Discussion Papers 2006. No. 49.
Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations
CENTRE FOR REGIONAL STUDIES
OF HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
DISCUSSION PAPERS
No. 49
Chances of Hungarian–Slovak
Cross-Border Relations
by
István MEZEI
Series editor
Zoltán GÁL
Pécs
2006
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 49.
Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations
ISSN 0238–2008
ISBN 963 9052 58 2
2006 by Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Translator Éva Hatvani, Gábor Mezei
The maps were drawn by Máté Mády
Technical editor Ilona Csapó
Printed in Hungary by Sümegi Nyomdaipari, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató
Ltd., Pécs
2
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 49.
Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations
CONTENTS
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Components of the conceptual frame ..................................................................... 8
1.1.1 Interpretation of the border phenomenon .................................................... 8
1.1.2 Regionalisation and political interest ........................................................ 11
2 Factors affecting cross-border relations between Hungary and Slovakia ..................... 16
2.1 Effects of forming a country ................................................................................. 16
2.1.1 The History of Slovakia and the Slovak People ....................................... 16
2.1.2 Similarities and differences between the two countries............................ 24
2.2 Administration: conflict of nationalism and rationalism ...................................... 27
2.2.1 Administration before 1990....................................................................... 27
2.2.2 Administration between 1990 and 2002 .................................................... 28
2.3. The effect of economic life on cross-border relations ........................................... 36
2.3.1 Geographical change in the direction of economic relations..................... 36
2.3.2 Asymmetric conditions between different parts of the country................. 42
2.3.3 The effect of intended regionalisation ....................................................... 44
3 The condition of cross-border relations on the Hungarian–Slovak border ................... 50
3.1 The most important characteristics of the Hungarian–Slovak borderland ............ 50
3.2 The practice of border crossing ............................................................................ 53
3.3 Twin-settlement relations ..................................................................................... 55
3.4 Social (civil) relations........................................................................................... 56
3.5 Relations of euroregions ....................................................................................... 58
3.5.1 The Euroregion of the three branches of the Danube ................................ 63
3.5.2 Vag–Danube–Ipel Euroregion................................................................... 64
3.5.3 Ister–Granum Euroregion .......................................................................... 65
3.5.4 Ipoly Euroregion and Ipel’ský Euroregion ................................................ 66
3.5.5 NEOGRADIENSIS Euroregion ................................................................ 66
3.5.6 Sajó–Rima [Slaná–Rimava] Euroregion ................................................... 67
3.5.7 Miskolc–Kassa [Košice] Euroregion......................................................... 68
3.5.8 Zemplén [Zemplín] Euroregion................................................................. 68
3.5.9 The Carpathians Euroregion...................................................................... 69
4 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 70
4.1 Towards coexistence............................................................................................. 70
Hungarian-Slovak place-names............................................................................................73
References .......................................................................................................................... 74
3
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 49.
Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations
List of figures
Figure 1
The countries in East-Central Europe ............................................................... 8
Figure 2
Counties with Slovak majority and mixed ethnicities as laid down in the
1861 memorandum of Turócszentmárton [Martin] ....................................... 14
Figure 3
Economic development of the old and new member states on the basis
of their GDP in 2001 ....................................................................................... 24
Figure 4
Boundaries of regions and districts in 1996 .................................................... 30
Figure 5
The main foreign trade partners of Czechoslovakia between 1925 and
1938 ................................................................................................................ 37
Figure 6
The main foreign trade partners of Czechoslovakia between 1975 and
1985 ................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 7
The main foreign trade partners of Czech-Slovakia between 1990 and
2000 ................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 8
The main foreign trade partners of Slovakia between 1998 and 2002 .......... 41
Figure 9
Traditional and new industrial centres in Slovakia ......................................... 45
Figure 10 The most important multinational investors in Slovakia................................. 46
Figure 11 Road network in the counties along the Slovak border in Slovakia and
Hungary .......................................................................................................... 48
Figure 12 Hungarian counties and Slovak Regions along the Hungarian-Slovak
border ............................................................................................................. 51
Figure 13 Euroregions on the Hungarian–Slovak border ................................................ 59
Figure 14 The Carpathians Euroregion ........................................................................... 70
List of tables
Table 1
Number and proportion of the people with Hungarian and Slovak as
their mother tongue in Upper-Northern Hungary, between 1880 and
1910 ................................................................................................................ 17
Table 2
Retained and lost territories and population in 1920 according to the
national census of 1910................................................................................... 20
Table 3
The division of the population according to ethnicity (thousand people)
The data of the Czechoslovak national census of 1930................................... 21
Table 4
Divisions according to the number of the employed, schooling and
ethnicity .......................................................................................................... 25
Table 5
Ethnicity and mother tongue in Slovakia according to the national
census in 2001................................................................................................. 26
Table 6
Administration system in the territory of today’s Slovakia............................. 27
4
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 49.
Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations
Table 7
The population of Slovak regions and the number and proportion of the
Hungarian ethnicity on the basis of the national census in 2001..................... 32
Table 8
Territorial units of administration in Slovakia between 1996 and 2001 ......... 34
Table 9
The rate of the employed in different parts of the country.............................. 43
Table 10
The division of the most important investors according to regions and
the location of the majority of investments ...................................................... 47
Table 11
The most important indicators of the north-southern division in Slovakia ..... 49
Table 12
The most important figures of the regions and counties along the border ...... 52
Table 13
Sections of the Slovak Border and Possibilities of Vehicular Border
Crossing .......................................................................................................... 54
Table 14
The scope of cross-border relations ................................................................ 58
Table 15
Euroregions at the Hungarian–Slovak border ................................................. 60
5
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
1 Introduction
The East-Central European countries between the Baltic and the Adriatic Sea can
be found in one of the regions of Europe that have undergone the most changes.
From 1987 these states could gradually get rid of the Soviet rule, start putting an
end to dictatorship and ousting the communist ruling classes from authority. Their
accession to NATO and the European Union (2004) was a sign that they managed
to break off from Eastern Europe, which had meant an impasse for them, but only
at the expense of suffering heavy losses. This, however, enables them to develop
new relations, which are to be determined by freedom (democracy), equality (liber-
alism, individual and national equality) and fraternity (solidarity).
Owing to the differences in their historical past, Hungary and its seven
neighbouring countries have specific relations. With Austria having become a
member of the European Union in 1995, and Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia
having joined in 2004, Hungary and three of its neighbouring countries belong to
the same political and economic community. The present paper is about Hungary’s
’closest’ neighbour, Slovakia. Hungary maintains the closest relations with the
Slovak people of all nations in the Carpathian Basin, because the Slovak people
emerged within the Hungarian Kingdom in the course of the centuries before 1918.
Now that the Soviet control has ceased, Hungary might continue its thousand-year-
old history, and the two nations might cooperate as equal partners and strive for
better, more understanding and free countries, while fully recognising the inde-
pendence of the Slovak state that it gained in 1918.
The present paper attempts to take a snapshot of the historical ’moment’ after
the accession. An important historical question arises for all accession countries
and also for Slovakia: Will the differences between them and the Western
European countries remain, or will these countries gradually become similar to
each other? Will the centuries-long inequalities and development disparities
between Western European and East-Central European countries ever cease?1
Besides the general question that refers to all accession countries there is
another one that especially affects the two neighbouring countries, Hungary and
Slovakia. How strong will the dividing role of borders be in the future? With
political and economic frames becoming similar, and the borders ceasing, will their
former economic and cultural relations revive? Will the regions that provide a
potential framework for economic and social cooperation be formed on the basis of
the real needs of their people? Will everyday human relations really be free?
1 In the present paper Poland (Pl), the Czech Republic (Cz), Slovakia (SR), Hungary (H) and
Slovenia (SLO) are called East-Central Europe.
7
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Figure 1
The countries in East-Central Europe
Central Europe
East-Central Europe
1
Ljubljana
2
Zagreb
Tallin
Riga
Vilnius
Berlin
Warsaw
Prague Bratislava
Vienna
Budapest
Bern
1
2
Source: Edited by the author.
1.1 Components of the conceptual frame
1.1.1 Interpretation of the border phenomenon
Europe is a continent in whose history borders have always played an important
part and Central and especially East-Central Europe have always had ever-chang-
ing borders. East-Central Europe is rather ’isolated’ from other European regions.
8
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
It has no sea of its own since Poland has not been able to take control over the Bal-
tic Sea, Hungary has not managed to get to the Adriatic Sea and the Czech people
have had no chance to join into the world trade on the sea. Consequently, these
countries have not been able to establish really great empires, what is more they
themselves have fallen prey to great empires. Important historical events have
changed the borders in the area, or, like in case of Hungary, unchanged borders
have been crossed by ever-changing great powers (Herczegh, 1998).
In Europe monarchies were replaced by nation states, which has enhanced the
importance of borders. The central power defended the borders of the nation
(France), or formed them (Germany, Italy). National movements remained state-
creating factors in the 20th century, too. An example for this is the disintegration of
the Austrian–Hungarian Monarchy and the establishment of the so-called
succession states (Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia – formerly the
Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian Kingdom –, and Poland). These political changes
encouraged border research. From the end of the 19th century, especially on the
basis of Ratzel’s work (1897), the problem of borders became the central issue of
political geography. Next the model set up by Martinez (1994) will be used to
illustrate the complexity of the phenomenon, and the Hungarian and Slovak border
relations will serve as an example.
Due to the complexity of East-Central European relations, it is rather difficult to
set up an unambiguous model for the description of the functions of borders. Ac-
cording to Martinez there are four types of cooperation between the actors in bor-
derlands. They are as follows: (1) alienated, (2) coexistent, (3) mutually cooperat-
ing and (4) integrated borderlands. What makes his interpretation rather hard to
accept for us is that in Martinez’s view the individual border types show typical
features, the most important of which are (measurable) cooperation and free
movement conditioned by it. In Hungarian and Slovak relations, however, a certain
duality can be seen as far as their borderlands and the countries themselves are
concerned. Whereas relations between the two countries were completely cold and
hostile for decades after the borders had been established, in the borderland consid-
erable amount of personal relations were set up on friendly terms.
After 1920, the Peace Treaty, which ended World War I, the relations between
the two countries were apparently hostile, because the new borders hurt the Hun-
garian people. According to Martinez’s model, in such cases, stiff isolation is typi-
cal of the relations between the countries, resulting in a complete lack of cross-
border cooperation (alienated borderland). The relations between the two countries
were in fact negligible, but those living on both sides of the border could preserve
their former cooperation because there were Hungarians living on the other side of
the border, too. The Hungarian people had family members, relatives, friends,
neighbours beyond the border, and they managed to keep in touch with them for
long years by evading the vigilance of border guards. To be able to maintain legal
9
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
relations the Hungarian party put forward a proposal to open a special border sta-
tion exclusively for those who lived in the borderland in both countries. This was
introduced in 1927 on the Czechoslovak side (Sallai, 2004, 80).
The relations remained hostile after World War II, too. According to Martinez,
in such cases the border is closed, there are almost no relations. In reality, however,
these were the years of deportations, flights and population exchange between the
two countries, which had been enforced by the Czechoslovak state. All this meant
considerable population movement, and would fall into the ’coexistent’ category
according to Martinez’s model. This type is not suitable for describing the above-
mentioned historical situation.
In the years of waning dictatorship, the strict control over the borders was also
slackening. State-organised commercial relations were completed by personal
relationships, because local border stations opened again for those living in the
borderland, which made their situation easier. In Martinez’s model, this would be
equivalent to the category of ’cooperating borderland’, but in the decades of
communism, in the countries of East-Central Europe this model did not function
like that, as the occupant Soviet Union regulated their cooperation in the spirit of
hypocritical ’brotherhood’.
This situation can be best characterised by the famous model introduced by
Tóth (1996). His model defines this controlled ’socialist’ form of cross-border re-
lations much more clearly. The centralized state and party control did not make it
possible to develop cross-border relations either at a local or a medium level, not
even with ’sister nations’. If they were to develop such relations at all, both parties
had to have their plan approved of by the central party and state authorities in both
countries, and if they managed to do so, then the leading bodies checked it with the
party and state leaders of the other country. If the plan was not turned down at this
stage, either, then, after the agreement, the authorities of both countries gave per-
mission to the appealing organisations to establish contacts. From then on they
were allowed to maintain a representative kind of contact rather than a practical
one, which was always controlled and depended on the prevailing political rela-
tions between the two countries.
This cooperative type of relations was also distorted by the fact that business
relations existed exclusively at a national level, between state-owned companies,
since privately-owned enterprises were forbidden by law. In this way people’s
communication did not mean more than exchange of goods, shopping and satisfy-
ing personal needs, because it was strictly controlled and offenders were strictly
punished.
It was only after 1990, the year of the change of regime, that Martinez’s
‘cooperative’ type of borderland began to emerge in the Carpathian Basin, after the
above-mentioned antecedents. The system of twin-settlements and new relations
between groups of settlements began to develop, euroregional organisations
10
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
became increasingly popular, and beyond existing personal relationships organised
forms of civil relations also appeared. All this meant that different forms of
exchange of goods, from shopping tourism through commercial relations to
smuggling, began to spread. Therefore people passing the border were strictly
checked. As a result of the accession to the European Union, in case of Hungary
and Slovakia this kind of relations is developing into an equal rank mutual
partnership.
The fourth category defined by Martinez is the most perfect one, that of equal
or integrated borderlands. The neighbouring countries belonging to this type
manage to overcome all kinds of obstacles that would hinder commercial,
economic and social activities. The two parties become equal in all their relations.
Martinez adds that in such cases they become economically equally strong,
politically and militarily firm allied countries.
However, instead of clear, unambiguous relations, Martinez’s model shows
contradictions because he does not reckon with a situation when the relations of the
whole country and those of the borderland are different. Realising this was
important for us and this is going to be the central issue of the present paper.
Legally, both countries are members of the same alliance, both countries are
members of NATO, the European Union, the OECD and other international
organisations, what is more, members of the Visegrád Treaty, the treaty of four
countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary). In spite of this
serious doubts appear. While we are all hoping for the long-awaited equality, the
asymmetries between the two countries will still hinder wholehearted cross-border
cooperation.
