrainian border sections will be the external borderline of the EU in 
the near future. The chances for neighbour countries to join to the EU in the same 
round with Hungary are minimal today. Thus, the dividing  role of the border is 
likely to become temporarily stronger, because the strict stipulations of Schengen 
should be kept on those frontier stations that belong to the currently examined ter-
ritory. The free movement of people and goods will rather be hindered than facili-
tated. The chance for the borderlands to improve and become strong enough in the 
near future to play an integrating role before the accession like Burgenland in Aus-
tria and Vas and Győr-Moson-Sopron counties in Hungary is also minimal.  
The situation on the state borders of East-Hungary is worsened by the fact that 
very poor and underdeveloped areas are met on the two sides of border. This means 
that  peripheries intercept with peripheries. (Hardi, T. 2000).  By periphery we 
mean frontier zones situated on the ‘edge’ of underdeveloped rural regions under-
6   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
going through a process of double marginalisation (turning into the periphery of 
periphery). The East-Slovak, the Ukrainian and the Romanian frontier regions are 
such peripheral areas (Rechnitzer, J. 2000). There is a clear sign that a new large 
underdeveloped region is shaping up comprising the frontier zones of five East-
European countries (Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine) facing 
persistent problems of peripheral situation (Gorzelak, G. 1998). The whole terri-
tory of the (Carpathian Euroregion) area is a periphery in all countries both from 
sociological and economic aspects. 
Due to the intensified socio-economic deconcentration processes after the 
changes in 1989 a significant part of the Great Hungarian Plain still remained pe-
ripheral. Certain territories within the region, borderlands at the first place became 
the ‘peripheries of periphery’ – according to the proper expression of József Tóth 
and partly Ferenc Erdősi (Erdősi, F. 1988, Erdősi, F.–Tóth, J. ed. 1988, Tóth, J. 
1988). A complex survey comprising interviews carried out within the Hungarian–
Ukrainian and the Hungarian–Romanian frontier zones in 199 settlements of the 
North-Eastern Hungarian Plain (Hajdú-Bihar and Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg coun-
ties) have verified this opinion. (Baranyi B. ed. 2001, Baranyi, B.–Balcsók, I.–
Dancs, L.–Mező, B. 1999). The results of the survey also show that the whole 137 
km Hungarian–Ukrainian and the 448 km Hungarian–Romanian border section 
have the same features of their hinterland, the Great Hungarian Plain. However, the 
urbanised areas on the north-eastern Hungarian border bear all the marks of a 
peripheral region, with far lower development indicators than the national average 
or their adjoining internal core areas. (Ruttkay, É. 1995). 
Thus, the majority of border regions on the East-Hungarian border are still un-
derdeveloped, especially on the Ukrainian and Romanian sectors of North-Eastern 
Hungary. Due to historic and other previously formed unfavourable macro- and 
micro-economic factors, (one-sided economic structure, low incomes, heavy short-
ages of venture capital, deep unemployment crisis) the absence of viable economic 
programmes, poor infrastructure and transport system, and the very slow develop-
ment of cross-border co-operation, the opening up of state borders has crucial im-
portance for Hungary and its neighbours. Today borderland situation, rural char-
acter, acute shortages of foreign capital and unemployment crisis are all crying for 
the development of marginal peripheral areas and settlements. The dissolving of the 
rigid separating role of borders and the spiritualization of the East Central Euro-
pean borders are basic national interests of Hungary, and its neighbours. This is 
particularly true for those problem regions that are separated by the Hungarian–
Ukrainian and the Hungarian–Romanian borders (Baranyi, B. 1999. 
Regarding the EU integration, the development of peripheral areas, micro-
regions, districts, settlement-groups and settlements will be of crucial importance 
in the near future. However, in the Hungarian–Slovakian, Hungarian–Romanian 
and Hungarian–Ukrainian frontier regions the necessity of establishing cross-
 
7 

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
border relations is rather more a recognition than a result of live transboundary co-
operation projects. This statement is verified by the quantity and quality of co-
operation projects: while the ratio of economic, commercial and educational pro-
grammes is low, the dominance of cultural, twin-settlement, sport and other less 
important relations can be observed (Figure 1). 
Figure 1 
The characteristics of cross-border relations of the borderland settlements 
trade
9%
economic
9%
educational
17%
religious
19%
sport
28%
twin-city relations
57%
cultural
64%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
 
Source: Data from a questionnaire survey. Debrecen Group of the Alföld Research Institute CRS 
HAS. 
All in all, the results of the survey v7erified our former presumption that the 
cross-border relations of the local authorities in the North-Eastern Great Plain are 
not significant today either in quantity or in quality. The small amount of official 
relations that exist are usually formal and protocol twin-city, cultural and sport re-
lations. However, the improvement would be important especially in the field of 
business and trade, even if the peripheral situation and the handicapped position of 
the territory makes it more difficult for both partners to build new relations. The 
weak intensity of cross-border relations is explained by the minor role of the eco-
nomic sector in cross-border co-operations. (Baranyi, B.–Dancs, L. 2001). 
Hungary is one of the countries in East Central Europe with the most open 
economy. The central position it holds in the Carpathian Basin and the national 
economic targets demand general openness of border. In spite of this, the borders 
around the north-eastern Great Plain – unlike the Austrian and Slovenian ‘open 
border’ – are absolutely not open. (Rechnitzer, J. 1990, Hardi, T. 2000). Despite 
8   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
their borderland situation the peripheral north-eastern borders of Hungary hardly 
ever get in contact with the international economy. The opening of north-eastern 
borders is Hungary’s basic interest considering its NATO-membership and the 
forthcoming EU membership. 
It also should be noted that the efforts for opening up borders require active co-
operation on both sides of border. Unfortunately, the large number of Hungarian 
minorities in the territories annexed to the neighbouring countries by the border 
corrections of Trianon arises problems for the solution of this issue. Some of the 
political leaders of Hungary’s neighbouring countries regard closer co-operation 
between Hungary and the Hungarians beyond the borders as minorities dangerous 
and so they try to hinder the process of border opening. Since the political changes 
in 1989 the expectations of the countries in the Carpathian Basin for the intensifi-
cation of cross-border relations have several times failed even on the eastern bor-
ders of Hungary. In fact the permeability of borders did not improve significantly 
and very often this question arises several problems, difficulties and conflicts. The 
number of cross-points especially for international and freight transport is still too 
few. (Dancs, L. 2001). 
3  Euroregional organisations – macro-regions 
What possibilities do euroregional organisations offer for the development of 
transboundary relations and co-operations? It’s a great advantage that regional or-
ganisations are not limited to past and present borders, so they may integrate sev-
eral regions across countries. As the development and closing-up of backward 
frontier regions enjoy priority within the EU, co-operation is a must for cross-
border organisations to take collective actions. Within the East-European EU can-
didate countries international euroregional co-operation is of great importance (this 
is also recognised by the launch of PHARE CBC Programme) as it may influence 
the tendencies of international political relations significantly and may strengthen 
the cohesion of frontier regions involved in regional co-operation through their co-
ordination activities. 
The institutional framework of cross-border co-operation, regarding all the 
Hungarian border sections, has already been established. Since the signature of the 
Madrid Agreement (1980) a kind of co-operation fever has been swept along the 
borders of Hungary. The spontaneous feature and the great number of new forma-
tions are reflected by the large number of problems they must face during their ef-
forts for a successful partnership. The excessive size of corporate structure, the 
oversized number of actors, the too schematic and too general objectives and the 
low level of funding are such problems. For all that, it is the only euroregional or-
 