1.1.2 Regionalisation and political interest
The border phenomenon is in close connection with a regional problem, which af-
fects the Hungarian–Slovak border indirectly, and it is regionalisation.
What is a good border like? When can the people living in the borderland ac-
cept the existence of a border? When has a border got full legitimacy? If it can be
found in a geographical area where it permanently divides a national, economic,
social, cultural, religious etc. entity from another, similarly complete entity, like in
the case of the Czech-Slovak and the Slovak–Polish borders. Although there was
strong political intention to abolish the Czech-Slovak border and reconcile the
differences between the two peoples, it failed. In 1993 the former, seemingly indis-
soluble union broke up. Still, the border is easily passable. The other example,
today’s Polish–Slovak border has been a border since 895, the Hungarian conquest
of Hungary. It used to be the border of contemporary Hungary, a border which
divided real regions. There are hardly any other borders in Europe where there
11
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
have been so few manifestations of hostility between those living on both sides of
the border.
In such cases it is easy to see that a border not only separates countries, but also
protects them against disturbing or dangerous external phenomena, and connects
different qualities, besides, the borderland becomes the zone of exchange and co-
operation. This kind of border can be used as an efficient filter, since the
population expects the government in power to hold off undesirable phenomena
and people. The Hungarian–Slovak border, however, is not like this, or only in its
form, since it obviously meets the general formal criteria. But as far as its practical
role is concerned, it is different. To make it more understandable the process of
regionalisation has to be analysed.
Researchers of historical geography have shown that, like in other regions of
Europe, in the Carpathian Basin regional specialisation of production was typical.
In fact, it meant division of labour between the internal lowlands and the external
edge of mountains. The activity of production zones that complemented each other
changed in time and space, there were a lot of local variations, but the economic
unity of the Great Hungarian Plain and the mountains surrounding it remained as
long as until the disintegration of Hungary. It was the Peace Treaty in 1920 that
ended World War I and brought the end of the system of relations developed by
individual economic areas and those based on labour division, which were also
equivalent to geographical units. This was the background of the establishment of
Czechoslovakia (Frisnyák, 1996).
The territory of Czechoslovakia and its borders were not marked out along the
boundaries of big geographical units and the aspects of economy or labour division
were completely disregarded. The administrative borders were not established
between the existing geographical units of the time and in no form were their
differences marked. It is true, however, that with the help of the great powers, the
Czechoslovak peace delegation managed to obtain a territory in which they could
achieve a certain kind of labour division within 85 years. They completed the
mountainous edge (the northern ring of the Carpathians) with lowland areas (Csal-
lóköz, Mátyusföld, Bodrog-köz, Ung-vidék), ensuring the food supply of the new
country in this way.
The area that was torn off had not been an independent unit for centuries before,
it had been rather heterogeneous, and had belonged to several gravity zones. Its
western part with Pozsony as its centre gravitated towards Vienna. This orientation
was strengthened by the Pest–Vác–Érsekújvár [Nové Zámky]–Pozsony [Bratis-
lava]–Vienna railway line and the waterways of the Danube. This was the main
axis of communications in Hungary at that time. The route of the communications
corridor followed both banks of the Danube. The area to the north of the Danube,
which was torn off, had been in close connection with the whole of Hungary
(Erdısi, 1996). The eastern part of Upper Northern Hungary, Kassa [Košice]–
12
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Miskolc–Debrecen, had belonged, in fact, to the gravity zone of Transylvania and
the Great Hungarian Plain, so e.g. the wine-growers in Hegyalja used to transport
their goods via these areas to the north, to Poland and Russia. The central part, like
the whole country, had belonged to the gravity zone of the central region, first of
all to that of Pest-Buda (from 1873 Budapest) for centuries.
At the peace negotiations the question of language boundaries was considered
to be one of no importance compared with economic interests. It would have been
really difficult to take language boundaries into consideration because, although
there were some big regional units within Hungary with one domineering language,
(such were the mostly Slovak-speaking northern parts with mostly Slovak ethnic-
ity), these language blocks were connected with the mostly Hungarian-speaking
(though not monolingual) lowlands by wide areas where people spoke several lan-
guages. This diversity of languages was especially typical of cities. In the different
periods of dynamic economic development and with certain industrial, commercial
and financial activities appearing and strengthening, some non-Hungarian ethnici-
ties (German, Greek, Czech, Moravian, Jewish etc) appeared, too.
Since there was no strict language segregation in the territory of Hungary (or in
a wider sense: in East-Central Europe) and therefore there was no language-based
system of provinces, no ethnic regions, the language itself or ethnicity could not
serve as a basis for a clear-cut separation of regions. In spite of this, the borders
might have been marked out after a referendum, taking the population’s will into
account, but it was only a declared intention of the contracting parties of the peace
treaty, and not an aim to achieve. Obtaining territories was the main motive and it
did not matter which language people spoke in those territories (Figure 2).
The possibility of an ethnic region arose when in 1861 the memorandum drawn
up by Slovak nationalists in Turócszentmárton (Desires of the National Assembly
of the Slavs (Slovaks) in Upper Hungary) included a list of the counties where they
wanted to achieve the exclusive use of the Slovak language.
The list included the ’purest’ Slav counties, such as Trencsén [Trenčin], Árva
[Orava], Turóc [Turiec], Zólyom [Zvolen], Liptó [Liptov], Szepes [Spiš] and Sáros
[Šariš] counties, as well as the counties where Hungarians and Slovaks lived to-
gether (ethnically mixed counties). Such counties were Pozsony [Bratislava],
Nyitra [Nitra], Bars [Tekov], Hont [Hont], Nógrád [Novohrad], Gömör [Gemer],
Torna [Turna], Abaúj [Abov] and Zemplén [Zemplín]. The latter ones were
considered suitable for separating the two ethnicities by an administrative border or
being reorganised according to the distribution of ethnicities, or being attached to
the neighbouring Slav counties. This plan also admitted that even in the counties
with a predominantly Slav population Hungarian and Slav ethnicities mixed to an
extent that it was impossible for the Slav ethnicity to have a separate Upper-
Hungarian Slav area (hornouhorské slovenské okolie) accepted (Pajkossy, 2003,
423–430).
13
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Figure 2
Counties with Slovak majority and mixed ethnicities as laid down in the 1861
memorandum of Turócszentmárton [Martin]
Árva
Trencsén
Sáros
Liptó
Turóc
Szepes
Zemplén
Zólyom
Gömör
Nyitra
és
Abaúj-
Kishont
Torna
Bars
Pozsony
Hont
Nógrád
Slovak majority
ethnically mixed
Source: Edited by the author.
Federation on the basis of the areas inhabited by different ethnicities could not
be implemented at this time partly because of the Hungarian–Austrian conflict, (the
supporters of the compromise stood up for the Austrian–Hungarian dualistic sys-
tem, whereas those who wanted independence insisted on the secession from Aus-
tria, but they were never in power), partly because the aspirations of other ethnici-
ties were much weaker than those of the Hungarians. Ethnicities needed some ex-
ternal power to support them. This was what happened at the end of World War I,
when nationalistic revolutions broke out with the strong support of the great pow-
ers.
There were no administrative regions in Hungary, either. In the bourgeois era,
following the compromise of 1867, order in administration was achieved by abol-
14
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
ishing former feudal privileges (e.g. Jazygians, Cumanians), creating a uniform
system of counties on the basis of historical traditions. This means that neither
economy nor linguistic or ethnic differences were so strong as to influence the
former boundaries of the counties. When the borders were established after North
Hungary had been annexed, there were no regions, provinces or administrative
units, and no subnational governance bodies that might have been referred to,
whose boundaries might have been taken into consideration, to whose boundaries
the borders of Slovakia might have been adjusted.
It should be pointed out that in spite of the modernisation ambitions of the
bourgeois state in the Hungary of the time, the importance of the local, small re-
gional identity was extremely strong. These small regions adjusted themselves
mostly to counties, but it is also true the other way round, county boundaries were
adjusted to small regions.
The lack of a homogeneous region shows that the territory of today’s Slovakia
was not a regional, social, economic, administrative or linguistic etc. unit. The
manifold names referring to the area also show the complexity of this part of the
country. The name Felvidék [Upper-Northern Hungary] appeared in the 19th cen-
tury, and then it referred to the high mountains close to the Polish border, mostly
inhabited by several ethnicities, and it was only after 1920 that it gained a political
and administrative meaning. Since then it has denoted the whole of Slovakia’s ter-
ritory, including the part of the Kisalföld (i.e. the plain in North-Western Hungary)
to the north of the Danube (Paládi-Kovács 2003, 21–55). The present paper uses
the name Upper-Northern Hungary as a synonym for Slovakia.
To sum it up, it can be stated that the borders of the new Czechoslovak state
were not marked out on the basis of already existing administrative borders of an
existing homogeneous region, but a new country was established, which included
parts of different regions from which they intended to create a region, a social,
economic, ethnic and cultural unit. This could happen because Hungary’s region-
alisation in the bourgeois era had just begun but could not be completed. After
1920 it was Czechoslovakia’s main ambition and political and economic aim and
since 1993 it has been that of Slovakia to turn the acquired territory into an indis-
soluble unit. The present paper is to prove that Slovakia, following the activity of
its predecessor, Czechoslovakia, has made considerable progress in implementing a
new, internal kind of regionalisation, which will be irreversible, even after the bor-
ders have been abolished, or perhaps some (local) modifications will be carried out.
The duality, which has been typical so far, will prevail in the future, too, which
means that the existing and developing relations between Hungary and Slovakia
will remain at an international level and will only be completed by cross-border
relations. Large investments of Slovak regional development are realised in the
northern parts inhabited by Slovak people leaving the complementary task of sup-
plying the country with agricultural products to the southern lowlands.
15
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
2 Factors affecting cross-border relations between
Hungary and Slovakia
2.1 Effects of forming a country
2.1.1 The History of Slovakia and the Slovak People
The Slovak nation emerged within the Hungarian Kingdom in the course of
centuries as different Slavic peoples merged into each other. On the basis of the
above-mentioned memorandum drawn up in Túrócszentmárton [Martin] in 1861,
their main settlements were in the counties of the Upper-Northern Hungary of the
time. As the census of 1880 shows, in the Hungarian Empire there were 1,864,529
people who were Slovak according to their mother tongue. This number increased
to 2,008,774 until 1900, but then it began to decrease. In 1910 there were only
1,967,970 Slovaks registered. 83,62%, that is 1,645,667 of them lived in the
counties mentioned in the memorandum (Table 1).
At the time of the census of 1910, there were more than 3 million people living
in the fifteen counties of Upper-Northern Hungary. Only 35,13% of them were
Hungarians and 54.34% were Slovaks according to their mother tongue. Above the
linguistic border, where the proportion of Slovaks was far more than 50%, this
difference was even more striking. In the seven counties belonging to this part of
the country, the proportion of the 772,000 Slovaks was 76.28% compared to the
proportion of the 78,000 Hungarians, which was 7.74%. In Nyitra [Nitra], one of
the eight counties under the Slovak linguistic border, this proportion was 70.97%,
but it was more than 50% in Bars county, too, and in Pozsony county it was just 0.5
per cent fewer than 50%. Besides, this area is multinational also because, apart
from the two big nations, there was a high number of Germans living here, but
there were also Ruthenians, Poles, Czech–Moravians, Rumanians, Serbs, Croa-
tians, Gypsies, and even a small number of English, Italians, French, Russians, etc.
In this period, there were more and more people belonging to the bourgeoisie. The
result of this was the spreading of the language of Hungarians, the dominant
nation. This process was typical of the whole country, as well as of the Upper-
Northern regions. That is why the proportion of the Hungarians increased within
the population in all the fifteen counties. The percentage of the Slovak ethnic
population decreased because of the high rate of emigration and also as a result of
the migration within the country around the turn of the century. The same thing
happened to other ethnicities living close to the borders as well. The number of
Hungarians was increased by the migration within the country and, among other
16
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
things, by the assimilation of the Jews. Assimilation of the Slovak population was
Table 1
Number and proportion of the people with Hungarian and Slovak as their mother
tongue
in Upper-Northern Hungary, between 1880 and 1910
County
The whole
Hungarian mother tongue
Slovak mother tongue
population number of
%
changes in their proportion
number of
%
changes in their proportion
number of inhabitants
inhabitants
inhabitants
within the
compared with
within the
compared with
population, the proportion of
population,
the proportion
%
Hungarians, %
%
of Slovaks, %
1910
1910
1910 1880–1910
1880–1910
1910
1910 1880–1910
1880–1910
Trencsény [Trenčín]
310,437
13204
4.25
3.17
496.20
284,770
91.73
–2.22
123.72
Árva [Orava]
78,745
2000
2.54
2.09
543.48
59,096
75.05
–21.22
75.19
Túrócz [Turiec]
55,703
5560
9.98
7.58
503.62
38,432
68.99
–7.58
109.26
Liptó [Liptov]
86,906
4365
5.02
3.03
292.76
78,098
89.86
–3.80
111.53
Zólyom [Zvolen]
133,653
16509 12.35
9.66
598.80
113,294
84.77
–8.73
118.22
Sáros [Šariš]
174,620
18088 10.36
7.77
415.24
101,855
58.33
–12.51
85.58
Szepes [Spiš]
172,867
18658 10.79
8.67
508.12
97,077
56.16
–1.83
96.84
Subtotal
1,012,931
78384
7.74
5.90
477.69
772,622
76.28
–5.58
105.97
Pozsony [Bratislava]
311,527
131,662 42.26
3.70
129.92
154,344
49.54
–0.77
116.72
Nyitra [Nitra]
457,455
100,324 21.93
6.67
178.20
324,664
70.97
–2.97
119.06
Bars [Tekov]
178,500
62,022 34.75
4.37
143.10
97,824
54.80
–2.25
120.17
Hont [Hont]
117,256
66,875 57.03
8.10
135.57
43,181
36.83
–7.11
97.49
Nógrád [Novohrad]
261,517
197,670 75.59
11.57
161.08
58,337
22.31
–10.00
94.19
Gömör/Kis-Hont
188,098
109,994 58.48
7.53
127.69
72,232
38.40
–5.94
96.36
[Gemer-Malohont]
Abaúj-Torna
158,077
123,318 78.01
11.17
120.99
29,520
18.67
–8.40
71.51
[Abov-Turna]
Zemplén [Zemplín]
343,194
193,794 56.47
11.66
155.82
92,943
27.08
–11.38
87.06
Subtotal
2,015,624
985,659 48.90
7.76
143.80
873,045
43.31
–5.64
107.05
Total
3,028,555
1,064,043 35,13
1,645,667
54.34
Sources: MSK (1909) pp. 102–103; MSK (1910) pp. 112–117.