9 

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
ganisation scheme (not bordered by the EU but authorised for the utilisation to use 
this term) that has so far become the major umbrella organisations within the offi-
cial institutional system of cross-border co-operation in East Central Europe. On 
the basis of size, territorial organisation, spatial structure and external relations two 
major euroregion models can be distinguished. One is the so-called macro-regional 
model the other is the micro-regional model. The first may be referred as provincial 
or county model, which is based on extensive euroregional organisations integrat-
ing medium-level spatial organisations, provinces, regions (NUTS 2 level) and 
counties (NUTS 3 level) of two or more neighbouring states (the Carpathian Euro-
region is such an example). The second may be referred as urban agglomeration 
model, is much more based on direct, bilateral micro regional (NUTS 4 level) or 
inter-urban, inter-settlement (NUTS 5 level) relations, establishing stronger corre-
lations within the spatial units of region but preserving the majority of the strategic 
elements of the micro regional model (The Interregio, Bihar-Bihor Euroregion are 
such examples) (Rechnitzer,  J. 1997). 
Euroregions, the fundamental institutional frameworks of cross-border co-
operation, look back to a long-time tradition in Western Europe but in East Central 
Europe the political changes and the intensification of the Euro-Atlantic accession 
process have also intensified cross-border relations. The government of an 
integrating continent is much easier through an integrated spatial economic unit 
structure and euroregions are special geographical frameworks of cross-border co-
operation. At the same time euroregions are the highest-level institutions of cross-
border co-operation with the widest authority scope and functions. According 
James Scott (1996) the main objective of euroregions is their recognition as 
international organisations managing their region’s economic, environmental, 
social, cultural and other institutional problems. It is hoped that the concentration 
of these activities on euroregional level would grow to such a critical mass (in 
economic sense), which will strengthen the cohesion among frontier regions, which 
will attract private and institutional investors into the region (Rechnitzer, J. 1999). 
Thus, euroregions may be defined as traditional and the most effective institu-
tional frameworks of cross-border co-operation working on the geographical area 
of two or more countries which have made an agreement to co-ordinate the devel-
opment of their frontier regions. The term euroregion covers such a geographic 
area (region) on which interregional cross-border co-operations have been estab-
lished between governments or local authorities in a wide range of areas. Shortly 
after the Second World War, with the establishment of the Common Market (1957) 
euroregions and interregional organisations as regional-spatial formations of the 
European integration process emerged and quickly spread over West Europe. The 
same process is going on in the eastern part of Europe, mostly within the transi-
tional countries of East Central Europe. Interregional formations reinforce the vi-
sion of the euroregional space. By this model Europe may be seen not only as a 
10   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
Europe of Nations, but also as a ‘Europe of Regions’ involving regions (frontier 
regions) that represent the participants’ mutual interests (Süli-Zakar, I. 1998, Éger, 
Gy. 2000). 
The quick spread of euroregions and other formations of interregional co-
operation may be illustrated by the fact that more than 100 of regional integration 
agreements have been made so far. This is even true, even if – with the exception 
of only one case – they are regarded as only free trade agreements or preferential 
customs zones. Although, the majority of regional co-operation initiatives are di-
rected at the enhancement of trading relations but everyday economic co-operation 
is not mentioned in integration agreements even as a long term objective. Practi-
cally, only less than a third of regional integration agreements are based on practi-
cal issues. The European Union – the integration of the developed European coun-
tries – is the only exception from these tendencies (Bernek, Á.–Süli-Zakar, I. 1997). 
Apart from the large number interregional organisations, and the fact that many 
of them work without any real programmes, the territorial extension of the emerg-
ing new euroregions raises another series of problems. The spatial extension of 
frontier regions rarely coincides with the functionality of border areas. Although 
we can see some positive examples for the opposite trend (Košice–Miskolc Euro-
region), but in most cases, since the establishment of large euroregions (Car-
pathian Euroregion, Danube–Körös–Maros–Tisza Euroregion), new co-operative 
organisations are established that cover only small territories. This is true for the 
spatial connections on the eastern borders of Hungary as well (Interregio, Hajdú-
Bihar Euroregion, Hajdú-Bihar–Bihor Euroregion) (Figures 2, 3). These generally 
positive trends are explained not only by the recognition of mutual interests on 
both sides of the border but also by the benefits offered by physical geography, 
spatial structure and ethnic interdependence of areas having been separated from 
Hungary by the Trianon Peace Treaty. The emphasis is on local co-operation, put-
ting aside the barriers resulted from nation-state opposition, because state borders 
have broken up the traditionally homogenous economic space. (Golobics, P.–Tóth, 
J. 1999, Hardi, T. 2001). 
Several eurororegional organisations, euroregions (macro-regions) and other 
micro-regions or quasi euroregion-type formations or euroregion-based structures 
have been established along the Hungarian borders. With the establishment of the 
Danube–Körös–Maros–Tisza Euroregion in 1997 the number of euroregional co-
operations, serving as umbrella organisations for cross-border co-operation, in-
creased to three in Hungary. Many more further euroregion-based co-operation 
systems are under development. Two of the three Hungarian initiated euroregional 
co-operations  work on the East-Hungarian borders, in the northeastern, eastern 
and southeastern sections. Two of the macro-regions – the Carpathian Euroregion 
International Association (Carpathian Euroregion) having been established on 14 
February 1993, and the Danube–Körös–Maros–Tisza Regional Co-operation Sys-
 
11

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
tem having been established in Szeged on November 1997 – cover the eastern 
frontier zones and borderlands of Hungary (Figure 2). 
The Carpathian Euroregion – covering the north-eastern areas of Hungary – is 
the oldest euroregional organisation (Figure 3). This giant region is a special or-
ganisation of cross-border co-operation and some of its features are very different 
from the other two euroregional formations: the West Pannonian Euroregion in 
West-Hungary and the latest Danube–Körös–Maros–Tisza (DMKT) Euroregion on 
the southeast border of Hungary. First of all, its multilateral pre-integrative char-
acter differs from the traditional bilateral relationships of the two other eurore-
gions. This means, that that the five member states co-operate in the management 
of the common problems of their medium-level spatial units and border counties, 
instead of building bilateral cross-border relations. On the basis of regional co-
operations the Carpathian Euroregion may be defined as a multiregional co-
operation system, a similar organisation to the West European Alps–Adria Team. 
The second difference is that all its members are former socialist countries and 
they are all East Central European countries as well. The Carpathian Euroregion 
was established as an integration that may set up direct connection with EU mem-
ber states. The fact that it was exclusively formed on the external borders of the EU 
aroused the interest of the West-European countries. The third difference – as it has 
been mentioned – that the whole territory of the Carpathian Euroregion is periph-
eral, not only on European level but some of its units within the member states 
themselves  (Illés, I. 1997, Gorzelak G. 1998, Rechnitzer, J. 1999,  Süli-Zakar, I. 
1997). 
The second large euroregional organisation, which covers the territory of East 
and South-Eastern Hungary, is the DMKT Euroregion, integrating interregional co-
operation initiatives in the Hungarian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Yugoslavian 
frontier zones (Figure 2). The DMKT Euroregion comprises the administrative 
units of three states (nine counties). (Table 2). The DMKT Euroregion occupying 
two-thirds of Hungary’s total territory and including several other spatial units may 
be regarded as a similar multiregional organisation to the Alps Adria Team and the 
Carpathian Euroregion. As its objectives require more concrete and tighter co-
operation this organisation is more similar to the classic trilateral cross-border co-
operation model. This euroregion has no physical connection with any member 
states of the EU, co-operations take place on the Hungarian–Romanian–
Yugoslavian border, a politically rather risky place. All these increase the 
importance of this initiative. (Rechnitzer, J. 1999). 
12   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
 
 
13

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
 
14   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
 Considering the Yugoslavian political crisis, the DMKT Euroregion must have 
learnt from the mistakes of the Carpathian Euroregion. By avoiding the traps of 
everyday international politics it can really concentrate on local regional co-
operations and development. This is clearly marked in the Foundation Document 
(Minutes of Meeting) as follows: ‘the regional co-operation of the DMKT 
Euroregion aims at the developing and enlarging co-operation between local 
communities in the areas of economy, culture, science and sports as well as 
bolstering co-operation leading to integration into larger European processes’. 
The evaluation of the activities of the two large euroregional organisations 
working on the eastern borders of Hungary is rather ambiguous. Due to its 
multiregional character and vast extension, the majority of problems are associated 
with the Carpathian Euroregion. Several papers have been written on the operation 
and malfunctioning of the Carpathian Euroregion (Illés, I. 1993). Concluding the 
various views and opinions on the activity of Hungarian euroregions, we can 
remark that they are under a constant pressure of two opposite trends: one the one 
hand, they often face political conflicts on inter-governmental level, but on the 
other hand, there is a growing demand for positive local initiatives and local co-
operation (Éger, Gy. 2000). 
The large territorial extension and the large diversity of co-operation fields are 
another set of problems that may hinder the intensification of cross-border co-
operation. This is true not only in case of the DMKT Euroregion which is based on 
local initiatives and co-operation programmes but also for the Carpathian 
Euroregion working in extensive spatial dimensions (territory of 161,000 km2, 
population of 16 million). These are of a size of an average country. Having more 
than 24 administrative units (some of them are not bordered by the neighbour 
countries) the Carpathian Euroregion is not fit for proper functioning. Although the 
DMKT Euroregion is also covering a relatively large territory (77,000 km2, with a 
population of 6 million) but this is much more of an adequate size than the 
dimensions of the Carpathian Euroregion. (Table 1–2). Nevertheless, the DMKT 
Euroregion comprised of four Hungarian counties (Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok, Csong-
rád, Bács-Kiskun, Békés), four Romanian counties (Karas-Severin, Timis, Arad, 
Hunedoara) and the Yugoslavian Voyvodina, offers more intensive and concrete 
forms of co-operation on an area of more homogenous physical geographic and 
socio-economic features. Several historic reasons have also contributed to the 
higher development level of this euroregion than the Carpathian Euroregion (The 
modernisation having been carried out by the Austro–Hungarian Monarchy is such 
an example). 
 