17
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
typical of intellectuals and working class people who moved to towns. Besides
economic, cultural, and modernisational influence, education also played an im-
portant role in assimilation. It was mostly due to the multilingual citizens of towns
that people living in such a multilingual area could change their ethnicity easily,
whoever came into power.
Consequently, the number of the Slovak agrarian population began to decrease,
and the number of bourgeois citizens increased. As a result of industrialization, it
was especially working class people whose number increased, but the rate of the
industrial population belonging to the bourgeoisie became considerable as well.
However, the remarkably small number of Slovak intellectuals did not increase,
and almost all of them were priests or schoolmasters. As a result of the large-scale
migration within the country is that 13% of all industrial workers in Hungary were
Slovak according to their mother tongue. Budapest became one of the main centres
of the Slovak people, as there were 20,359 inhabitants who declared themselves
Slovak according to their mother tongue, but on the basis of other statistics it turns
out that there were about 50,000 Slovak industrial workers or builders in the capi-
tal. It was a sign of Slovak bourgeois development that Slovak people had the sec-
ond most highly developed economy and society of all national ethnicities after the
Germans (Hanák, 1978, 1019).
The process of Slovak people becoming a nation took place in reaction to the
events happening when the Hungarian nation emerged. The national movements of
Slovak intellectuals could not gain enough political importance to enforce changes
in the Hungarian political establishment. There were just few politicians of the
Slovak National Party, which was founded in 1871, and they were not strong
enough to enforce either the idea of Slovak autonomy, which, sometimes stronger,
sometimes weaker, had always been present after 1848–1849, or the federalization
of the country on an ethnic basis (Kiss, 1994).
The Slovak national movement also proved to be weak when they were unable
to force their independence on the Czech supremacy. Furthermore, Czech nation-
alism even refused to recognise the existence of the independent Slovak nation
(they looked upon the Slovak language as a Czech dialect). They continued their
struggle for national independence and autonomy in the new state, too.
In his memorandum entitled Independent Bohemia, Thomas G. Masaryk, then
an emigrant Czech politician, announced the necessity of the existence of a future
Czechoslovak state that would include Upper-Northern Hungary and Kisalföld as
well. Owing to the persistent diplomacy of the Czech emigration and especially the
(French) interests of the Allies, they recognised the new state, which became one
of the small states established from the Austrian–Hungarian Monarchy. With this
method, the victorious powers eliminated one of the great European powers of the
age, and with the help of the national states, which emerged as succession states,
18
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
they established a protective zone, a sanitary line (cordon sanitaire) against the
Soviet Union, which had been founded in 1917.
The Slovak National Council, which was set up in Túrócszentmárton (Martin)
in 1918, declared the accession of the Slovak people to the new state. That was
how the new struggle of the Slovaks began. At the time of historical changes, they
raised their demands independently, as a partner with equal rights, but as a part of
the new establishment, they became subordinate to the Czechs (Table 2).
According to the Trianon Peace Treaty (1920) the whole territory of ten Hun-
garian counties (Árva, Liptó, Turóc, Szepes, Sáros, Trencsén, Pozsony, Nyitra, Bars
and Zólyom) was attached to the Czechoslovak state. Seven of these (in italics)
were above the Slovak linguistic border, but some Árva and Szepes settlements
with Polish inhabitants were annexed to Poland. From the ethnically mixed territo-
ries, mentioned in the memorandum drawn up in 1861, the whole of Bars and
Nyitra counties and the overwhelming part of Pozsony county were lost. Larger or
smaller parts of eight further counties (Esztergom, Komárom, Hont, Nógrád,
Gömör, Zemplén, Abaúj-Torna and Ung) were annexed to the Czechoslovak Re-
public. Fragments of Gyır and Moson counties became parts of the new state, too.
As these territories are very small, they are not involved in the table above. Ac-
cording to the census of 1910, there were 3,461,000 people living in a territory of
59,888 km² in 18 counties. 85.5% of this territory, that is 51,208 km², was given to
the new state with 2,879,000 people, that is 83.2% of the population concerned.
The proportions of the mixed ethnicities that the annexed territory composed of
can be shown by the data of the national census taken in Czechoslovakia in 1930.
In compliance with the ideology of the Czech political ruling class, which was the
real organizer of the state, the inhabitants whose mother tongue was Slovak were
not separated from the Czechs but they were all regarded as Czechoslovaks by
nationality. The Ruthenians of the age were now called Russian or Little Russian.
Neither did they make any distinction between Serbs and Croatians (Tabel 3).
The change in power brought a reduction in the proportion of Hungarian ethnic
groups in the first place. In February 1921, there were 744,621 Czechoslovak citi-
zens in Czechoslovakia who were Hungarians by ethnicity. 634,827 of them lived
in Slovakia, 103,690 in Sub-Carpathia and 6,104 in Bohemia and Moravia. Com-
pared with this, in 1930 there were far fewer people, only 719,000 who declared
themselves Hungarian. 592,000 of them lived in Slovakia, 116,000 in Sub-Carpa-
thia and 11,000 in Czech territories. These data also involve the Hungarians living
in Czechoslovakia who were put into the category „foreigners”, since their citizen-
ship was undetermined (Popély, 1998).
19
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Table 2
Retained and lost territories and population in 1920 according to the national
census of 1910
County
Total
Retained
Retained
Detached
Gain of the Slovaks
km2
number of
km2
%
number of
%
km2
%
number of
%
inhabitants
inhabitants
inhabitants
Trencsén [Trenčín]
4,456
310,437
–
–
–
–
4,456
100.0
310,437
100.0
Árva [Orava]
2,019
78,745
–
–
–
–
2,019
100.0
78,745
100.0
Túrócz [Turiec]
1,123
55,703
–
–
–
–
1,123
100.0
55,703
100.0
Liptó [Liptov]
2,246
86,906
–
–
–
–
2,246
100.0
86,906
100.0
Zólyom [Zvolen]
2,634
133,653
–
–
–
–
2,634
100.0
133,653
100.0
Sáros [Šariš]
3,652
174,620
–
–
–
–
3,652
100.0
174,620
100.0
Szepes [Spiš]
3,654
172,867
–
–
–
–
3,654
100.0
172,867
100.0
Subtotal
19,784
1,012,931
–
–
–
–
19,784
100.0
1,012,931
100.0
Pozsony [Bratislava]
4,295
311,527
47
1.1
1,359
0.4
4,248
98.9
310,168
99.6
Nyitra [Nitra]
5,519
457,455
–
–
–
–
5,519
100
457,455
100.0
Komárom [Komarno]
2,802
179,513
1,438
51.3
97,766
54.5
1,364
48.7
81,747
45.5
Esztergom
1,077
90,817
532
49.4
53,725
59.2
,545
50.6
37,092
40.8
Bars [Tekov]
2,724
178,500
–
–
–
–
2,724
100
178,500
100.0
Hont [Hont]
2,545
117,256
459
18
25,360
21.6
2,086
82
91,896
78.4
Nógrád [Novohrad]
4,128
261,517
2,401
58.2
168,853
64.6
1,727
41.8
92,664
35.4
Gömör/Kis-Hont
4,279
188,098
340
7.9
16,563
8.8
3,939
92.1
171,535
91.2
[Gemer-Malohont]
Abaúj-Torna
3,223
158,077
1,672
51.9
83,347
52.7
1,551
48.1
74,730
47.3
[Abov-Turna]
Ung [Už]
3,230
162,089
16
0.5
1,303
0.8
3,214
99.5
160,786
99.2
Zemplén [Zemplín]
6,282
343,194
1,775
28.3
133,431
38.9
4,507
71.7
209,763
61.1
Subtotal
40,104
2,448,043
8,680
21.6
581,707
23.8
31,424
78.4
1,866,336
76.2
Total
59,888
3,460,974
8,680
21.6
581,707
23.8
51,208
85.5
2,879,267
83.2
Source: MSK (1920) p. 5.
20
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Table 3
The division of the population according to ethnicity (thousand people)
The data of the Czechoslovak national census of 1930*
Ethnic groups
Bohemia
Moravia
Slovakia
Sub-
Total
%
Carpathia
“Czechoslovak”
4732
2617
2373
34
9756
66.24
Russian, Little Russian
17
6
95
451
569
3.86
German
2326
824
155
14
3319
22.53
Hungarian
8
3
592
116
719
4.89
Jewish
16
21
73
95
205
1.39
Polish
3
89
7
1
100
0.68
Gypsy
–
–
31
1
32
0.23
Rumanian
1
–
1
13
15
0.09
Yugoslav
2
3
1
–
6
0.04
other
4
2
2
–
8
0.05
Total:
7109
3565
3330
725
14729
100.00
* Between 1927 and 1939 the above mentioned four territories were the administrative units below
the national level in Czechoslovakia.
Source: Csehszlovákia II.
The overwhelming majority of the Hungarians who became the inhabitants of
Slovakia have been living in the zone along the Hungarian-Slovak border from
Pozsony [Bratislava] to Nagykapos [Veľké Kapušany], up to the present day.
However, the number of Hungarian inhabitants was also considerable in the towns
of Upper-Northen Hungary, which are to be found in counties with a Slovak ma-
jority like Besztercebánya [Banská Bystrica], Trencsény [Trenčín], Eperjes
[Prešov] or Késmárk [Kežmarok]. All in all, in contradiction with the propagated
aim of establishing a national state, a new multinational country emerged carrying
a lot of unsolved social and economic problems in itself.
In 1938 the newly established state collapsed. The four-power Munich confer-
ence decided that the Sudeten should belong to Germany, a group of Slovak politi-
cians declared the Slovak autonomy in Zsolna [Žilina], and in autumn, most of the
Czechoslovak territories with Hungarian population were returned to Hungary in
accordance with the decision taken at the first Vienna Court of Arbitration. The
next year, in 1939, the Slovak Parliament voted for the establishment of the inde-
pendent Slovak state. In the same year the Hungarian troops occupied Sub-Carpa-
thia that had belonged to Czechoslovakia before. It was not only the logic of the
German power that led to the disintegration, but also the dissatisfaction of the Slo-
vaks. In Andrej Hlinka’s words, when Czechoslovakia was established, the Slovak
nation was buried alive.
21
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Between 1920 and 1945, the Slovak society underwent considerable develop-
ment. The proportion of those who worked as intellectuals, in offices or in service
industries grew dramatically. The fact that 90% of the civil servants were of Slovak
ethnicity and the fast development of this social layer show that the Slovak society
could easily recover from the ’Magyarization’ policy of the dualistic era, and it was
because the essence of this policy was not the homogenisation of these ethnic
groups, but rather the implementation of dominance. Therefore the methods were
also far from the extremely rough, aggressive atrocities of the 20th century. During
these 25 years, the proportion of the agrarian population decreased, but, as a result
of the land reform, the structure of ownership changed considerably. Confiscating
the lands of Hungarian farmers and distributing them among the Slovaks (and
Czechs) resulted in the emergence of a considerable agrarian Slovak middle class.
This was how they began to break up contiguous Hungarian territories. On the
lands of the Hungarians that belonged to Slovak and Czech settlers now, 55 new
settlements and 99 new settlements attached to already existing villages, were es-
tablished in territories with a Hungarian majority (Szarka, 165).
On April 5th 1945 Beneš announced the government programme in the liber-
ated Kassa. In this he declared all the Hungarians and the Germans living in Slova-
kia war criminals collectively. He ordered by decree that the properties of Hungari-
ans, Germans, traitors and collaborators must be taken over by the state, and in
another decree they were denationalized. The Great Powers did not allow them to
expel the Hungarians from the country, but in 1946, the Hungarian government had
to accept the population exchange. The government reduced the percentage of the
Hungarian ethnic population by deporting them to Bohemia, expelling them, forc-
ing re-Slovakisation on them, (those who declared themselves Slovaks could get
back their citizenship and the rights belonging to it: property, home, job, pension,
etc.), and in many other ways.
In 1948 the communists took over control in Czechoslovakia. The events that
had happened until that time, that is the establishment of the autonomous Slovakia,
resulted in the fact that the separation of the Czech and the Slovak nations became
unquestionable. However, they could not achieve political separation on the state
level because communists did not even allow the establishment of a federal state
modelling the Soviet system (Zvara-Dusek 1985, 5–22). This happened in 1968
only. The problems of the Slovak population were simplified into problems of eco-
nomic and cultural investments during the 40 years of dictatorship (Szarka, 194–
201).
Czechoslovakia, like other countries in the Soviet sphere of interest, had poor
relations with the countries beyond the Iron Curtain or with the fraternal, commu-
nist countries. Only the borders of the most fraternal Soviet Union were stricter
than that. The closed nature of their political system and their efforts to be eco-
nomically independent are proofs of the communist system’s inability to develop.
22
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Besides, in most of their countries, especially in Czechoslovakia, there was ex-
tremely rough nationalism. In the Czech part of the country, it manifested itself in
anti-German feelings, in the Slovak part it meant anti-Czech and anti-German
feelings, but their anti-Hungarian feelings were the strongest.
After the 1956 uprisings in Poland and Hungary, the events in Czechoslovakia
in 1968 had the only result that from October 27th 1968, Czechoslovakia became a
federal state, though their proclaimed aim had been to „democratise communism”.