15

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
Table 1 
The territory, population and population density of the Carpathian Euroregion 
in year 2000 
Country 
The Carpathian Euroregion member country’s 
 Municipality 
Territory 
Population 
Population 
(km2) 
(thousand) 
density 
(person/km2) 
Poland Podkarpatskoje 
Regio 
17,926 2,112 117.8 
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén 
Hajdú-Bihar 
Hungary 
Heves 
28,639 2,616  91.3 
Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok 
Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg 
Bihor  
Botoşani 
Hargita 
Romania 
Maramureş 
42,281 3,007  71.1 
Satu Mare 
Sălaj 
Suceava 
Košice 
Slovakia 
15,746 1,543  98.0 
Prešov 
Transcarpathia 
Tshernivtsi 
Ukraine 
56,660 6,430 113.5 
Ivano-Frankivsk 
Lviv 
Carpathian Euroregion 
161,192 
16,051 
99.6 
Source: Data service from International Secretariat of Carpathian Euroregion, Nyíregyháza, 2001. 
16   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
Table 2 
The territory, population and population density of the 
Danube–Körös–Maros–Tisza Euroregion in  year 1999 
Country County 
Territory
Population
Population  County Seat 
(km2) 
(thousand)
density 
(person/km2) 
Bács-Kiskun County 
8,362 
542 
64.8 
Kecskemét 
Békés County 
5,631 
407 
72.3 Békéscsaba 
Hungary 
Csongrád County 
4,263 
438 
102.7 
Szeged 
Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County
5,607 
423 
75.4 
Szolnok 
Arad County 
7,652 
507 
66.2 
Arad 
Huneidora County 
7,016 
547 
78.0 
Deva 
Romania 
Karas-Severin County 
8,514 376  44.2 
Resita 
Timis County 
8,692 
715 
82.3 
Timişoara 
Yugoslavia Voyvodina 
21,506 2,013 
93.6 
Novi 
Sad 
Danube–Körös–Maros–Tisza Euroregion 77,243 5,968 
77.3 
– 
Source: Data provided by Koncz, J.,  Rechnitzer, J. 1999. 
The motives, why the Carpathian Euroregion is rather a formal institutional-
administrative organisation than a viable project producing practical results are 
explained partly by past partly by recent ethnic and socio-economic reasons. The 
Carpathian Euroregion has rather political, international, formal and cultural 
characteristics, its formal elements are much more dominative than the results. 
This hypothesis is verified the results of the earlier-mentioned complex survey 
having been made in 119 settlements along the Hungarian–Ukrainian and the 
Hungarian–Romanian borders. The responses given to the two questions of survey 
referring to the euroregional organisation (What is your settlement’s opinion of the 
Carpathian Euroregion initiative? How much are the municipality and the 
population familiar with the aims and function of the Carpathian Euroregion?) 
reflect a very low level of awareness. According to the answers to the questionnaire 
sent to 119 settlements, 57% does not even know the Carpathian Euroregion, 40% 
reckons the initiative as positive, whereas three settlements – because its activity is 
not visible in the region – think as negative. To the question how much the leaders 
of the settlements are familiar with the aims Carpathian Euroregion only 15% 
answered good, and only 2% answered perfectly. The situation is even worse if the 
population is examined, as – according to the opinion of mayors – 60% does not 
know about the aims of the Carpathian Euroregion (Figures 4, 5). 
 
17

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
Figure 4 
The opinion of frontier settlements in the Carpathian Euroregion 
 
3%
40%
does not know
positive
57%
negative
 
 
 
Source: Data from a questionnaire survey. Debrecen Group of the Alföld Research Institute CRS 
HAS, 1999. 
 
 
 
 
18   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
Figure 5  
How much are the borderland settlements familiar with the objectives of the 
Carpathian Euroregion? 
 
2%
2%
100%
5%
15%
90%
15%
80%
26%
18%
70%
60%
12%
50%
4%
40%
60%
30%
41%
20%
10%
0%
Mayor
Inhabitants
not at all
hardly
at an acceptable level
at a medium level
well
very well
 
Source: Data from a questionnaire survey. Debrecen Group of the Alföld Research Institute CRS 
HAS, 1999. 
 
19

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
The results of survey have verified our assumption that the borderland popula-
tion of the Carpathian Euroregion is not informed enough about this organisation. 
Many even do not know that it exists, and those who do know are not familiar with 
its aims and functions. If the Carpathian Euroregion wants to be a successful inter-
national organisation, it has to go beyond the formal frames of its activities and has 
to facilitate the issue of interregional co-operation by giving content to it. It also 
has to let people know about its aims, opportunities, results, management and or-
ganisational scheme (councils, secretariat, committees).  
Despite the arising problems, the activities of the Carpathian Euroregion – if it 
succeeds to draw co-operation interests nearer and overcome the hindering diffi-
culties of normal co-operation – can secure an outbreak opportunity for the econ-
omy of the area, it can also help to solve minority problems and facilitate the im-
provement of cross-border relations. In the meantime, co-operations of borderland 
areas at different levels mean the most important form of cross-border initiatives. 
With the support of the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Foundation for 
the Development of Carpathian Euroregion was established in 1994. The aim of 
this foundation – separated from the aims of the Euroregion – is to provide finan-
cial and technical support for programmes assisted by local authorities and civil 
organisations in order to improve the quality of life for people living in the villages 
of the Carpathians. The Foundation for the Development of Carpathian Euroregion 
facilitates programmes in connection with economic growth and cross-border ac-
tivities above all (e.g. trainings for local government representatives and leaders of 
civil organisations, exchange programmes for twin cities and inter-ethnic cultural 
events, etc.). Among the grants – which are available to non-profit organisations 
only – those are privileged which promote co-operation among sectors and moti-
vate co-operation between borderland regions (Hudak, V. 1997). 
The development of cross-border relations regarding the North-Eastern Great 
Plain cannot be promoted by means of the PHARE and the Carpathian Euroregion 
exclusively. The government, county and municipal governments and civil organi-
sations should also take the responsibility. With holding borderland regions to-
gether at different levels, and with the recognition of common interests, a much 
higher integration than the present levels of co-operation can be achieved. This is 
an inevitable condition of good relations with our neighbours and a successful and 
efficient participation in the ‘Europe of Regions’. 
20   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
4  New euroregional formations – micro-regions 
Economic, social and cultural co-operation between border areas, regions and es-
pecially frontier cities have vital importance during their progress towards the 
European integration. In the late 1980s the Single European Market gave another 
push for the opening up of borders and a series of co-operations were established 
between European regions, cities and settlements. The spread of the ideas of ‘Sin-
gle European Market’, ‘Europe without Frontiers’ or of the multiethnic, multicul-
tural and federative ‘Regions of Europe’ predetermine the success of the co-
operation of frontier regions. The development of cross-border socio-economic 
relations between the inhabitants of borderland – as it is seen, for example by 
changes in the German-French relationship – may turn traditional inter-ethnic 
conflicts into a positive direction and the increasing freedom in the flow of persons, 
goods and capital will facilitate market economy and the rise of a bourgeois soci-
ety. Following Hungary’s accession to the European Union the value of its border 
regions and its eastern neighbours will increase, and these countries will win good 
chances for a breakout from their peripheral position. They can serve as gates in 
trading with East European countries and as mediators for socio-economic and 
technical innovation. All these require that Hungary’s eastern borders were opened 
so that they could fulfil a bridgehead role between Western Europe, Ukraine and 
Romania. (Baranyi, B. 2000, Tóth, J. 1996, Rechnitzer, J. 1999). 
The similarity of geographic features, the common historic past and the de-
mands for maintaining relations with Hungarian minorities also call for strength-
ening cross-border relations. The institutional framework of co-operation, the 
euroregion-type formations having been and being established in great number 
over East Central Europe, have good chances to work successfully on the eastern 
borders of Hungary as well. Their larger mobility, closer interrelations and 
stronger cohesion can manage the issues of cross-border co-operation more 
efficiently than large and extensive euroregional organisations, like the Carpathian 
and the DMKT Euroregion (Figure 6). 
At present, three border regions are shaping on the eastern border of Hungary. 
They serve as geographical frameworks for the interregional (micro regional-
level) co-operation of major cities. Concrete inter-urban co-operations have been 
established between the Nyíregyháza–Užhorod and the Debrecen–Berettyóújfalu-
Oradea  connections. New institutional co-operations are being formed among 
Szeged, Arad, Timişoara, Subotica and their agglomeration (Golobics,  P. 1996). 
During the formation of potential euroregions on the eastern borders of Hungary 
urban micro regional or county-level projects enjoy higher priority than regional-
level initiatives (Rechnitzer, J. 1999). 
 
21

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
 
 
22   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
Several concrete euroregion-type organisations are being organised on the ter-
ritory of the Carpathian Euroregion. (The Miskolc-Košice Euroregion, which is 
based on the twin-city relation of the Hungarian Miskolc and the Slovakian Košice, 
has recently been established. However, its territory on the north-eastern Hungarian 
border is still belonging to the Carpathian Euroregion.) As it is seen by the earlier 
mentioned survey results and other researches, several factors prevent the Car-
pathian Euroregion to act as a catalyst for cross-border relations: the objectives of 
the euroregion are not widely familiar, it has weak contacts with municipalities and 
no significant results are visible in its rural settlements. The organisational scheme 
of the Carpathian Euroregion encompasses too large areas to work efficiently. Al-
though the Carpathian Euroregion has an important role in the management of 
cross-border co-operations, several hints and practical experiences show that the 
emerging new bilateral and trilateral institutional initiatives are working more effi-
ciently.  
This assumption is proved by the fact that INTERREGIO, a new trilateral euro-
regional formation breaking out from the old institutional system of the Carpathian 
Euroregion  (Figure 3) comprising the Hungarian Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg, the 
Romanian Satu Mare and the Ukrainian Subcarpathia counties, established on 6th 
October 2000 is following the micro-regional model. This new formation is a pro-
gram region working in the framework of the Carpathian Euroregion for the en-
hancement of co-operation between the areas involved in this organisation. The 
agreement of Interregio on trilateral co-operation is targeted at the establishment 
and development of cross-border co-operation, the elaboration and management of 
concrete cross-border co-operation projects on local level. The foundation docu-
ment also declares that the agreement targeted at the realisation of relevant tasks 
has been outlined in the Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian bilateral 
intergovernmental agreements. 
The euroregional organisation is targeted at the completion of comprehensive 
development projects in the areas of infrastructure, nature conservation, environ-
ment and water protection, economy, tourism, education, training and at the pres-
ervation of interethnic relations and cultural heritage in borderland regions. Inter-
regio is an organisation to promote, co-ordinate and manage several cross-border 
projects and programmes and to support local projects that are in accordance with 
the organisation’s general aims and objectives. The bilateral programmes having 
been prepared within the framework of agreement – (the development of economy, 
tourism, border cross-points, nature conservation, environment and water protec-
tion, the preservation of cultural heritage, education and training etc.) – have been 
approved by all Interregio members. The members of co-operation mutually sup-
port the realisation of development projects funded by the financial assistance of 
partners and other resources as agreed by partners. Currently the program region is 
 
23

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
being developed into a real euroregion-type organisation on the basis of the inter-
urban co-operation of Nyíregyháza–Uzshorod–Satu Mare.  
Among the new interregional formations the Hajdú-Bihar-Bihor and the Bihar-
Bihor euroregional organisations may be regarded as active euroregional corpora-
tions. Their foundation document was approved by the county governments and 
mayors of municipalities of the areas involved in April of year 2001 (Figure 2, 3). 
Although these micro-regional, cross-border co-operation-based formations bring 
regional coherences into a closer structure but also maintain several elements of the 
‘macro regional model.’ This more ‘mobile’, more flexible and more co-operative 
model which preserves at the same time the historic and administrative traditions of 
the past, can be the most efficient institutional and corporate scheme for the Hajdú-
Bihar–Bihor and the Bihar–Bihor euroregional systems (Baranyi B. 2000). 
When drawing the outlines of the functional region, the internal agglomeration 
zone of core cities (Debrecen–Oradea) and the area’s historic, economic and social 
features were taken into account. These made up a territory of 14 thousand km2 
with a population of 1.2 million. The basic structure of co-operation comprises 
those areas and municipalities that used to be the administrative units of Hungary 
before Trianon. 31 municipalities of the Berettyóújfalu Statistical District or in 
wider sense 38 settlements of the Bihar County Municipal Association form a sta-
tistical micro region. 17 frontier settlements have established the Regional Devel-
opment Association of the Borderland Settlements of Bihar County, which works 
partly within, partly outside the framework of Bihar County Municipal Associa-
tion. This organisation, seated in Biharkeresztes, has recently established 
interregional co-operation with frontier settlements, settlement groups – de facto 
micro regions – on the Romanian side of border. (The term micro region does not 
exist in Romanian regional development terminology). 
The Trianon Peace Treaty had serious outcomes for Berettyóújfalu. The Peace 
Agreement made in 1920 – just as in case of other frontier settlements – had tragic 
consequences on the development of Berettyóújfalu and its hinterland. This is es-
sential information to understand the further development trends of Bihar County. 
The new state border cut Berettyóújfalu with 60 other settlements from the 
Nagyvárad (Oradea) their natural county seat and changed them from core areas 
into disadvantaged peripheral places. Today this area is named as ‘Crippled-Bihar’ 
or in other words ‘Remainder of Bihar County’ (Figure 7). 
The implications of Trianon were serious for Bihar County too, as only one 
quarter of its territory and one-third of its former population remained within the 
new borders of Hungary. Not only the county seat but also all the major cities of 
Bihar County were separated from their hinterland, peripheral areas lost their cen-
tres. Thus, peripheries, having been left without centres were unable for develop-
ment. From the Nagyvárad (Oradea)-seated large historic county those parts that 
remained on the Hungarian side became peripheral in double sense. They turned 
24   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
into a frontier zone and at the same time they lost their economic, market, admin-
istrative and infrastructure centres. Bihar County has also lost its major cities (De-
brecen, Békéscsaba). The county’s transport system became fragmented and the 
spatial connections on sub-regional level are very weak. As hopes for the success 
of the Hungarian government’s border revision policy were high between the First 
and the Second World Wars, no steps were taken for catching up these territories 
on the Hungarian side. The area was left alone with a curtailed transport system 
and markets. Later on Berettyóújfalu was turned into the county seat of ‘Crippled 
Bihar County’ but its position was characterised by the words of Tibor Mendöl, an 
outstanding Hungarian geographer, as ‘a city seed implanted into a village’ 
(Mendöl, T. 1938). 
The ‘Remainder of Bihar’ was still large enough to be treated as an administra-
tive unit. Its territory of 2,771 km2 is still larger than the neighbour Hajdú County 
(2,386 km2)  The 60 settlements of Bihar county on the Hungarian side (with a 
population of 176 thousand) were united into six then seven districts, one of which 
was the Berettyóújfalu District. However, Berettyóújfalu was not prepared for 
functioning as county seat, many of its citizens did not agree with this transitional 
but at the same time the only possible way of solution. The new situation and the 
general opinion of the public are well reflected by the words of Tibor Mendöl 
written in 1938. All the roads and railways ‘…go towards Várad (Oradea) from the 
plains. Várad is dominating all the road and railway nodes, only its role has 
changed. It collects raw material from the hills and plains transforms them into in-
dustrial products, distributing and retailing them back in both directions. In the Old 
Bihar County one cannot find such a place as Várad. The others having similar role 
are secondary or tertiary sub-centres. This city brings unity for Bihar County, this 
place is the focal point of the material and spiritual welfare of Bihar County. The 
shadow of Várad, like a dead corpse, is floating over the history of Crippled Bihar 
County. The dissected roads and railways, like bleeding fingers, show the way to 
Várad. They may also be seen as dissected aorta close to the heart. The heart is 
close but still far. (Mendöl, T. 1938). 
Crippled Bihar County, with Berettyóújfalu as county seat, was still functioning 
between the two world wars and between 1944–50. It was terminated in an admin-
istrative way in 1950. 12 settlements (Sarkad and its hinterland) on the southern 
part merged into Békés County and 48 joined to Hajdú County. At the same time 
Polgár and some settlements of Southern Nyírség also joined to Hajdú County. The 
new enlarged Debrecen-seated county preserved the geographical name of ‘Bihar’, 
as it was renamed as ‘Hajdú-Bihar’ (Figure 7) but Berettyóújfalu lost its county 
seat rank again and was degraded to a peripheral district centre. 
However, the establishment of Hajdú-Bihar County did not solve the problems 
of ‘Remainder Bihar’ area. During the past fifty years county leaders could not 
manage the problems arising from differences in the settlement structure of Bihar 
 
25

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
area from that of Hajdú County. It also should be noted that Beretyóújfalu, the 
centre of Bihar, since being awarded by city rank has undergone a dynamic devel-
opment and turned into a catalyst of development within its surroundings. After a 
long, suffering process, the European integration may raise new hopes for the de-
velopment of the area, for the renewal of economic and transport relations with the 
other side of borderland, i.e. for the long-expected rebirth of the area. 
 
Figure 7 
 
The historic Bihar County after the 1949/50 administrative reforms 
26   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
The necessity for the various forms of co-operation between the ‘Remainder Bihar 
County’ and Bihor County on the Romanian side is certified by Oradea’s central 
role in the region’s economy for several centuries. The majority of problems 
related to agglomeration, urbanisation and underdevelopment issues are the 
consequences of Trianon. The new borders separated the southern and 
southeastern parts of the present Hajdú-Bihar County from Oradea  their former 
county seat, and at the same time, the area, having been left without urban centres, 
turned into a peripheral borderland. Berettyóújfalu, the quickly chosen county seat 
shortly after Trianon in 1920, was neither suitable to perform regional functions 
nor to serve as a centre for its hinterland. Hajdú-Bihar–Bihor and Bihar–Bihor 
Euroregions offer a way out from this crisis together with Bihar Enterprise Zone 
(BEZ) an area closely linked to their activities. The BEZ is interested in strong 
economic co-operation and dissolving the dividing role of border between the 
Hungarian Bihar and the Romanian Bihor Counties (Baranyi, B. 1998). 
Since the administrative reform in 1950 Hungary’s largest size disadvantaged 
area has been composed from the rural settlements of Bihar County. From this rec-
ognition, right after the passing of the Local Government Act in the early 1990s, 
the  Municipal Association of Bihar was established, as one of the first organisa-
tions in this category in Hungary. This agglomeration area, based on historical ad-
ministrative traditions on one hand, and on bottom-up micro regional initiatives on 
the other hand is not only seeking for a way out from its unfavourable position but 
also trying to restore co-operation within the framework of the historic county for-
mation. This is verified by signing the Declaration of Will for the Establishment of 
Hajdú-Bihar-Bihor Euroregional Organisation in the April of year 2001. 
The importance and current awareness of co-operation intentions are well illus-
trated by the fact that plans have been prepared for the establishment of two new 
euroregional organisations – instead of one – and steps have already been made for 
the preparation of concrete projects. The Decree of Hajdú-Bihar County Govern-
ment having been passed on 23 November establishes two euroregions: one be-
tween the county governments of Hungarian Hajdú-Bihar and the Romanian Bihor 
counties and another between their micro regions and settlement groups. This latter 
– smaller in size – euroregional formation – a work team-type co-operation – is 
aimed at stronger economic co-operation with frontier settlements in the areas of 
economy, culture and tourism. 
The Debrecen-seated Hajdú-Bihar-Bihor Euroregion has the same objectives as 
its micro regions but their realisation is planned for medium-level spatial units. The 
Decree of County Government approved the basic rules of both euroregions. Thus 
the two formations may coexist and mutually support cross-border in Hajdú-Bihar 
County and local municipalities will have chances to represent their economic in-
terests both on micro regional and medium levels. Practical examples verify the 
 