This was a great achievement of Slovak nationalism, a considerable step towards
overcoming historical asymmetries. As a result, the number of Slovak bureaucrats
increased both in the federal and in the Slovak governing bodies. A new period
began when they wanted to reconcile differences between the two parts of the
country and promote economic and cultural closing up.
Consequently, it is no wonder that due to political, ideological, social and men-
tal differences coming to light in the course of the 1988–1989 change of system in
Czechoslovakia, the evolving new possibilities of development were different as
well. After the 1990 parliamentary elections, the new Czech-Slovak Federal Re-
public was established. (The most heated debate was about the use or omission of
the hyphen.) In the years of the collapse of the communist regime, national con-
flicts arose, and nationalism that had been under „regulated control” (that is „con-
trolled by the party state”) before, now blazed up openly. In the course of the
change of system, the anti-Czech feelings led to the collapse of the state. On the
motion of Slovak nationalist political parties, Slovakia became independent after
January 1st 1993. Achieving independence was a milestone in the development of
the Slovak nation. The struggle against their much stronger enemies proved to be
successful. Slovakia was recognized as a nation with equal rights.
At first Slovakia followed a policy of isolation with many internal political
scandals, an example of which was the country’s dilemma: joining the integration
process of the European Union, maintaining neutrality, or cooperating with Russia,
representing the force of the large Slavic culture (Ivanička, 1998).
1998 can be considered as a sharp change, when the Christian-Democratic po-
litical forces could come to power. The conservative right-wing political parties
could make themselves accepted by the European Union as well. They introduced
reforms by which Slovakia could close up to European standards. Though the rea-
son why Slovakia could join the European Union was not its highly-developed
bourgeois democracy but rather the more economical borderlines marked out in
Schengen, (the Slovak–Ukrainian border is only 98.5 km long. If Slovakia had
been left out of the expansion, the new border would have been 1570 km long).
From May 1st 2004, Slovakia became a member of the European Union with equal
rights.
23
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
2.1.2 Similarities and differences between the two countries
Due to their centuries-long common past there are a lot of similarities between
Hungary and Slovakia, since – as we have pointed out – the new state was torn out
of the territory of the historical Hungary. This similarity can be seen especially
well when comparing macroeconomic data. Similarities and differences can best be
illustrated by comparing the different indexes of development of the former 15
member states of the European Union and the 8 new member states that joined in
2004 (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Economic development of the old and new member states on the basis
of their GDP in 2001
25000
23200
120
EURO
EU-15 %
100
20000
16000
80
15000
13300
11900
7700
11100
60
9800
8700
9200
10000
40
5000
20
0
0
EU-15
CZ
EE
HU
LT
LV
PL
SI
SK
Note: Cz: the Czech Republic, EE: Esthonia, HU: Hungary, LT: Latvia, LV: Lithuania, PL: Poland,
SL: Slovenia, SK: Slovakia.
Source: Statistics in focus, 2002.
All the new member states are similar to each other (average: €10,963) rather
than to the old member states, which have much higher economic performance
(average: €23,200). Of the new member states Hungary (€11,900) and Slovakia
(€11,100) show a similar degree of development.
Like all accession states, Hungary and Slovakia are in a period of transition,
too. In the past one and a half decades we have witnessed continuous and quick
changes. As an example employment could be mentioned, which involves both
social and economic changes. In the past years the internal structure of the
employed has changed. The proportion of those working in agriculture and in
industry has decreased considerably, whereas that of those working in the field of
24
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
services has increased. This is typical of both countries with the proportions being
a bit different. The largest difference can be seen in the proportion of the employed
within the whole population (Table 4).
Table 4
Divisions according to the number of the employed,
schooling and ethnicity, %
Categories
Indicators
Hungary
Slovakia
Proportion of the
agriculture
5.50
5.38
employed in
industry and construction industry
32.86
27.54
services
61.64
67.08
within the population
36.19
51.08
According to
secondary education with a school-leaving exam
19.12
25.62
education:
higher education, with a university degree
9.16
7.87
proportion of those under 16
19.19
20.07
Ethnical
Hungarian
94.40
9.68
proportions
Slovak
0.38
85.79
Gypsy
2.02
1.67
Sources: Data of the national census in 2001. Central Statistical Office Budapest. Štatistický úrad SR
Bratislava.
As regards education the changes have been similar, however, due to the differ-
ences in the educational systems, the proportion of people with secondary educa-
tion is higher in Slovakia than in Hungary. Aging and the decreasing proportion of
young people cause a demographic problem in both countries. What they also have
in common is that both countries have several ethnicities but Hungary is more ho-
mogeneous from this point of view than Slovakia. The proportion of the gypsy
population has increased considerably in both countries, which is indicated by the
official statistics but neither country can provide exact data.
On microregional level, however, there are considerable differences behind
these similarities. The following chapters will show that the differences have their
own internal logic, because it was not the political, economic, social etc. processes
of development that led to them, but the intention controlled from above. Both
Slovak administration and the development of economy have played and are play-
ing an important part in territorial differences. It cannot be objected to, on the con-
trary, it is completely acceptable if a country makes decisions about its future de-
velopment in its own interests, but in this case the decisions have been strongly
motivated by the extraordinary conditions in which the country itself could emerge.
25
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Table 5
Ethnicity and mother tongue in Slovakia according to the national census in 2001
Region
Population
Slovak
Slovak mother
Difference
Hungarian
Hungarian
Difference
tongue
mother tongue
head
head
%
head
%
%
head
%
head
%
%
Pozsony/Bratislava
599,015
546,685
91.26
540,483 90.23
–1.04
27,434
4.58
31,070
5.19
0.61
Nagyszombat/
551,003
553,865
83.65
548,520 82.84
–0.81
130,740 23.73 133,904 24.30
0.57
Trnava
Nyitra/Nitra
713,422
626,746
81.82
596,818 77.91
–3.91
196,609 27.56 211,595 29.66
2.10
Trencsén/Trenčín
605,582
499,761
70.05
482,538 67.64
–2.41
1,058
0.17
1,533
0.25
0.08
Zsolna/Žilina
692,332
716,441
90.69
677,773 85.80
–4.89
660
0.10
915
0.13
0.04
Besztercebánya/
662,121
589,344
97.32
588,974 97.26
–0.06
77,795 11.75
88,377 13.35
1.60
Banská Bystrica
Kassa/ Košice
766,012
407,246
73.91
403,062 73.15
–0.76
85,415 11.15 104,181 13.60
2.45
Eperjes/ Prešov
789,968
674,766
97.46
674,049 97.36
–0.10
817
0.10
1,354
0.17
0.07
Total
5,379,455
4,614,854
85.79
4,512,217 83.88
–1.91
520,528
9.68 572,929 10.65
0.97
Source: National census, 2001. Štatistický úrad SR Bratislava.
26
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
2.2 Administration: conflict of nationalism and rationalism
2.2.1 Administration before 1990
Czechoslovakia, which emerged after the Peace Treaty in 1920, made and later
Slovakia (1939–1945, 1993–) has been introducing remarkably frequent reforms in
the administration system. The reason for this is partly that the changing state
forms affect both the territorial division of administration and the extent to which
competence was taken over by lower levels of administration. This led to signifi-
cant differences between the democratic administration of the bourgeois Czecho-
slovakia and the centralized administration of the communist dictatorship. The
other remarkable factor is that although Czechoslovakia became a state with a lot
of ethnic groups, it manifested itself neither in their ideology, nor in their admini-
stration, nor in their everyday practice. What is more, it was an ambition of the
Czech nationalism to form a homogeneous, one-nationality state, i.e. a state of
Czechoslovak nationality. The most important obstacle of this was the presence of
the German (3,319,000 people, 22.53%) and the Hungarian minorities (719,000
people, 4.89%) according to the national census in 1930. It was typical of the
strong Czech nationalism of the new state (and of the weakness of the Slovak
party) that it was only after a long struggle that they began to recognize the Slovak
ethnicity, too. The new state often changed the territorial division of its administra-
tion in order to develop and strengthen its own power and make other ethnic groups
weaker (Table 6).
Table 6
Administration system in the territory of today’s Slovakia
Year
Large territorial unit
Small territorial unit (district)
1918
8 counties + 12 fragments of counties
97
1920
16 counties
95
1923
6 large counties
77 + Pozsony and Kassa
1928
1 province
77 + Pozsony and Kassa
1939
6 counties
58 + Pozsony
1945
–
77 + Pozsony and Kassa
1949
6 regions
90 + Pozsony and Kassa
1960
3 regions
32
1969
4 regions
36 + Pozsony and Kassa
1991
–
121 small districts (obvod)
1996
8 regions (kraj)
79 districts (okres)
2004
8 regions (kraj)
50 small districts (obvod)
Source: Edited by the author on the basis of Petıcz (1998) and Kocsis (2002).
27
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
After the territories had been occupied, the existing counties were turned into 16
units and then on January 1st 1923 the system of large counties was introduced. Six
large counties were established with new internal boundaries in a way that nowhere
in the eastern, Slovak territories should Hungarian people be in majority (Popély,
1995).
The system of large counties was turned into the system of provinces in 1928.
The eastern part of the Czechoslovakia of the time was divided into two provinces:
Slovakia and Sub-Carpathia. The division into districts remained and the two big
cities, Pozsony [Bratislava] and Kassa [Košice] were also districts. The new system
of administration in the independent Slovak state, which was established in 1939,
restored the system of large counties. Again, there were six counties, their bounda-
ries were modified without the southern territories that had been reannexed to
Hungary.
In 1945 Czechoslovakia was established again, this time without Sub-Carpathia.
The new districts were reorganised, but the counties were not. This, however, did
not bring more democratic conditions for ethnicities, and it was because of the
Beneš-decrees. From January 1949, after the communists had come to power, a
new administration system was introduced again. The six administrative units were
restored again, this time they were called regions. The number of districts in-
creased, but the number of districts with Hungarian majority decreased because
Hungarian people had been deported or intimidated. At the session of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of Slovakia on September 27–29 1948, Viliam
Široký said proudly: ‘As a result of our policy that we have been following since
1945, all our southern districts have overwhelming Slovak majority’ (Popély, 2001.
153).
In the decades of communism administration functioned as the executive organ
of the central power. The so-called national committees (councils) did not apply
the principle of free elections, not even formally. In 1960 there was a large-scale
centralisation. The number of regions decreased to 3 and that of districts to 32. The
boundaries of regions were drawn in a way that it was only in western Slovakia
where the proportion of Hungarian people exceeded 20%, in all other areas it was
lower than 10%. In 1969 Pozsony [Bratislava] was declared a separate region and
four districts were organised within the town.
2.2.2 Administration between 1990 and 2002
It was the revolution in 1989 that made it possible for Czechoslovakia to get rid of
the administrative system of the communist era. The Czech and Slovak National
Council, which was set up after the elections in 1990, abolished the system of na-
tional councils. It introduced a municipality system that was operated on the prin-
28
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
ciple of bourgeois democracy and the multi-party system. Administration and the
elected local governments of towns and villages were separated by the Settlement
Act 369/1990. The administration system of the dictatorship started to be elimi-
nated and the tradition of municipalities restored, but only the level of settlements,
i.e. towns and villages were granted self-governing rights. At the district level of
administration the system of state authorities remained. Since then the extension of
the municipality system has been going on amid continuous political conflicts.
Since 1990, local governments have been entitled to make decisions regarding
the inner organisational and operative order of their own offices in Slovakia, too,
and adjust them to local environment. This was when the three (and from 1969
with Pozsony four) large regions were abolished. The 32 districts established in
1960 and increased to 38 in 1969, existed till 1996, but in 1990 smaller units, small
districts (obvody) were set up within them. Below the district level, the number of
small districts was 121 until June 1996.
The reason why administrative reforms were delayed was that the most impor-
tant event in the Czech home politics was the ambition of Slovak nationalists to
secede. Slovakia, which became independent in 1993, started to reform its admini-
stration applying the centralisation principles of nationalists.
After long debates a new administrative division was introduced in 1996. By re-
forming the administration system, the Slovak nationalist parties governing at that
time established the organisational system of a centralising policy on the one hand
and, on the other hand, with the new division, wanted to make the constituencies of
the opposition weaker. Since the most consistent supporters of reforms were mem-
bers of the Christian Democratic opposition and the political parties representing
Hungarian people, there were several reasons why Hungarians had to be divided.
As the Act 221/1996 and the governmental regulation 285/1996 were of utmost
importance in the history of Slovak administration, we have to emphasize that the
division of the territories inhabited by Hungarian people was only one reason for
the new structure, the other one was of merely political and electoral nature.
The organisation of administration shows that behind the electoral and ethnic
conflicts there is the conflict between the nationalist political groups that support
centralisation and the rational ones that claim for modernisation and want to carry
out reforms. The conflict of Slovak nationalists and rationalists and their joining
forces against Hungarian people provided topics of political debates between them
but while carrying out administrative reforms, the nationalist centralizing ambition
was much more important than differences in economic development, historical
traditions, the needs of the population, the principle of democracy or autonomy.
As a result of long debates the country was divided into 8 regions (kraj) and 79
districts (okres) in 1996. At that time the reform affected only the territorial divi-
sion (Petıcz, 1998; Kocsis, 1996, 2002) (Figure 4).
29
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Figure 4
Boundaries of Slovak regions and districts in 1996
Žilina
Prešov
Trenčin
Banská Bystrica
Košice
Trnava
Nitra
Bratislava
Source: Edited by the author.
The map shows that the Besztercebánya [Banská Bystrica] and Eperjes [Prešov]
regions are disproportionately big compared with other regions. By establishing the
Eperjes [Prešov] region the historical Szepesség [Spiš] (in German: Zips) was split
into two parts because in this region the nationalist parties were defeated both in
the local and in the general elections. At the same time Trencsén [Trenčín] County
was also established from the fractions of several former counties surrounding it,
so that those voting for the Mečiar-party should be rewarded with a new region.