27

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
opinion that the Bihar-Bihor Euroregion may stand as a prototype for other eurore-
gions. Some micro regions have declared their intention to co-operate. 
Both  Interregio and the new Bihar-Bihor Euroregion have developed from 
enterprise zones. The Záhony District Enterprise Zone was the first organisation of 
this type. It was established by the 195/1996 (XII. 19.) Government Decree for the 
development of the Hungarian–Ukrainian frontier region and for the promotion of 
capital investments. As a special economic zone, the Záhony District Enterprise 
Zone is located in north-eastern Hungary, around the Záhony–Dombrád–Kisvárda-
Vásárosnamény–Beregsurány axis, and comprises 50 of the total 229 settlements 
and 17% of the total population of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County.  
To promote the and assist to the development of the Enterprise Zone the Hun-
garian Investment and Development Bank has established the Záhony District 
Business Ltd with a base capital of 50 million HUF. The company is responsible 
for the co-ordination of the development steps within the Zone, for the preparation, 
management, promotion and PR activities of investments, for rendering business 
service for potential investors, for the operation of the Záhony Logistic and Trade 
Centre, and for the enhancement of the Tuzsér Industrial Park. In 1996 the Minis-
try of Environment and Regional Development increased the company’s capital by 
200 million HUF and the Hungarian Railroad Company (MÁV) provided a build-
ing for the Ltd. raising the original sum to 285 million HUF in this way. The Ltd’s 
ownership structure is optimal now, because proprietors are those national-level 
organisations that are the most interested and most active in the development of the 
area. Tax exemption is granted to the eligible legal entities and individuals in the 
enterprise zone between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2006. The truck 
terminal and the transit loading station having built on both sides of the border 
make Záhony the biggest and the most advanced ‘terrestrial port’ of Central 
Europe, with an annual freight load capacity of 21 million tons, playing a vital role 
in the improvement of Ukrainian–Hungarian economic and commercial relations. 
(Baranyi, B. 2001). 
On 9 December 1998 the Sub-Carpathian Special Economic Zone was estab-
lished with the assistance of the Záhony District Development Ltd. The Zone is 
granting significant tax exemptions for investors, offering in this way a new di-
mension in the cross-border relations of Hungary and Ukraine The Zone, located 
within the Uzshorod–Mukacseve–Beregovo triangle consists of the following ele-
ments: the railway loading zone, the truck terminal and ‘green field’ around the 
Uzshorod–Ĉop–Batuevo area, the railway loading zone and airport in Munkacseve, 
the ‘apple garden area’ near Beregovo and other objects located at all the three 
sites. The Sub-Carpathian Special Economic Zone combines all the features of in-
dustrial park, customs-free area and free commerce zone just to attract foreign 
capital. The Investment Act enables investors to be eligible for tax and customs 
exemption for 15 years. Considering the present Ukrainian situation, the agreement 
28   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
with local authorities on the realisation of ‘business plans’ – according to Ukrain-
ian standards – may be considered to be a guarantee. This may accelerate and se-
cure the establishment of new businesses. 
Situated along the geographical axis of Berettyóújfalu–Biharkeresztes–Oradea, 
the Bihar Enterprise Zone (BEZ) was established by the 19 March 1998 
Government Decree, second after the Záhony District enterprise zone. The 
peripheral borderland situation of the Berettyóújfalu micro region (NUTS 4 level) 
is rather disadvantageous but improving Hungarian–Romanian relations tend to 
change it in a positive way. The establishment and the development of Hungarian–
Romanian economic relations formed a new cross-border co-operation area. (just 
in the centre of the historic Bihar region). Hungary’s European integration and 
changes in Romania may shift attention to the surrounding Hungarian areas too. 
The BEZ can provide an effective institutional framework for the exploration and 
utilisation of the potential chances of co-operation. The events of the past have 
hindered Hungarian–Romanian co-operation so far but changes in the political 
system of both countries may encourage hopes that cross-border co-operation will 
facilitate economic development for both countries (Figure 8). 
Since large multinational companies before making investment into Romania 
are likely to set up a bridgehead somewhere in the neighbourhood, in a politically 
and economically stabile zone to use it as service area, BEZ with its potential 
facilities may attract and promote new investments into the region’s economy. 
Cross-border co-operation areas (on both sides of border) with their profit-oriented 
economic interrelations may also initiate regional economic development. 
The implications of BEZ on rural development are already seen on both sides of 
the border. Rural development results provide a basis for the overall development 
of the Berettyóújfalu micro region and contribute to the find a way out from the 
backwardness of the rural areas of Bihar County. The preliminary meetings of the 
Hungarian and Romanian municipalities, local authorities and specialists revealed 
that the Romanian party agrees with the objectives of BEZ, they support Hungarian 
initiatives and ready to establish a common information system for the two 
countries, which is essential for later co-operation. Economic actors, partner 
organisations and chambers have already taken steps for further co-operation. BEZ 
is a very promising Hungarian–Romanian co-operation framework especially in the 
field of food processing.  
 
29

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
Figure 8 
The statistical district of Berettyóújfalu (BEZ) with settlements and population  
30   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
The opening up of a new area in Hungarian–Romanian transboundary co-operation 
and the regional or rural development initiatives of BEZ may have several socio-
economic implications. BEZ may increase the capital attractive force of Bihar 
region by creating a very promising economic and investment background for 
businesses coming into the region. It may also have a multiplier effect by spreading 
economic development from core areas into peripheries or even into transboundary 
areas. The BEZ with its industrial park, with its co-operation with Romanian 
partners, with its specialisation, with the distribution of labour between the 
Hungarian and Romanian border regions may promote a quick development 
progress. Co-operations established on euroregional level may expect support from 
the European Union’s regional development funds (PHARE CBC, ISPA, 
SAPARD) because they grant priorities to cross-border co-operation projects. The 
Structural Funds of the EU provide significant financial assistance to rural devel-
opment as well. 
The existence of BEZ and the intensification of cross-border relations are the 
proofs that Euro-Atlantic integration will bring success not only for Hungary but 
also for Romania, even if the Schengen borders will temporarily preserve the pre-
serve their dividing functions. But maybe not in the distant future the permeability 
of borders will grant the ‘integration’ of the socio-economic, cultural and infra-
structural functions of the separated parts of Bihar County and will promote rural 
development in frontier regions on both sides of the border. According to current 
tendencies, this process will attract capital for regional development, will terminate 
the area’s structural disadvantages and will ensure a complex rehabilitation for ar-
eas with Hungarian population (Baranyi, B. 2001). 
As it is seen, cross-border co-operation within the existing three-euroregional 
and enterprise zone systems are progressing well in East Hungary. The Záhony 
railroad complex dominates the Hungarian–Ukrainian border and the two other 
enterprise zones each including an industrial park are also very important 
frameworks of cross-border co-operation. Although their future perspectives seem 
very promising, the new euroregional organisations and the Záhony District 
Enterprise Zone cannot yet be regarded as a ‘critical mass’ in the system of cross-
border co-operations with neighbour countries. The Ukrainian and Romanian 
investors have relatively small capital to invest, so they purchase small retail shops, 
restaurants only at border cross-points, and try to make their revenues on border 
traffic, shopping and rucksack tourism. Enterprise zones cannot make a miracle 
within a short time, they are rather catalysators, which promote economic 
development and facilitate cross-border co-operation within the region. 
 