In the case of Besztercebánya [Banská Bystrica] the motive was again the con-
flict between governing party and opposition, but here the opposition, the reform-
ers, the consistent supporters of democratic changes were Hungarian people. That
was the reason why the southern parts mostly inhabited by Hungarian people were
attached to the northern parts with Slovak majority and instead of Rimaszombat
[Rimavská Sobota] (which had been the county seat for centuries) Besztercebánya
[Banská Bystrica], which can be found in the north, in a Slovak area, became the
new centre.
The same principle was applied when the two towns, Nagyszombat [Trnava]
and Nyitra [Nitra] became regional centres and when regions under the same
names were established, with southern settlements with Hungarian majority having
been attached to them. By marking the boundaries of the two latter regions,
Csallóköz, which had Hungarian majority, was split into two big parts, and a small
30
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
third part was attached to the Pozsony [Bratislava] region. By setting up arbitrary
boundaries they succeeded in keeping the proportion of Hungarian people low in
the new administrative division (Table 7).
By continuously changing its administrative system, Slovakia infringed on the
international principle, stipulating the individual countries to refrain from changing
the proportions of ethnicities in the areas inhabited by them, from the policy and
practice of assimilation and they have to make autonomy in administration possible
for ethnicities. These principles are laid down in Article 16 of the Framework Con-
vention for the protection of National Minorities2, Article 15, paragraph 2 item d)
of the Hungarian-Slovak treaty3, and the recommendation Nr. 1201 of the parlia-
mentary general assembly of the European Council4.
The degree and prevalence of Slovak nationalism can be exemplified by the fact
that the extremely nationalistic Mečiar-cabinet signed the Hungarian and Slovak
treaty, because this was how he meant to ensure the invulnerability of the borders
of the new state, (since they think it might be threatened by Hungary). Besides, the
opposition party, the Slovak Democratic Coalition, was willing to sign an electoral
alliance with the Hungarian Coalition Party in 1997 only after the Hungarian party
had made it clear that they were not striving for ethnicity-based territorial auton-
omy (Mátrai, 1999).
Petıcz (1998, 174–206) explains the political motive of the territorial reform
through the example of the division of districts. He analyses thoroughly the size of
districts, the number of their inhabitants, the proportion of Hungarian people, the
growth index of the population between 1921 and 1991 and the distance by road
between the district town and the settlement which is the farthest from it.
2 ‘The Parties shall refrain from measures which alter the proportions of the population in areas
inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities and are aimed at restricting the rights and
freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present framework Convention.’ Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities Strasbourg, 1.II.1995.
3 ‘reaffirming the aims of their general integration policy, the Contracting Parties shall refrain from
policies and practices aimed at assimilation of persons belonging to minorities against their will,
and shall protect these persons from any actions aimed at such assimilation. The Contracting Par-
ties shall refrain from measures that would alter the proportions of the population in areas inhabited
by persons belonging to national minorities and which aim at restricting the rights and freedoms of
those persons that would be to the detriment of the national minorities.’ It is a sign of the debates
about the Hungarian and Slovak treaty that it was signed by the two prime ministers in Paris on
March 19th 1995, but its enactment was delayed. In Hungary it was ratified on June 13th 1995 al-
ready, whereas in Slovakia almost a year later, only on March 26th 1996.
4 Proposal Nr.1201/1993 of the Parliament assembly of the European Council regarding minorities
includes first of all individual rights to use their mother tongue, to remedy minority grievances, to
maintain free relationships with people living in other states, but belonging to the same ethnicity, it
mentions the right to establish minority organisations, political parties included, and finally the
right to territorial autonomy, too, which incited the most heated disputes.
31
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Table 7
The population of Slovak regions and the number and proportion of the Hungarian
ethnicity on the basis of the national census in 2001
Region/kraj
Population
Hungarian people
Difference
according to ethnicity
according to mother
tongue
head
head
%
head
%
%
Pozsony [Bratislava]
599,015
27,434
4.58
31,070
5.19
0.61
Nagyszombat [Trnava]
551,003
130,740
23.73
133,904
24.30
0.57
Nyitra [Nitra]
713,422
196,609
27.56
211,595
29.66
2.10
Trencsén [Trenčín]
605,582
1,058
0.17
1,533
0.25
0.08
Zsolna [Žilina]
692,332
660
0.10
915
0.13
0.04
Besztercebánya
662,121
77,795
11.75
88,377
13.35
1.60
[Banská Bystrica]
Kassa [Košice]
766,012
85,415
11.15
104,181
13.60
2.45
Eperjes [Prešov]
789,968
817
0.10
1,354
0.17
0.07
Total
5,379,455
520,528
9.68
572,929
10.65
0.97
Source: Data of the national census, 2001. Štatistický úrad SR Bratislava.
He claims that an average district in the southern parts of Slovakia is much big-
ger (1003 km2) than an average one in the north (607 km2). The southern districts
are much bigger also as far as the number of their inhabitants is concerned; they
have an average population of 86,758, whereas the northern districts have the aver-
age of only 61,335. 8 out of the 15 southern districts have more than 100,000 in-
habitants. 11 districts inhabited by Hungarian people can be regarded as backward,
so they have decreasing and aging population and are inflicted by a high rate of
unemployment. The government has not made an administrative decision to tackle
these problems, but they did in the case of the four also backward districts with
Slovak majority: their centre became an administrative district town, which made
them possible to have a share of the central development subsidies.
It can also be seen that the towns with merely Slovak inhabitants became dis-
trict towns to a much higher proportion than the towns with Hungarian majority.
The Hungarian towns that had played a central role traditionally were deprived of
their district town status. The boundaries of 79 districts were drawn in such a way
that only two, the Dunaszerdahely [Dunajská Streda] and the Komárom [Komárno]
districts have Hungarian majority. The number of the districts with more than 20%
Hungarian population decreased from 21.1% of the 38 districts before 1996 to
13.9% of the 79 districts after 1996, and some areas that used to be one unit were
split into two (the new Nagyrıce [Revúca] and Rimaszombat [Rimavská Sobota]
32
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
districts). As for the longest distances from the centres by road, there are huge
differences between the districts. In the north, the settlement which is the farthest
from the district town by road is 26,1 km far on the average, and it is 38,6 km in
the south. The most striking example is Nagytárkány [Veľké Trakany] in
Tıketerebes [Trebišov] district, it is 70 km from the district town.
The motive behind the territorial reorganisation was in close connection with
the electoral ambition of the Mečiar right wing. Since the opposition concentrated
first of all in the cities Pozsony [Bratislava], Kassa [Košice] and Eperjes [Prešov] and
in the southern parts, large districts/constituencies were established in these areas.
To the north of the ethnic border, however, the supporters of the governing parties
were granted more, therefore smaller districts/constituencies with a smaller number
of inhabitants. This political division was also the main aspect of appointing ad-
ministrative officials.
Since the change of regime the Hungarian organisations have had well-elabo-
rated ideas about the realisation of exercising individual and collective rights of
national minorities and ethnic groups, as well as the necessity of establishing their
local, regional and national organs of local governments. These proposals have
always been turned down by the Slovak parliament; they have always passed bills
of local governments, which were exclusively in Slovak interests, disregarding any
ethnic needs. The Hungarian ideas about the implementation of institutionalised
equality were turned down in the same way (Duray, 2000).
All this shows that Slovakia is still struggling with ethnicity problems wasting
much of its energy on trying to meet the criteria of a unified national state and the
self-determination of settlements. The population and smaller or bigger groups of
inhabitants are of much less importance. The changes in administration made for
nationalist purposes break traditional connections, interdependence and create su-
perfluous tensions in the population, distracting attention from building a welfare
society and hinder regionalisation according to social and economic needs (Table 8).
Since 1990 Slovakia has been on the way to a strong constitutional state, which
means that local governments may do what law does not forbid, but state authori-
ties may only do what law requires. The strengthening process of local govern-
ments and a gradual withdrawal of government offices have started. The whole
process, however, is contradictory as is shown by some critical opinions, according
to which Slovak administration is like a man-faced Centaur (more correctly: Janus-
face), which is outwardly (visibly) West and inwardly (invisibly) Byzantium.5
5 The Hungarian Coalition Party disapproves of the reform of administration being a Centaur law: a
man-faced animal, outwardly West and inwardly Byzantium. I do hope that the state, which we are
all representatives of, will not overrule its own citizens’ A remark by Béla Bugár in the discussion
of the Slovak parliament on 26 August 2001. From Új Szó, 27 August 2001.
33
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Table 8
Territorial units of administration in Slovakia between 1996 and 2001
Slovak
English
pcs
Function
NUTS I
straná
state
1
Legislative and executive central
power
NUTS II
region
4
Regional statistical unit, administra-
tive region
NUTS III
kraj
county, region
8
– Administrative unit
HTU (Higher Territorial
– Regional office
Unit)
– Planned but not realised (county)
organ of local government
NUTS IV
okres
district
79
Administrative unit, district office
NUTS V
obec +
municipality
2878
Local government +
mesto
Its own office
Source: Edited by the author on the basis of Negotiation (2000).
The bourgeois government that came to power in 1998 decided to reform the
public administration system. In autumn 1999 a parliamentary and social debate
started about administrative reforms. It was by 2000 that the parties had managed
to agree on the most important principles and aims. According to these, the estab-
lishment of administrative organs had to be completed and most competencies had
to be delegated to those that are concerned with the method of subsidiarity, i.e. on
the principle of self-government so that the activity of state organs should be re-
stricted to control and supervision. These were the ideas to which the self-
governing levels were adjusted, because according to their plans regional
development, health care, education, cultural institutions and social affairs would
be dealt with on the regional self-governing level.
Most debates, however, were not about the content of the reforms, i.e. transfer
of political responsibility of the central power, self-governing duties and compe-
tencies, or the financial resources allocated for these purposes, but rather about the
number, territory and boundaries of the regional municipality units that were to be
established. The Slovak parties of the coalition were for setting up 12 counties, a
solution which completely disregarded the interests of the Hungarian people (11
counties and Pozsony [Bratislava]), whereas the Hungarian Coalition Party wanted
to be granted the concession to establish at least one county with Hungarian major-
ity from 6 districts in southern Slovakia, with Komárom [Komárno] as its centre
(Kocsis, 2002).
It was obvious that, if extreme parties should come to power, the last hope of
the democratic forces could be decentralisation, which would be the only way to
34
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
prevent the establishment of an authoritarian state. For this purpose the constitution
was amended and self-governing principles were extended to regional level. 64–
71§ of the constitution determined the principles for both levels: independent self-
governing rights, legal bodies, their own properties, and their own funds. State
organs may require the performance of certain duties only to the extent enacted by
law. They have their own elected bodies and the execution of state functions can be
delegated to them.
After this, on July 4th 2001 the parliament passed the two bills regarding elec-
tions and municipalities of higher regional units (municipality regions), launching
the reform of administration in this way. The boundaries of regional administration
and regional municipalities remained the same, the Mečiar boundaries remained
unchanged.
The elections were held in December 2002. The administrative boundaries
proved to be ’successful’, because nowhere, except for Nyitra County, was the
proportion of Hungarian people enough for the victory. The electoral law was also
’successful’ because the general elections had only one round, except when elect-
ing the president, when in the second round Slovak parties managed to join forces
against the Hungarian candidate, who had been successful before.
The 1999 Act on the use of languages has also proved to be successful. The mi-
nority use of languages was put on the agenda of the government that came to
power in 1998, because the enactment of this act was one of the preconditions of
Slovakia being invited to the accession negotiations with the ten future member
states. The act makes it possible for the people belonging to any of the minorities to
use their own mother tongue when arranging official affairs if their proportion in
the given settlement is at least 20%. This, however, does not make it possible for
them to exercise their rights to use their own language in district or county towns,
too, because their ethnicity proportion should be at least 20% there, too.
The act is also restrictive regarding the elected representatives of local govern-
ments in the settlements where minorities are in majority because according to the
act the agreement of ’everybody present’ is necessary in such cases, so occasional
visitors may influence the use of language. The use of language in settlements with
Hungarian majority is made even more difficult by the fact that employees in of-
fices are not legally obliged to speak the language of the minority (Lanstyák,
1999).
The accession of the two countries, Hungary and Slovakia to the European Un-
ion has brought considerable rapprochement, because the municipality principle
was realized in the administration practice of both countries. This, however, is no
excuse for Slovakia wanting to hinder the self-governing rights of native Hungar-
ian inhabitants in first of all its southern districts in many different ways. With this
Slovakia wants to follow the example of homogeneous national states, for assimi-
lation purposes it also uses the means of administration, refusing the examples that
35
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
countries with heterogeneous ethnic composition provide, like South Tirol (Süd-
Tirol/Alto-Adidge), the Aosta Valley (Val d’Aosta), Friuli-Venezia Giulia in Italy,
Sardinia or Catalunya, Vascongadas in Spain, Galicia, or the autonomous prov-
inces of the Aland Islands in Finland (Kocsis, 2002).
2.3 The effect of economic life on cross-border relations
From the whole system of economy we have chosen three elements to illustrate
their effects on cross-border relations. The first will be the process of how the eco-
nomic life of the territory of today’s Slovakia has changed, what shifts have taken
place in a geographical sense, strongly affecting cross-border relations. The centu-
ries-long north-south direction of economic, commercial and mobility relations
turned into an east-west direction. Next, the asymmetric conditions will be ana-
lysed because, in spite of the efforts made to eliminate them Czechoslovakia split,
proving that neither the Trianon Peace Treaty, nor the existence of Czechoslovakia
was justified. The third issue describes the Slovak way of state-controlled region
establishment, the motive of which, just like that of the continuous changes in ad-
ministration, was Slovak nationalism.
2.3.1 Geographical change in the direction of economic relations
The countries of East-Central Europe had a problem in common, the problem of
joining the economic systems of different great powers, which resulted in several
changes in direction. After World War I, the (new) countries which were estab-
lished after the disintegration of the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy, had to organise
or reorganise their commercial relations, since the succession states, among them
Czechoslovakia, emerged after a protected, mostly self-supporting market had been
broken up.
The most important foreign trade markets of Czechoslovakia, though to a de-
creasing degree, became Austria and Germany. Examining the data of all target
countries it is obvious that Czechoslovakia was making efforts to reduce this one-
sidedness, therefore the participation of the two countries began to decrease and
other Western European countries not involved in the chart (Italy, Great Britain,
France, etc.) were gaining more and more importance (Figure 5).
Comparing the data of foreign trade in the years 1925–1938 and 1975–1985, the
phenomenon that we call change of direction can be seen clearly. The German
dominance between the two World Wars was replaced by the Soviet dominance,
then, after the collapse of the Soviet empire the direction changed again: the main
direction of the goods transported on commercial routes turned to the west again
(Figure 6).
36
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Figure 5
The main foreign trade partners of Czechoslovakia between 1925 and 1938, %
30,00
45,00
40,00
1925
1929
1933
1938
25,00
1925
1929
1933
1938
35,00
20,00
30,00
25,00
15,00
20,00
10,00
15,00
10,00
5,00
5,00
0,00
0,00
A
D
GB
US
F
H
PL
YU
Ro
A
D
GB
US
F
H
PL
YU
Ro
Source: Magyarország exportpiacai. 1934.
Figure 6
The main foreign trade partners of Czechoslovakia between 1975 and 1985, %
40,00
40,00
35,00
1975
1980
1985
35,00
1975
1980
1985
30,00
30,00
25,00
25,00
20,00
20,00
15,00
15,00
10,00
10,00
5,00
5,00
0,00
0,00
A
D
GB
F
H
PL
YU
Ro
SU/Rus
A
D
GB
F
H
PL
YU
Ro
SU/Rus
Note: The German data in the diagrams unite the data of West and East Germany of the age and
also those of West Berlin, though in the beginning the former GDR played the decisive role.
The proportion of East and West German foreign trade had become equal by 1985.
Source: Facts (1985, 1991).
37
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
38
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
From all this we may conclude to the economic reason of the disintegration of
the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy: at the end of the 19th century the European
market did not allow that a region, the size of an empire should form a separate
economic unit. In the age of capitalistic economic competition, free competition
and big, global monopolies it wanted to liberate this isolated market. This was how
the empire disintegrated, which caused a lot of harm politically, as it enforced the
interests of the victorious powers by sweeping aside the principle of ethnicity.
While achieving its economic aim, i.e. it encouraged the emergence of a lot of
independent economic units, which all were attracted by the western countries
(Figure 7–8).
Slovakia’s foreign trade has an east-west direction nowadays, too. Its most
important partners are Germany, the Czech Republic and Russia. This tradition
started as early as in 1918 in Czechoslovakia, when the country turned to first of all
Germany, giving up its traditional southern (Austrian, but mainly Hungarian
business and commercial) relations. Naturally, in the decades of communism
eastern foreign relations were stronger, and the Mečiar-era preserved them.
As far as its foreign trade partners are concerned, the independent Slovakia is
very different from Czechoslovakia. On the one hand the Czech Republic is a much
more important partner for Slovakia, than Slovakia for the Czech Republic, and on
the other hand the importance of Russia is also larger. The dominance of the
western orientation, however is inevitable in Slovakia, too.
From the figures it is obvious that, after 1990, both countries had Germany as
their main trading partner and that the majority of other countries involved in their
trade are also European countries. In the case of Slovakia 50.3% of all exports go
to European countries, 78.8% to OECD countries, 60.5% of all imports come from
European countries and 91.5% from OECD countries. The European Union has
become the new framework within which the presence of other countries makes it
possible to control and dissolve the dominance of individual countries, (especially
that of Germany).
This change in the orientation of foreign trade shows also the fact that the
reason why these countries have a comparatively low degree of economic relations
with each other is not simply the nationalism of some peoples, nations, policies or
states. The reason for this is rather that, so as to be separated from and be
independent of each other, (this process started as early as in the 19th century and
was completed after World War I), those countries chose to serve first the
economic and political interests of large European (German, then Soviet) empires,
and then the European commercial interests determined by the European Union
and globalisation.
Strengthening this ever-changing network towards Hungary’s neighbours, too
and increasing the level of the commercial relations e.g. between Slovakia and
Hungary will be the result of patient, continuous, hard work. This could happen
39
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Figure 7
The main foreign trade partners of Czech-Slovakia between 1990 and 2000, %
40,00
35,00
35,00
1990
1995
2000
30,00
1990
1995
2000
30,00
25,00
25,00
20,00
20,00
15,00
15,00
10,00
10,00
5,00
5,00
0,00
0,00
A
D
GB
F
H
PL
YU
Ro
SU/Rus
SR
A
D
GB
F
H
PL
YU
Ro
SU/Rus
SR
Note: The 1990 data in the diagram are those of the united Czechoslovakia. The data of the years
1995 and 2000 refer to the independent Czech Republic.
Sources: Yearbook of the Cz, 2002; Yearbook of the SR, 2002.
Figure 8
The main foreign trade partners of Slovakia between 1998 and 2002, %
35,00
30,00
30,00
1998
2000
2002
25,00
1998
2000
2002
25,00
20,00
20,00
15,00
15,00
10,00
10,00
5,00
5,00
0,00
0,00
D
CZ
A
PL
H
RUS
UA
D
CZ
A
PL
H
RUS
UA
Source: Yearbook of the Cz, 2002; Yearbook of the SR, 2002.
40
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
within the framework of the Visegrád Cooperation, which was an idea of Hungar-
ian politicians. Their idea has been justified by the unexpected results of EU nego-
tiations with future member states, the inequality between old and new member
states.
To sum it up, it can be stated that significant changes have taken place since
1920 not only in the succession states but also in world economy, this is why new
systems of regional relations have emerged. The main direction of the new rela-
tions is no longer north-south, they do not affect a smaller geographical unit, the
Carpathian Basin, but rather follow a large-scale east-west direction. This change
in economic and geographical direction influences cross-border relations the most,
this is why it can be stated that cross-border relations have been exposed and sub-
ordinated to asymmetric conditions. They will be able to exist in the shadow of
large, national relations, because they will not be strengthened by north-south,
Hungarian and Slovak regionalisation.
If we want to raise hope, we have to emphasize that an extremely strong
macroregional (economic and commercial) east-west mobility will have to be ex-
panded into north-south direction in the future. This is the precondition of the re-
covery of cross-border relations.
2.3.2 Asymmetric conditions in the different parts of the country
After being established, Czechoslovakia’s most important economic aim was to
form an independent economic unit belonging to an independent state, to adjust
economic life to the acquired territory, even at the expense of eliminating or at
least restricting traditional, centuries-long relations considerably.
It created difficulties for the new state that there were asymmetries, different
levels of development. The Czech part of the country had a much higher level of
development than the other provinces. 57.7% of all those employed worked in the
industry, but the proportion of those working in the services was also at least twice
as high as elsewhere. Compared with the Czech parts, Slovakia was a relatively
underdeveloped, agricultural region and apart from forestry, there was no other
remarkable economic activity in Sub-Carpathia at all. Moravia was somewhere
between the levels of development of the Czech and Slovak parts, but as for its
proportions it was rather similar to the Czech parts (Table 9).
Machine production, textile, iron and metal industry of the Czech region were
world famous. The Skoda-works possessed more than 30% of the capital of the
most important 131 joint stock companies of the whole country. According to the
market value in 1934, 60.6% of the textile industry was located in Sudeten German
41
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
and Těšín Polish areas. 93.8% of all brown coal production was in the Sudeten,
which provided the basis for its machine industry (Csehszlovákia II.).
Table 9
The rate of the employed in different parts of the country, %
Branches
The Czech
Moravia
Slovakia
Sub-
Total
Republic
Carpathia
(thousand people)
Agriculture
33.69
20.09
37.50
8.73
4,859
Forestry
30.45
17.28
28.81
23.46
243
Industry
57.70
28.27
12.34
1.69
5,147
Services
55.05
24.64
17.22
3.09
4,274
Source: Csehszlovákia II.
Czechoslovakia had the ambition of giving preference to the succession states
of Hungary, (the so-called Little Entente states) over Hungary in the case of most
agricultural products; what is more, it wanted to achieve autarky, too. The southern
parts of the Slovak territories were gradually becoming the granary of the country
and the Czech processing industry utilized the Slovak mining products. This was
how the uneven development of the Slovak regions started since, in competition
with the traditionally stronger Czech industry, the existing Slovak industry was in a
difficult situation.
In the consolidation period of the new state the Czech bourgeois classes
disregarded the needs of the more backward Slovak areas. At that time there was
no political ambition to eliminate the regional differences. In the common state,
asymmetric conditions remained and resulted in labour division between the
different parts of the country. The Slovak province became the complementary
economy of the Czech industry, or we may also say that the Czech province
colonised Slovakia.
During the communist rule, in the period from 1948 to 1962 the forced
development of heavy industry brought a boom, this was when Slovak regions
were industrialised and urbanised. This, however served the aspirations of an
external power for world hegemony. The Soviet Union, with the help of the
Warsaw Treaty, suppressed the renewal attempt in 1968 cruelly, the oil price
explosion in 1973 slowed down the already slow economic growth, and the 1980s
brought the collapse of both the political system and the extensive economic
policy. As a result of the one-sidedness of industrialisation a monocultural structure
emerged, i.e. thousands of people worked in the factories of some favoured
branches. Factories employing more than 500 people gave 95% of the industrial
42
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
production. In the background the munitions industry was strongly developed. In
1987 Czechoslovakia was the seventh largest exporter of arms in the world (Sidó
H., 2004, 53–54).
If the Czech industry regarded the Slovak province as a source of raw materials
between the two World Wars, then we may say that it was the Czech people that
paid for the communist development of industry on the Slovak side. This
asymmetry of conditions between the two parts of the country, and the question of
who was the giver and who was the recipient, who gained more and when were the
topics of endless debates in Czech and Slovak public life and it all led to the
separation of the country.
2.3.3 The effect of intended regionalisation
As a result of local and regional development policy, a new territorial division was
introduced in the decades of the communist era. Forced industrial development
(mining, heavy industry, munitions industry) was combined with urban develop-
ment, with the aim of establishing a working class (and intelligentsia) that were
loyal to the existing system. The Slovak part of the country was developed at a
surprisingly quick rate until the 1970s.
The forced rate of industrialization had industrial and strategic reasons. The po-
litical aim was to do away with the backwardness of the Slovak part of the country,
and the military, strategic aim was the development of munitions industry. Most of
the munitions factories were set up in the Vág Valley, in towns with Slovak popu-
lation (Figure 9).
That was how the former structure of Felvidék changed. Except for large towns
(Pozsony [Bratislava], Kassa [Košice], Nagyszombat [Trnava], Nyitra [Nitra]),
most traditional industrial and commercial centres had lost their importance in the
19th century, or even earlier. As a result of forced heavy industrial machine pro-
duction new industrial centres emerged: Vágbeszterce [Považká Bystrica], Mária-
tölgyes [Dubnica nad Váhom], Túrócszentmárton [Martin], Garamszentkereszt
[Žiar nad Hronom], Zsolna [Žilina], Simony [Partizánske], Vágújhely [Nové Mesto
nad Váhom]. The map shows clearly that no southern towns or southern settle-
ments are included in the list. In South Slovakia there was munitions industry only
in Komárom, but it was of much less significance (Sidó H., 2004).
Heavy industry was not an organic part of a general economic development; it
remained separate within the country, as well. It had provided jobs and welfare as
long as the country had belonged to the Soviet sphere of interest, after that the re-
gion was inflicted by a crisis.
It was in the golden age of industrial development that the reform of the previ-
ously complementary Czech and Slovak economy took place. Due to the extensive
43
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
industrial development, the northern industrial and the southern agrarian regions
were soon following a different way of development within Slovakia. This differ-
ence remained after 1989 as well, what is more, the new investments make this di-
vision even stronger. It is the deep crisis of heavy industry and the huge labour
force of the munitions industry that forces the Slovak regional development to try
to relieve the crisis by developing former industrial centres. The rate of unem-
ployment being high, employing the large labour force that is present in a concen-
trated way is an especially important task. With the concentration of the population
and the expertise provided, developers are urged to transform this previously heavy
industrial region into the centre of development to relieve the crisis.
Figure 9
Traditional and new industrial centres in Slovakia
Žilina
Pov Bystrica
Ružomberok
Dubnica
Prešov
Martin
Trenčin
Nové Mesto n. V.
Banská Bystrica
Bánovce
Košice
Žiar nad Hronom
Trnava
Bratislava
Nitra
t raditional industrial
tradicional industrial centres
centres
n
n e
e w
w i i
nn
d d
u u
st st
ri r
al i a
c l
e ce
ntr n
est res
Source: Edited by the author on the basis of Sidó H. (2004).
These efforts coincide with the conception of the European Union as well. The
Union emphasizes the importance of increasing competitiveness, rather than elimi-
nating backwardness. This development strategy is based on the assumption that
economic growth in innovated areas will have an impact on other regions, too.
Slovak regional development seizes the opportunity to reconstruct this region,
which can provide sufficient expertise but is now in crisis, and develop it into an
innovation centre enjoying the support of the Union. This plan is made easier by
the fact that the EU has declared the whole country underdeveloped, so it belongs
to level Objective 1, and is not divided into further development regions. Conse-
44
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
quently, Slovak regional development has freedom of action because the whole
country is a development area and they can chose regions to develop without ex-
ternal interference. As a consequence, the Slovak National Development Plan does
not include an internal territorial division either; i.e. it is not concerned with re-
gions.
Slovak regional development is now consolidating its previous crisis area. This
explains the location of new automobile factories and other industrial units, as well
as the geographical distribution of the infrastructural investments serving them.