31

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
5  Other possible levels of transboundary co-operation 
In the mid-90s there were already some regional scientists who recognised the key 
role of borderland cities, regional centres and sub-centres in international and re-
gional co-operation and in the formation of potential euroregions (Golobics, P. 
1996). Later on, on the basis of researches having been carried out on the Austro-
Hungarian cross-border co-operation between West-Pannonia and Burgenland new 
ideas and theories were formulated on the integration levels of  potential eurore-
gions, some of which may be applied to the East Hungarian cross-border co-opera-
tions as well. We absolutely agree with the initiatives urging for a network of ‘mini 
euroregions’ along state borders to establish bilateral co-operation on local and mi-
cro regional levels. A more stabile system of euroregions may stand on the basis of 
micro level and at the same more flexible co-operations, because existing or form-
ing (potential) euroregions may generate regional development only in case, the co-
operating parties realise their own particular and common interests within the co-
operation system. In this way, both local and regional borderland municipalities 
with other medium-level spatial organisations and bodies may represent concrete 
spatial interests with maximum efficiency (Rechnitzer, J. 1999). 
As it has been pointed out, besides euroregional organisations, micro regions, 
settlement groups’ frontier cities – or core border cities as used in terminology – 
have very important role in cross-border co-operation. This explains why the for-
mal institutional system (euroregions) of transboundary co-operation should be 
extended with micro regional, twin-settlement, twin-city relations (Figure 6). It is 
regional core cities and some urban sub-centres that can meet the various criteria of 
micro regional co-operation. Similar twin-city and twin-settlement systems have 
been formed on the north-eastern – in some cases on the eastern and southern – 
border regions of Hungary. Their integration into a wider network can be achieved 
first by the development of their infrastructure system. This can also give a new 
boost to their cross-border co-operations (Golobics, P. 1996, Rechnitzer, J. 1999, 
2000). 
The Slovak–Ukrainian–Romanian–Hungarian border regions with twin-
settlement or twin-city relations in the majority of cases, as the strategic link-points 
of East-Hungarian cross-border co-operations, are integrated into the institutional 
system of the Carpathian Euroregion, the DMKT Euroregion and into the 
emerging new system of interregional organisations. The northern part of the 
Hungarian borderland is strongly bound to the multiregional co-operation system 
between Miskolc–Košice  areas, which is another form of direct cross-border co-
operation. However, without durable and various institutional relations among the 
core cities of the neighbouring countries (Debrecen, Nyíregyháza, Oradea, Satu 
Mare) co-operations cannot be integrated into a homogenous spatial structure. 
32   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
While the Carpathian Euroregion is making efforts to integrate areas and 
population of a size of a country, its spatial sub-units have no sufficient resources 
even for the maintenance of the basic areas of their interrelations. The DKMT 
multiregional co-operation is facing similar problems in the conflict zone of the 
Hungarian Yugoslavian border. As the experiences of the two giant regions 
illustrate, interrelations should be established both on urban and micro-regional 
level because their stability may guarantee the success of high-level co-operations 
(Rechnitzer, J. 2000). Several core cities may successfully co-operate (Szeged, 
Békéscsaba, the polycentric Mid-Békés settlement group on the Hungarian, Arad, 
Timişoara on the Romanian side). They have good potentials to work within a 
network system and enter into co-operation either within or outside the DKMT 
Euroregion system. (Golobics P. 1996).  
6  Schengen and future challenges 
The study of the issues of borders and borderland has a great importance also from 
the point of Hungary’s NATO membership and forthcoming EU integration. Hun-
gary’s NATO membership will turn the country into a ‘buffer zone’ between the 
NATO, the EU and the post socialist countries of the former Soviet bloc. The im-
plications of the Schengen borders on the permeability of Hungarian borders will 
primarily depend on the terms of Hungary EU accession. The ‘moving’ of Schen-
gen borders to the East and the possible introduction of compulsory visa may raise 
difficulties for Hungarian ethnic minorities in maintaining connections with their 
mother country. The new euroregional organisations, such as the Carpathian Euro-
region, the DKMT Euroregion and the emerging interregional formations, such as 
Interregio having been established on 6 October 2000 by the trilateral co-operation 
agreement of Subcarpathia, (Ukraine), Satu Mare (Romania) and Szabolcs-Szatmár 
Bereg counties, as well as the Bihar–Bihor interregional co-operation, which has 
submitted its declaration of will for its establishment, will have a determining role 
to ensure Hungary’s smooth Euro-Atlantic integration. The new potential eurore-
gions may foster the organisation of new frontier zone co-operations and forming 
new euroregions on the eastern borders of Hungary. As it has been mentioned, the 
network of mini euroregions has fundamental importance for countries, local and 
regional municipalities interested in co-operation and the establishment of cross-
border relations. 
However, euroregional co-operations are not free of problems. As participant 
countries will join not join to the European Union at the same time, there are a lot 
of uncertainties about the future. The Schengen criteria may largely hinder co-
 
33

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
operation not only for the eastern borderland of Hungary but for Ukraine as well. 
For this reason, maintaining co-operations within the existing Carpathian 
Euroregion is also necessary, even if it is not functioning perfectly. A fundamental 
transformation should take place within the organisation scheme of the Carpathian 
Euroregion. New ways are needed to enhance co-operations, which are rather 
formal and will operate in more disadvantaged circumstances. These co-operation 
systems should be transformed into more realistic and live, especially in the field of 
economy. 
If the majority of Hungary’s neighbour countries (Slovakia, Ukraine and Roma-
nia) do not become members of the EU at the same or not so much after the acces-
sion of Hungary, the division role of borders will become stronger again – at least 
temporarily – due to the Schengen Agreement, as if the ‘iron curtain’ was pulled to 
the East. This would be very harmful for Central Europe and the Hungarians living 
there. For this reason the objectives should be set to achieve favourable terms with 
the EU, reducing the negative effects on ethnic Hungarians living beyond of their 
mother country to the possible minimum. The fact that the importance of Hun-
gary’s eastern borders, which will be the external borders of the EU after Hun-
gary’s accession, will increase, gives brighter perspectives for the future. 
Future researches should provide detailed analyses on the frontier regions of the 
Great Hungarian Plain, so as to find appropriate management methods for the 
problems of Schengen borders. The fields of research should cover several issues, 
regarding the different chances of peripheral areas, the gate and mediator role of 
borders, the spatial integration, ethnic and social issues of cross-border relations, 
including the existing euroregional organisations (Carpathian Euroregion, DKMT 
Euroregion), the emerging interregional formations (Interregio, Bihar-Bihor Euro-
region), enterprise zones (Bihar Enterprise Zone, Záhony District Enterprise Zone) 
with their adjoining industrial parks, the intercepting micro regions and settlements 
on both sides of the border, the networking of cities of similar rank into urban 
associations and the enhancement of institutional relations among large core cities 
(Debrecen, Nyíregyháza, Oradea, Satu Mare). An increase in the number of 
contact points would be desirable as well as opening new or increasing the capacity 
of the existing frontier stations (Golobics, P. 1996, Golobics, P.–Tóth, J. 1999, 
Rechnitzer, J. 1999). 
As it has been mentioned, the potentials of borderland and transboundary co-
operation are great. Regional development co-operations may not only reveal new 
development resources on both sides of the border but also may contribute to the 
restructuring of Hungary’s political and economic position within the Carpathian 
Basin. This is particularly true for Hungary’s eastern border regions, which are 
problem areas for now. For these reasons co-operation should be integrated into 
national development plans, so as to become primary elements of regional policy 
and to promote the candidate countries’ EU accession. The institutional forms of 
34   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
cross-border co-operation should include well-prepared common development 
concepts for the border regions of the neighbour countries, to serve as a basis for 
the strategic and operative programmes of co-operation that are the pre-requisites 
of successful co-operation. All these require, that the principal directives of co-op-
eration should stand on the principles of mutual partnership and rights. (Rehnitzer, 
J. 1999). 
The tendencies of cross-border economic co-operation within the region (the 
forthcoming Euro-Atlantic integration, the Schengen border system) will largely 
depend on Hungary’s entry terms into the European Union. The relations Hungary 
will establish with eastern neighbours (Romania, Ukraine, and Russia) will have 
crucial importance from the point of transit trade too. It is not enough to look at 
westward only, ‘gates to east’ should also be open. If Hungary can adequately util-
ise the chances the of the north-eastern frontier region, the Hungarian–Ukrainian 
border may turn into the eastern gate of Hungary and the European Union 
(Balcsók, I.–Dancs, L. 2001). 
It is not easy to predict the future trends of cross-border co-operation between 
the two regions, because its actual progress will largely depend on Hungary’s EU 
accession process. The assessment of the future consequences of the Schengen 
border system is very difficult in the present situation, because nobody knows for 
sure, which parts of the Hungarian border will be the external border of the EU. 
Because of Ukraine’s uncertain economic situation we can almost take it for 
granted that the Hungarian–Ukrainian border will be an external EU border for a 
long time. However, without an extensive investment into the IT system the 
Schengen system would be unable to receive and process the border traffic data of 
the new EU members. As the enormous costs of the system make the EU postpone 
building of system for 4–5 years, the Schengen border check and security measures 
will not be fully applied at once. However, it is feared that the Schengen borders 
will freeze the development of cross-border co-operations and will deepen the 
handicapped position of peripheral border areas. If Hungary were to apply the rules 
of Schengen Agreement, the introduction of mandatory visa would be very harmful 
for Hungarians living in the neighbour countries. To find a positive solution for 
these problems would be important for widening co-operation among the border 
regions (Balcsók, I.–Dancs, L. 2000, Rechnitzer, J. 2000). 
Concluding the researches on the various forms of regional and inter-regional 
co-operation, it can be stated that for all of their problems, euroregions are the most 
effective means of cross-border co-operation and the development of border re-
gions. They are especially suitable for cutting down regional disparities. This har-
monisation process has special importance in East Central Europe, especially in the 
East Hungarian borderland. Closing up disadvantaged peripheral frontier areas to 
the development level of core regions is indispensable. (Éger, Gy. 2000). 
 