The internal division of labour between the industrial, economically dynamic
northern part with its highly developed infrastructure and the agricultural southern
areas, which emerged in the 1940s and 1950s, still prevails in Slovakia. However,
this division, difference, asymmetry and lack of balance is hardly, if at all, shown
by statistics because the regional data are collected on the level of regions and
county municipalities. On the other hand, the geographical distribution of industrial
centres show that, with the exception of the region of Eperjes [Prešov], there is
some kind of industrial unit or service sector in all the regions, which changes and
improves the statistics of the region as a whole and also shows a slope from the
west to the east (Bucek, 2000) (Figure 10).
Figure 10
The most important multinational investors in Slovakia
1 investor
2-3 investors
4-6 investors
more then 6 investors
Source: Commercial Office. Bratislava. 2004. Edited by the author.
45
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
On the map, a semicircle shows the geographical area of the settlements pre-
ferred by investors. The table including the data of the Commercial Office of Brati-
slava shows the number of investors according to regions and the settlement of the
region that has been the most popular with multinational companies, where most
investments have been made. The advantage of the three western regions (Pozsony
[Bratislava], Nagyszombat [Trnava], Nyitra [Nitra]) is unquestionable. In compari-
son with them, only few foreign enterprises can be found in the other regions (Ta-
ble 10).
Table 10
The division of the most important investors according to regions
and the location of the majority of investments
Region
Number of
Settlements with the highest number
pcs
investors
of investments
Pozsony [Bratislava]
15
Pozsony [Bratislava]
14
Nagyszombat [Trnava]
25
Nagyszombat [Trnava]
11
Nyitra [Nitra]
18
Nyitra [Nitra]
10
Trencsén [Trenčín]
15
Privigye
3
Besztercebánya [Banská Bystrica]
13
Besztercebánya [Banská Bystrica]
4
Zsolna [Žilina]
20
Liptószentmiklós [Liptovský Mikulaš]
6
Eperjes [Prešov]
20
Eperjes [Prešov]
6
Kassa [Košice]
19
Nagymihály [Michalovce]
6
Total
145
60
Source: Commercial Office. Bratislava. 2004.
The network of roads also shows the north-southern division of Slovakia. The
formerly existing road network was already unfavourable for southern settlements,
and the motorways that are being built now are creating an especially disadvanta-
geous situation because they are to be found in the northern part of the country, and
they are definitely connecting the economically prospering areas, too (Figure 11).
As for the road network on both sides of the border, it can be stated that on the
Hungarian side of the border along the Danube, the communication system is fa-
vourable for the whole country. But on the Slovak side the settlements of Csallóköz
are in an especially disadvantageous situation, and so are settlements to the east of
the River Ipoly, on both sides of the border.
To sum it up, the north-southern division of Slovakia can be demonstrated with
the help of the indicators of demography, ethnic composition, education and em-
ployment. We consider the 16 southern districts as Southern Slovakia, the 63 dis-
46
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
tricts to the north of it as Northern Slovakia. The proportions show the agricultural
character of the southern and the more industrialised character of the northern dis-
tricts clearly. The population in the 16 southern districts lives under more disad-
vantageous economic conditions. The two regions of completely different nature
are divided into administrative regions in a way that makes their statistical figures
show similarities (Table 11).
Figure 11
Road network in the counties along the Slovak border
in Slovakia and Hungary
SR
H
motorway
E-road
Source: Edited by the author.
47
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Table 11
The most important indicators of the north-southern division in Slovakia
Indicators
Northern Slovakia, 63 districts
Southern Slovakia, 16 districts
Slovakia
number of
%
scattering
number of
%
scattering
%
scattering
inhabitants
inhabitants
Employed
Agriculture
89,053
4.40
3.24
59,900
7.96
2.73
5.38
1,98
people
Industry and construction
573,148
28.32
7.00
188,766
25.10
4.22
27.54
6,72
industry
Service sector
1,361,318
67.27
7.27
503,412
66.94
4.60
67.08
7,52
Total
2,023,519
100.00
0.00
752,078
100.00
0.00
100.00
0,00
Schooling
Secondary education
1,045,497
26.46
3.14
347,712
23.48
1.90
25.65
1,93
Higher education
343,994
8.71
2.99
85,776
5.79
1.80
7.91
3,68
Children
Under 16
798,942
20.22
3.13
290,582
19.62
1.70
20.07
2,49
Ethnic
Slovak
3,725,153
94.27
7.26
929,498
62.81
19.17
85.79
10,23
groups
Hungarian
41,790
1.06
2.75
489,291
33.06
19.82
9.68
10,84
Gypsy
56,741
1.44
2.11
33,218
2.24
2.12
1.67
1,64
Population
3,951,421
100.00
0.00
1,479,859
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Source: Commercial Office. Bratislava. 2004.
48
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
3 The condition of cross-border relations on the
Hungarian-Slovak border
Cross-border relations are of great importance because, owing to the differences,
asymmetries and the new directions of gravitation in Hungarian–Slovak relations,
there is not much hope for the revival of the cooperation in the large region, the
Carpathian Basin. It is cross-border cooperation that will have utmost importance
in the Carpathian Basin in the future, instead. The former administrative, ethno-
graphic and regional types of cooperation will be stronger, but the relationship
between the two countries will not develop into a regional, cross-border kind of
labour division, they will never become complementary economies. Below, the
present situation of such local relations will be discussed.
After the international collapse of communism, there were several chances of
organising cross-border relations again. Slovakia turned hopefully to Austria, which
had belonged to the enemy’s side before, because this country was „their only west-
ern” neighbour. The relations with the Czech Republic returned to normal flow after
the separation, which means the development of a special kind of foreign relations.
The Czech Republic is a neighboring foreign country, but the two countries have
established such close relations with each other that they can almost be regarded as
internal relations. The historical borders and the historical relations with Poland
have been preserved. These had been developed by the Hungarians for a thousand
years, so Slovakia only inherited them, just like the good neighbouring relations
with the Czechs. Owing to the internal problems of the Ukraine and the backward-
ness of the eastern parts of Slovakia, cooperation between them is negligible.
In a historical sense, the Hungarian-Slovak relations are most complicated. Re-
discovering the historical patterns of coexistence draws attention to the possibilities
of regional Hungarian-Slovak cooperation. The Hungarian-Slovak border section
provides the opportunity for it, as this is the longest section of all Slovak borders.
There is a good chance of developing good relations here, similar to those with the
Czechs.
3.1 The most important characteristics of the Hungarian–Slovak
borderland
As a result of research into cross-border relations, important works analysing the
geographical and social conditions of the areas on the two sides of the border have
been published in recent years. The books by Attila Hevesi and Károly Kocsis
(2003) give a comprehensive survey of both sides of the border. The monograph on
Southern Slovakia focuses on the 16 Slovak districts with Hungarian population
(Horváth, 2004) (Figure 12).
49
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Figure 12
Hungarian counties and Slovak Regions along the Hungarian–Slovak border
SR
Žilina
Prešov
Trenčin
Košice
Košice
Trnava
Banská Bystrica
Bratislava
Borsod-Abaúj-
Zemplén
Nitra
Miskolc
Szabolcs-Szatmár-
Nógrád
Bereg
Heves
Gyır-Moson-
Komárom-
Sopron
Esztergom
Hajdú-Bihar
Jász-Nagykun-
Vas
Pest
Fejér
Szolnok
Veszprém
H
Zala
Békés
Bács-Kiskun
Tolna
Somogy
Csongrád
Baranya
Source: Edited by the author.
Table 12 includes the census figures of the five Slovak regions and the six Hun-
garian counties. The data concerning the region of Pozsony [Bratislava] and Pest
County also include the data of the capitals.
The whole of Slovakia is less industrialised than Hungary. The southern regions
along the Hungarian border are even less industrialised, since there is a high num-
ber of agricultural districts there. The proportion of those employed in the service
sector is high in both countries, but it is increased mainly by the two capitals. As
regards the proportion of those employed compared with the whole population the
advantage of Slovakia is obvious. As far as the educational level is concerned,
there are more people with secondary education in the Slovak regions but in the
northern counties of Hungary the proportion of professionals is higher. In the Slo-
vak regions there are more young people, but only in comparison with the
neighbouring Hungarian counties, because in the southern districts of Slovakia the
proportion of the younger generation is lower.
50
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Table 12
The most important figures of the regions and counties along the border, %
Region/county
Agricul-
Industry
Service
Proportion of Secondary
Higher
Children
Hunga-
Gypsy
Slovak
ture
sector
the employed
education education under 16
rian
population
Pozsony [Bratislasva]
7.34
26.42
66.24
55.32
29.80
17.04
16.09
4.58
0.13
91.26
Nagyszombat [Trnava]
6.12
29.01
64.87
51.20
24.01
6.04
18.79
23.73
0.57
73.91
Nyitra [Nitra]
7.62
27.56
64.82
50.59
24.00
6.47
18.30
27.56
0.66
70.05
Besztercebánya
7.34
26.42
66.24
50.11
25.77
7.01
19.36
11.75
2.34
83.65
[Banská Bystrica]
Kassa [Košice]
5.68
22.74
71.58
51.76
26.07
7.51
21.47
11.15
3.89
81.82
The 5 regions together
5.68
24.12
70.21
51.08
25.89
8.67
18.93
15.74
1.64
80.03
Slovakia
5.38
27.54
67.08
51.08
25.62
7.87
20.07
9.68
1.67
85.79
Gyır-Moson-Sopron
5.77
39.50
54.73
42.08
17.84
6.68
21.98
95.61
0.38
0.04
Komárom-Esztergom
4.39
45.33
50.28
39.16
19.86
8.60
18.67
94.12
0.84
1.61
Pest
1.50
25.18
73.32
40.63
17.77
7.25
19.03
92.40
0.93
0.46
Nógrád
3.01
43.54
53.44
32.99
18.66
7.03
19.65
96.03
4.52
1.58
Heves
5.60
38.71
55.69
33.78
17.10
5.77
19.27
95.95
3.88
0.22
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén
3.88
34.32
61.79
28.12
24.21
14.35
16.93
96.58
6.26
0.30
The 6 counties together
2.68
30.47
66.85
37.96
21.75
11.35
18.27
95.01
2.75
0.64
Hungary
5.50
32.86
61.64
36.19
19.12
9.16
19.19
94.40
2.02
0.38
Sources: Data of the national census, 2001. KSH Budapest; Štatistický úrad SR Bratislava.
51
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Both countries show a mixed ethnic structure, but Hungary is more homogene-
ous, the proportion of the inhabitants belonging to the majority is higher. The Hun-
garian and Slovak population as dominant ethnic groups are in majority in all the
counties and regions of the two countries. There is a high number of Hungarians in
the regions along the Danube, but to the east of the River Ipoly the continuous zone
with Hungarian population is broken. On the Hungarian side, scattered Slovak
ethnic groups can be found. Figures show that in the northern counties of Hungary,
to the east of the Ipoly there are more Gypsy inhabitants compared with the na-
tional average. Similarly, on the Slovak side the highest proportion of the Gypsy
ethnicity can be found in the region of Kassa [Košice] spreading along the border
and in the large region of Besztercebánya [Banská Bystrica]. On the two sides of
the Danube there are much fewer Gypsies.
3.2 The practice of border crossing
The Hungarian-Slovak border shows a type of cross-border relations where there is
a possibility of rediscovering the important, mutually beneficial forms of coopera-
tion that already existed before 1918, when there were no borders, and such rela-
tions were simply the consequence of coexistence. The whole length of the border,
which was established on January 1st 1993 and surrounds Slovakia, is 1,672 km
long and divides Slovakia from five countries. The number of border stations is the
result of decades-long separation. Openness towards the Czech Republic, strong
isolation from all the other neighbours: this situation has not changed much since
that time (Table 13).
On the 106 km-long section of the Austrian border there were three border
stations, now this number has increased to five, since this is the busiest section of
the Slovak border. The whole westward traffic of the country goes through these
border stations. The Slovak state is traditionally open towards the Czech Republic,
moreover, they are planning to open new border stations in the following years. In
fact, they are trying to make all their former roads suitable for such purposes. The
other extreme example is the relations maintained with the Ukraine. The border
station on this section is Ágcsernyı [Čierna]. The circulation of all the Slovak-
Ukrainian commodities takes place at this border station. For passenger traffic two
more border stations are provided, Felsınémeti [Vyšné Nemecké] and Ugar
[Ubľa]. The relatively small number of border stations towards Poland is not
surprising, because this is really a regional border in a geographical sense, since it
has always separated the people living on the two sides of the Carpathians. It has
remained a political border for centuries, since it is very difficult to cross it.
The 17 Hungarian border stations represent a low middle-rate level, as the
average distance here is 39.1 km. However, there had never been a regional
52
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
(geographical, social, administrative, political, etc.) border here before; there had
been close, everyday relations with different sorts of roads and paths. We can
mention the River Ipoly [Ipeľ] as an example. The two sides of the river had
originally been connected by 47 bridges on the 160-km long section, which was
only declared a national border by the Peace Treaty, which ended World War I in
1920. These bridges were demolished by the Czechoslovak government. Only three
of them have been rebuilt since then. So the Ipoly has become a border river as
well as a river paralysing natural human life.6
Table 13
Sections of the Slovak Border and Possibilities of Vehicular Border Crossing
National borders
The length of
Number
Average distance
Number
Average distance
the border
of border
between border
of border
between border
(km)
stations
stations
stations
stations (km)
(pcs)
(km)
(pcs)
2001
2004
Poland
541.1
11
49.2
11
49.2
Czech Republic
251.8
16
15.7
16
15.7
Austria
106.7
3
35.6
5
21.3
Hungary
664.7
17
39.1
17
39.1
Ukraine
98.5
1
98.5
2
49.3
Total
1,662.8
48
35.6
51
33.4
Source: http://www.minv.sk/uhcp.
As a consequence of the accession, Hungary has started negotiations with the
Slovak partner, to find out where they could make border crossing possible. This is
necessary because sometimes there is a small distance between settlements close to
the border and there are roads overgrown with weeds that could be used after being
repaired. On the Hungarian-Slovak section of the border, which became an internal
border after the expansion of the European Union, a group of experts named 84
potential border stations.7 On the section belonging to Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén
6 On the basis of the closing declaration made at the discussion „Ipoly-hidak” (Ipoly-Bridges) on
October 25th 2003, organised by Ipeľský Euroregión, which had been established by communities
and civil organizations of the Slovak Republic along the border.