35

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
Euroregional organisations and formations have primary importance for the 
European integration process by their easing of regional differences within and 
between euroregions. Last, but not least, these organisations may also be regarded 
as  the workshops of forming regional identity. However, this workshop requires 
further researches on West European processes and the utilisation of the experi-
ences of the western world on Hungary’s eastern borders, which will be Hungary’s 
Schengen borders, following the country’s EU accession. 
36   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
References 
Balcsók, I.–Dancs, L. 2001: A határon átnyúló kapcsolatok lehetőségei Magyarország 
egyik leendő schengeni határán (Possibilities for Cross-border on One of Hungary’s 
Schengen Borders). – Dormány G.–Kovács F.–Péti M.–Rakonczai J. (eds.): A földrajz 
eredményei az új évezred küszöbén. A Magyar Földrajzi Konferencia tudományos 
közleményei.  Szeged, 2001. október 25–27. Szeged, SZTE TTK Természeti Földrajzi 
Tanszék [13] p. CD-ROM. 
Baranyi, B.–Dancs, L. 2001: A határmentiség kérdőjelei az Északkelet-Alföldön (The 
Question marks of Borderland situation on the North-Eastern Hungarian Plain). – 
Comitatus. 11. 1–2.,  25–41. p. 
Baranyi, B. 1999/4: A „periféria perifériáján” – a határmentiség kérdőjelei egy vizsgálat 
tükrében az Északkelet-Alföldön ’On the Periphery of Periphery’ – The Question Marks 
of Borderland Situation as Indicated by a Questionnaire Survey on the North-Eastern 
Hungarian Plain).  – Tér és Társadalom. 4. 17–44. p. 
Baranyi, B. 2000: Bihar–Bihor Euroregionális Szervezet létesítésének lehetőségei és esélyei 
(The Possibilities and Chances for the Establishment of Bihar-Bihor Euroregional 
organisation). Debrecen, MTA RKK ATI Debreceni Csoport – Debrecen, 29 p. 
(Pamphlet.) 
Baranyi, B. 2001: A „periféria perifériáján” – egy kérdőíves vizsgálat eredményei és tanul-
ságai az Északkelet-Alföld határ menti területein. A határ menti térség és a határon 
átnyúló kapcsolatok fejlődésének esélyei (’On the Periphery of Periphery’ – Results and 
Lessons of a Questionnaire Survey on the Borderland of the North-Eastern Hungarian 
Plain. Development Chances of Frontier Regions and Transboundary Relations). – 
Baranyi, B. (ed.): A határmentiség kérdőjelei az Északkelet-Alföldön. Pécs, MTA 
Regionális Kutatások Központja, 55–86, 338–368. p. 
Baranyi, B. (szerk.) 1998) Hajdú-Bihar megye területfejlesztési koncepciója (The Regional 
Development Concept of Hajdú-Bihar County). (Területfejlesztés   8. köt.) Debrecen, 
84., 87. p. 
Baranyi, B.–Balcsók, I.–Dancs, L. – Mező, B. 1999: Borderland Situation and Periferality 
in the North-Eastern Part of the Great Hungarian Plain. Pécs, Centre for Regional 
Studies. (Discussion Papers, 31). 
Bernek, Á.–Süli-Zakar, I. 1997: Régiók, regionális folyamatok a világgazdaságban. 
(Regions, and Regional Processes in World Economy). – Tér és Társadalom. 4. 86–87. 
p. 
Dancs, L. 2001: Határon átnyúló kapcsolatok az Északkelet-Alföldön (Transboundary 
Relations on the North-Eastern Hungarian Plain). – Baranyi, B. (ed.): A határmentiség 
kérdőjelei az Északkelet-Alföldön. Pécs, MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja, 257–
294. p. 
Éger, Gy. 2000: Regionalizmus, határok és kisebbségek Kelet-Közép-Európában 
(Regionalism, Borders and Ethnic Minorities in East-Central Europe). Budapest, Osiris 
Kiadó, 49–64. p. – Idézett sorok: Együtt – egymásért. Jegyzőkönyv a Duna–Maros–
Tisza regionális együttműködéseiről. Together for Us All. The Records of the Co-
operation of the Danube–Maros–Tisza Area). In: Euro-Trio. Szeged, 1997. 7–8. p. 
 
37

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
Erdősi, F.–Tóth J. (eds.) 1988: A sajátos helyzetű térségek terület- és településfejlesztési 
problémái. (Az 1986. november 4–5-én Szombathelyen tartott tudományos tanácskozás 
anyaga.) (The Regional and Urban Development Issues of Less-Favoured Areas. 
(Papers of a Scientific Seminar held on Szombathely 4–5 November 1986) Pécs, MTA 
RKK, 221 p. 
Erdősi, F. 1988: A határ menti térségek kutatásáról (On the Research of Borderland). In: A 
sajátos helyzetű térségek terület- és településfejlesztési problémái. Erdősi F. – Tóth J. 
(eds.) Pécs, MTA RKK, 18–30. p. 
Golobics, P.–Tóth J. 1999: A nemzetközi regionális együttműködés és Magyarország 
térszerkezete (International Regional Co-operation and the Spatial Structure of 
Hungary) . – Tóth, J.– Wilhelm, Z. (eds.): Változó környezetünk. Pécs, Janus Pannonius 
Tudományegyetem TTK Földrajzi Intézet – MTA RKK Dunántúli Tudományos Intézet, 
7–22. p. 
Golobics, P. 1996: A határ menti térségek városainak szerepe az interregionális együttmű-
ködésben Magyarországon (The Role of Frontier Cities in Interregional Co-operation). 
Pál, Á.–Szónokyné Ancsin, G. (eds.): Határon innen – határon túl. Szeged, JATE 
Gazdaságföldrajzi Tanszék, 224–230. p. 
Gorzelak, G. 1998: Regional and Local Potential Transformation Infrastructure Poland. – 
Regional and Local Studies 14. Warsaw, European Institute for Regional and Local 
Development. 
Hardi, T. 2000: Államhatárok és regionális együttműködések (State Borders and Regional 
Co-operations). – Horváth, Gy.–Rechnitzer, J. (eds.): Magyarország területi szerkezete 
és folyamatai az ezredfordulón. Pécs, MTA RKK, 595–615. p. 
Hardi, T. (2001) Néhány földrajzi elmélet alkalmazása a Kárpát-medence határtérségeire 
és határ menti együttműködéseire.  A Magyar Földrajzi Konferencia tudományos 
közleményei (The Application of Some Geographical Theories on the Frontier Regions 
and Cross-border Co-operations of the Carpathian Basin. Papers of the Hungarian 
Geographical Conference). Szeged, 2001. október 25–27. Dormány G., Kovács F., Péti 
M., Rakonczai J. (eds.) Szeged. SZTE TTK Természeti Földrajzi Tanszék [15] p. CD-
ROM 
Horváth, Gy. 1998: Európai regionális politika. (European Regional Policy). Budapest–
Pécs, Dialóg Campus Kiadó. 
Hudak, V. 1997: A Kárpátok Eurorégió kialakulásának és fejlődésének vizsgálata (’The 
Investigation of the Formation and Development of the Carpathian Euroregion) – 
KNyTI, Manuscript (translated from English), 22 p. 
Illés, I. 1993: A Kárpátok Eurorégió. (The Carpathian Euroregion). – Valóság. 6. 12–19. p. 
Illés, I. 1997:  A regionális együttműködés feltételei Közép-Kelet-Európában (The 
Conditions of Regional Co-operation in East-Central Europe). – Tér és Társadalom. 2. 
17–28. p. 
Mendöl, T. 1938: Bihar-vármegye földrajza (The Geography of Bihar County). – Nadányi, 
Z. (ed.): Bihar vármegye. Magyar városok és vármegyék monográfiája XXV. Budapest, 
1938. 41. p. 
Nemes Nagy, J. 1998: A tér a társadalomkutatásban (Space in Social Reseraches). 
Budapest, Hirscler Rezső Szociálpolitikai Egyesület. (Ember, település, régió). 
38   

---

Baranyi, Béla : BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2002. 44. p. Discussion Papers, No.38. 
Rechnitzer, J. 1990: A nyitott határ. (A gazdasági és szellemi erőforrások innovációorien-
tált fejlesztése az osztrák–magyar határ menti régiókban) (The Open Border. 
(Innovation-Oriented Development of Economic and Brainpower Resources). Győr, 
MTA RKK Észak-Dunántúli Osztály. 
Rechnitzer, J. 1997: Eurorégió vázlatok a magyar–osztrák–szlovák határ menti térségben 
(Outlines of an Euroregion in the Hungarian–Austrian–Slovakian Border). – Tér és 
Társadalom. 2. 29–54. p.  
Rechnitzer, J. 1999: Határ menti együttműködések Európában és Magyarországon. Az 
osztrák–magyar határ menti együttműködés a kilencvenes években (Cross-border Co-
operations over Europe and Hungary. The Austro–Hungarian Cross-border Co-
operation in the 1990s).  – Nárai, M.–Rechnitzer, J. (eds.): Elválaszt és összeköt – a 
határ. Társadalmi-gazdasági változások az osztrák–magyar határ menti térségben. 
MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja, Pécs–Győr, 9–72., 73–127. p. 
Rechnitzer, J. 2000: Országhatár menti együttműködések, mint a területfejlesztés új 
stratégiai irányai (Cross-border Co-operations as New Strategic Directions of Regional 
Development). – Szónokyné, Ancsin G. (ed.): Határok és régiók. Nemzetközi Földrajzi 
Tudományos Konferencia. Szeged, 1999. november 29–30. Szeged. JATEPress, 7–23. p. 
Ruttkay, É. (1995) Határok, határmentiség, regionális politika (Borders, Borderland Situation 
and Regional Policy). – Comitatus. December, 23–35. p. 
Scott, J. 1996: Dutch-German Euroregions: A model Transboundary Cooperation. Border 
Regions in Functional Transition: European and North American Perspectives. Scott, J. 
– Sweedler, A. – Ganster, P. – Eberwein, W-D. (eds.), Berlin IRS. 83–107. p. 
Süli-Zakar, I. 1997: A Kárpátok Eurorégió szerepe a határon átnyúló kapcsolatok 
erősítésében (The Role of the Carpathian Euroregion in the Enhancement of 
Transboundary Relations). – Comitatus. Június. 30–44. p. 
Süli-Zakar, I. 1998: Eurorégiókról dióhéjban (Euroregions in a Nutshell). In: A Kárpátok 
Eurorégió 5 éve. Nyíregyháza, 
Tóth, J. 1988: Urbanizáció az Alföldön (Urbanisation in the Great Hungarian Plain). 
Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó. 
Tóth, J. 1996:  A Kárpát-medence és a nemzetközi regionális együttműködés (The 
Carpathian Basin and International Regional Co-operation). – Pál, Á.–Szónokyné 
Ancsin G. (eds.): Határon innen – határon túl. Szeged, JATE Gazdaságföldrajzi 
Tanszék, 27–44. p. 
 
39

---

Discussion Papers 2002. No. 38. 
BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary 
The Discussion Papers series of the Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy 
of Sciences was launched in 1986 to publish summaries of research findings on regional and 
urban development. 
The series has 5 or 6 issues a year. It will be of interest to geographers, economists, 
sociologists, experts of law and political sciences, historians and everybody else who is, in one 
way or another, engaged in the research of spatial aspects of socio-economic development and 
planning. 
The series is published by the Centre for Regional Studies. 
Individual copies are available on request at the Centre. 
 
Postal address 
Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences 
P.O. Box 199, 7601 PÉCS, HUNGARY 
Phone: (36–72) 212–755, 233–704 
Fax: (36–72) 233–704 
www.dti.rkk.hu 
www.rkk.hu 
 
 
 
Director general 
Gyula HORVÁTH 
Editor 
Zoltán GÁL 
Galz@dti.rkk.hu 
Author 
Béla Baranyi 
Baranyib@rkk.hu 
Forthcoming in the Discussion Papers series 
The Role of the State in the Urban Development of Budapest 
by 
Krisztina KERESZTÉLY 
40   

---

Discussion Papers 2002. No. 38. 
BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary 
Papers published in the Discussion Papers series 
Discussion Papers /Specials 
BANKŐNÉ LODNER, Dorottya (ed.) (1988): Environmental Control and Policy: 
Proceedings of the Hungarian–Polish Seminar in the Theoretical Problems of 
Environmental Control and Policy 
OROSZ, Éva (ed.) (1988): Spatial Organisation and Regional Development Papers of 
the 6th Polish–Hungarian geographical Seminar 
DURÓ, Annamária (ed.) (1993): Spatial Research and the Social–Political Changes: 
Papers of the 7th Polish–Hungarian Seminar 
DURÓ, Annamária (ed.) (1999): Spatial Research in Support of the European 
Integration. Proceedings of the 11th Polish–Hungarian Geographical 
Seminar (Mátraháza, Hungary 17–22 September, 1998) 
GÁL, Zoltán (ed.) (2001): Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union 
Discussion Papers 
No. 1 
OROSZ, Éva (1986): Critical Issues in the Development of Hungarian Public 
Health with Special Regard to Spatial Differences 
No. 2 
ENYEDI, György – ZENTAI, Viola (1986): Environmental Policy in Hun-
gary 
No. 3 
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1987): Administrative Division and Administrative Geogra-
phy in Hungary 
No. 4 
SIKOS T., Tamás (1987): Investigations of Social Infrastructure in Rural 
Settlements of Borsod County 
No. 5 
HORVÁTH, Gyula (1987): Development of the Regional Management of 
the Economy in East-Central Europe 
No. 6 
PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, Ilona (1988): Chance of Local Independence in Hungary 
No. 7 
FARAGÓ, László – HRUBI, László (1988): Development Possibilities of 
Backward Areas in Hungary 
No. 8 
SZÖRÉNYINÉ KUKORELLI, Irén (1990): Role of the Accessibility in De-
velopment and Functioning of Settlements 
No. 9 
ENYEDI, György (1990): New Basis for Regional and Urban Policies in 
East-Central Europe 
No. 10  RECHNITZER, János (1990): Regional Spread of Computer Technology in 
Hungary 
42   

---

Discussion Papers 2002. No. 38. 
BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary 
No. 11  SIKOS T., Tamás (1992): Types of Social Infrastructure in Hungary (to be 
not published) 
No. 12  HORVÁTH, Gyula – HRUBI, László (1992): Restructuring and Regional 
Policy in Hungary 
No. 13  ERDŐSI, Ferenc (1992): Transportation Effects on Spatial Structure of Hun-
gary 
No. 14  PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, Ilona (1992): The Basic Political and Structural Prob-
lems in the Workings of Local Governments in Hungary 
No. 15  PFEIL, Edit (1992): Local Governments and System Change. The Case of a 
Regional Centre 
No. 16  HORVÁTH, Gyula (1992): Culture and Urban Development (The Case of 
Pécs) 
No. 17  HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1993): Settlement Network Development Policy in 
Hungary in the Period of State Socialism (1949–1985) 
No. 18  KOVÁCS, Teréz (1993): Borderland Situation as It Is Seen by a Sociologist 
No. 19  HRUBI, L. – KRAFTNÉ SOMOGYI, Gabriella (eds.) (1994): Small and me-
dium-sized firms and the role of private industry in Hungary 
No. 20  BENKŐNÉ Lodner, Dorottya (1995): The Legal-Administrative Ques-
tions of Environmental Protection in the Republic of Hungary 
No. 21   ENYEDI, György (1998): Transformation in Central European Postso-
cialist Cities 
No. 22   HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1998): Changes in the Politico-Geographical Position of 
Hungary in the 20th  Century 
No. 23  HORVÁTH, Gyula (1998): Regional and Cohesion Policy in Hungary 
No. 24  BUDAY-SÁNTHA, Attila (1998): Sustainable Agricultural Development 
in the Region of the Lake Balaton 
No. 25  LADOS, Mihály (1998): Future Perspective for Local Government 
Finance in Hungary 
No. 26  NAGY, Erika (1999): Fall and Revival of City Centre Retailing: Planning 
an Urban Function in Leicester, Britain 
No. 27  BELUSZKY, Pál (1999): The Hungarian Urban Network at the End of 
the Second Millennium 
No. 28  RÁCZ, Lajos (1999): Climate History of Hungary Since the 16th Century: 
Past, Present and Future 
No. 29  RAVE, Simone (1999): Regional Development in Hungary and Its Prepa-
ration for the Structural Funds 
 
43

---

Discussion Papers 2002. No. 38. 
BEFORE SCHENGEN – READY FOR SCHENGEN 
Euroregional Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary 
No. 30  BARTA, Györgyi (1999): Industrial Restructuring in the Budapest 
Agglomeration 
No. 31  BARANYI, Béla–BALCSÓK, István–DANCS, László–MEZŐ, Barna 
(1999): Borderland Situation and Peripherality in the North-Eastern  Part 
of the Great Hungarian Plain 
No. 32  RECHNITZER, János (2000): The Features of the Transition of Hun-
gary’s Regional System 
No. 33  MURÁNYI,  István–PÉTER,  Judit–SZARVÁK Tibor–SZOBOSZLAI, 
Zsolt (2000): Civil Organisations and Regional Identity in the South 
Hungarian Great Plain 
No. 34  KOVÁCS, Teréz (2001): Rural Development in Hungary 
No. 35  PÁLNÉ, Kovács Ilona (2001): Regional Development and Governance in 
Hungary 
No. 36  NAGY, Imre (2001): Cross-Border Co-operation in the Border Region of 
the Southern Great Plain of Hungary 
No. 37  BELUSZKY, Pál (2002): The Spatial Differences of Modernisation in 
Hungary at the Beginning of the 20th Century 
44   

---