Source: www.ipelregion@changenet.sk
7 Az Európai Unióhoz történı csatlakozás utáni belsı határvonalakon a közúti átkelési lehetıségek
sőrítésének vizsgálata. Kivonat, 6. kötet. TETTHELY Mérnöki és Szolgáltató Kft. Budapest, 2004.
(Possibilities of Increasing the Number of Vehicular Border-crossings after the Accession to the
European Union. Excerpt, Volume 6. TETTHELY Engineering and Service Ltd. Budapest, 2004).
53
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
county, the existing 6 border stations could be expanded to 21, 10 further potential
border stations could be opened along the Danube, besides the five existing ones,
and the existing 5 border stations in Pest and Nógrád counties could also be made
12.
3.3 Twin-settlement relations
Some settlements had to face new problems after the new municipality system had
been introduced. As a consequence of the democratic changes, each settlement has
become politically independent, which also means that they have become responsi-
ble for their own level of development. They have also been provided an opportu-
nity to carry out their development projects in cooperation with other settlements.
There were twin-town relations in the past as well. This was a popular form of
the affected friendship between the communist parties of different countries. These
representative, official and authorized relations were developed with the permis-
sion of central party organisations, and were confined first of all to cultural and
sports activities. Since the change of system in 1990, these kinds of cooperation
have been formed with new intentions, this time on a voluntary basis.
It was a new impulse for Hungarian-Slovak relations and the relations of set-
tlements, when, after 1998, the extremely nationalist government was replaced by
the bourgeois right wing in Slovakia. The European Union also encouraged the
intensification of cross-border relations and supported it financially with its
PHARE CBC-project.
One third of the relations between Slovak towns is the consequence of the
original system of relations in Hungary, whereas, at present, the proportion of rela-
tions developed with different towns of the European Union is much lower. The
relations with Hungarian twin-settlements are especially strong in the case of vil-
lages. The reason for that is that the majority of the southern settlements along the
border are inhabited by mostly Hungarian people. For them Hungarian relations are
of crucial importance. On the other hand, even if it is a village with purely Slovak
population, it can solve their disadvantageous situation only in cooperation with a
Hungarian settlement on the other side of the border.
As for the wide zone along the border, we may say that the closer a settlement is
to a border, the more likely it is that there are relatives living on the other side. On
the Hungarian side there are many people who were expelled from Czechoslovakia
after World War II so that an ethnically homogenous state should be established.
These people often go back to their relatives who have stayed there. There are
many people who would like to reduce ethnic oppression, by expressing their soli-
darity, that is why they take every opportunity to cooperate. As a result of the
strongly mixed ethnic structure of the population, there are Slovaks living on the
54
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Hungarian side as well, though in limited numbers. They also try to maintain their
relations with their relatives on the other side of the border. Finally, mention must
be made of those who try to develop relations simply for practical reasons, mostly
because there are goods that are cheaper or only available on the other side, etc.
One of the biggest problems of the settlements close to the border is vehicular
isolation. That is why it is in the interests of these settlements to repair bridges and
roads running across the border. Settlements along the border must coordinate their
communal developments so as to find the easiest and cheapest technical solutions
for waste disposal or sewage disposal.
Twin-settlement relations are expanding on a territorial basis; they are being or-
ganised into regional cooperation. There are several reasons for the regionalisation
of twin-settlement relations, such as the intention of expanding gravity zones, so as
to organise tourism in a better way, protect the environment and reservoir areas or
waste disposal, etc. In such cases the basis of cooperation is belonging to the same
area. This area can be a genuine natural area, or it can be a former administrative
unit, e.g. a county. In such cases the relations between the settlements of the former
county are restored. Cooperation can also be based on economic interests, when
e.g. a mineral deposit and a processing plant are on the different sides of the bor-
der. It is also easier to find financial resources for individual demands of settle-
ments when several settlements join forces. When relations are becoming regional,
towns maintain a leading position because they can provide competent experts for
planning and execution. Smaller settlements can join these projects according to
their capacity.
At present, we can say that twin-settlement relations provide the basis for the
development of more comprehensive regional cooperation and strengthen the rela-
tions that have been maintained by settlements for development purposes (Mezei,
2004).
3.4 Social (civil) relations
It is sometimes twin-settlement relations that provide a framework for the relations
of further social organisations, or sometimes the cooperation of civil organisations
inspires the local government of a settlement to promote some form of cooperation.
According to the types of organisation taking part in cross-border relations there
are
– civil organisations
– economic organisations (for safeguarding of interests)
– local governments
– small regional organisations, associations
– local governments of counties
55
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Apart from form or legal frames such organisations are also different regarding
their motives to deal with cross-border relations. According to the type of motive
we can differentiate between:
– Organisations that are set up of their members’ own internal motive, as a re-
sult of their own decision, on an initiative from below. In such cases the per-
sonal demands and the world view of the members play a decisive role. Such
voluntary relations can be maintained between civil organizations, local gov-
ernments of towns and villages, or economic organisations.
– Organisations established under an external inspiration for developing areas
along the border. A typical example is the organisation of euroregions for ex-
ploiting development tenders. The majority of the organisations belonging to
this category are local governments that have already maintained foreign re-
lations before, mostly with the settlements, regions, state organisations or lo-
cal governments with which they try to revive their traditional, decades-long,
mostly only representative kind of relations. In this case the external effect,
tenders play the role of a catalyst.
Initiatives can be classified according to function as well, though their most im-
portant aim is social integration. They only have different means.
– The cooperation of environmental organisations is the best-known and the
most manifold. They are separate types because they have very definite ide-
ology: nature does not accept political borders, the protection of the environ-
ment can not take political borders into account, the conservation of nature is
more important than temporary political interests. This is expressed in the
well-known ideas of sustainable development.
– Similarly, cooperation established for economic reasons is also a special case
when the interest groups of different countries want to enforce the imple-
mentation of market principles in this way. Not only business partners are in-
volved in it, but organisations representing farmers as well.
– The next group is made up of relations maintained by local governments of
settlements. Such relations express significant social demands, demands of
citizens. They are mostly political and administrative kinds of cooperation,
but very often the interests of the population play a considerable role, inspir-
ing local governments to develop cross-border relations.
The table below compares the working principles of the so-called socialist era
and the bourgeois-capitalist era from the point of view of cross-border relations. At
present, a rich network of organisations provides the framework for cooperation.
The objectives of the individual organisations are also promoted by external sup-
port. Their common aim is to realise social integration (Table 14).
56
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Table 14
The scope of cross-border relations
MEANS
METHOD
AIM
Socialism
Party and state organisa-
Central control, external
Representation of prole-
tions
commands
tarian solidarity
(Moscow- X capital)
Bourgeois
Structural network
Self-regulation
Social integration
era
– civil organisations
– internal motive (realising
– environment protec-
– chambers
the organisations’ own in-
tion
– local governments
terests)
– economic coopera-
– small regional associa-
– external inspiration (gain-
tion
tions
ing financial advantage)
– interests of citizens
– county level local gov-
(European interests)
(family, neighbour-
ernments
hood, business)
– euroregions
Source: Edited by the author.
Social organisations are significant because, having a network type of structure,
they can adjust to the opportunities in a flexible way. In Hungary large local
governments have placed the civil organisations of a town in a common building.
This solution saves expenses, is advantageous for organisation and results in such a
wide variety of organisations, people and projects that results in a high degree of
efficiency.
3.5 Relations of euroregions
Cooperation between euroregions looks back on a fifty-year-long tradition. Their
activity is also important in today’s borderless Europe, because those living in the
borderlands would like to improve their disadvantageous situation with the help of
this organisational form, in which the representatives of local and regional
authorities, and actors of social and economic life participate. Thanks to the actors
of local governments they are also decision-makers, therefore they can have
contact with national and European decision-making organs, they can take part in
tenders. Their strength is indicated by the fact that they have set up the Association
of European Border Regions (AEBR), which can influence the policy of the
European Council and the European Union regarding cross-border cooperation:
They have elaborated the international legal frames and the policy of financial
supports. The latter involves INTERREG, PHARE CBC and TACIS CBC
programmes (Figure 13).
57
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Figure 13
Euroregions on the Hungarian–Slovak border
SR
The Three Branches of the Danube
Vág-Danube-Ipoly
Ister-Granum
Ipoly
Neogradiensis
Sajó-Rima
Miskolc-Kassa
H
Zemplén
Source: Edited by the author.
As an initial step, after 1990 Hungary regulated its relations with the
neighbouring countries by treaties. In 1991/92 an agreement was reached with the
Ukraine, Slovenia and Croatia and, for political reasons only much later, in
1995/96 with Slovakia and Romania. These documents also deal with cross-border
cooperation because they stimulate such activities and lay down that constant and
regular contacts between state, administrative, regional and local government or-
gans have to be developed. The Hungarian–Slovak treaty deals with this issue in
detail: ’The Contracting Parties shall create conditions for developing various
forms of economic co-operation in the border region at regional and local levels,
including co-operation between legal entities and natural persons’.
The Carpathians Euroregion was the first in our region to be established with
Hungarian participation in 1993. Owing to their distrust, it was only in 1996 that
Romania and Slovakia joined the agreement. The charter of foundation meets the
requirements of the international treaty European Outline Convention on Trans-
frontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities, which was
approved of by the European Council in 1981 (Ludvig–Süli-Zakar, 2002). Upon the
58
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
request of Slovakia (and the Ukraine) strong restricting interpretation was included
in the document. Their aim was to be provided a severe security that the euroregion
would not endanger their sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Since according to the framework convention of 1981, the status of interna-
tional legal entity of euroregional cooperation depends on the inter-state treaties of
the countries involved, a lot of difficulties arose during the actual activities. There-
fore the European Council approved of a protocol complementing the framework
convention in 1995, according to which local governments under the level of the
national state are entitled to sign international contracts provided the country con-
cerned signs the complementary protocol. This regulation does not cancel the pri-
ority of the sovereignty of the national state, but grants partial international legal
entity to euroregions. This however, did not solve the difficulties, because, though
Western European euroregions are international legal entities, East-Central Euro-
pean governments still interpret the framework convention in a restrictive way, in
spite of the fact that it could raise much wider possibilities (Grúber, 2002, 194–
209) (Table 15).
Table 15
Euroregions at the Hungarian–Slovak border
Name
Year of establishment
The Euroregion of The Three Branches of The Danube
2001
Vag–Danube–Ipel Euroregion
1999
Ister–Granum Euroregion
2003
Ipel’–Ipoly Euroregion
1999
Neogradiensis Euroregion
2000
Sajó–Rima [Slaná–Rimava] Euroregion
2000
Miskolc–Kassa [Košice] Euroregion
1999
Zemplén [Zemplín] Euroregion
2004
The Carpathians Euroregion
1993/1996
Source: The author’s own data collection.
Cross-border relations are important for Slovakia, because, according to the
administrative division, which was valid until 1996, 24 out of 38 districts and ac-
cording to the new division after 1996, 38 out of 79 districts can be found in the
border region. The degree of interest in cross-border relations depends on whether
it is a region that can be found in a borderland, because in such administrative units
there is a strong intention to get in touch with the people living on the other side of
the border, whereas in areas that are farther, or on levels higher in the political hi-
erarchy, people are less interested.
59
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
The fact that cross-border relations cannot be regarded as a part of foreign pol-
icy was not accepted for a long time, although they do not solve political questions
directly. Local governments and regional organs take part in carrying out measures
to improve the conditions for everyday life. According to Slovak interests, it should
take a long time to develop euroregional activities and they could be based on first
of all actors of economy because attention should be focused on the development
of economy within a euroregion and the cooperation should not concentrate on the
ethnicity problem (Boros, 2000).
In the organisational structure of euroregions all kinds of cooperation follow a
similar pattern. In some euroregions symmetrical organisations are established on
both sides of the border, which, misleadingly, often call themselves ’euroregion’
and the two symmetrical organisations work out a cooperation agreement. In this
case new members are accepted by the common euroregion if they enter into the
organisation on their own side.
In the other model, participants of both sides sign a contract of cooperation. The
elected body, the chairman and his board, the secretariate, the operative staff and
work teams make up the common organisation of euroregions. They are elected by
the members. On the other hand participants in work teams are delegated.
As for the legal personality of organisations, the simplest solution is when an
organisation is set up as a legal person for execution on one side. However, a lot of
problems may arise with the establishment of a common organisation as a legal
personality, but as actual examples have shown it is not impossible. The different
law and order of in the different countries may mean difficulties, especially be-
cause in the majority of cases the members are actors of administration (local gov-
ernments, villages, districts, counties).
Only few euroregions have independent offices for their secretariates or work
organisations. In the case of a common non-profit organisation working on either
side the firm is an independent organisation. On the other hand it is a solution for
several euroregions that the operative staff is operated by one of its members and
there may be a secretariate on both sides. Where a common organisation has been
set up as a common legal person, there is naturally a centre, a headquarters, and the
other country/countries has/have offices. The operating costs of the secretariate or
the operative staff are usually covered by the contributions of the members, in most
cases according to the number of the population, but it may also happen in equal
proportions.
Organisations are often hindered in their activities by the fact that their heads
(the chairmen), the elected bodies and in several cases also the members of the
work teams are politicians, mayors and representatives of the local governments of
counties. It is typical, especially of the post of the chairman that owing to his sev-
eral duties he is not able to deal with the problems of the euroregion, so the organi-
60
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
sation becomes incapable of decision-making or squaring matters and the sessions
ordained by its statutes are cancelled.
The Hungarian–Slovak cooperation has not reached the level which would
make it possible to provide common public utility services, yet. Cooperation in
health care, education, employment or communications is still laid down in inter-
state treaties and is not the result of the realisation of local interests. Ister-Granum
Euroregion has signed the first health insurance agreement, according to which the
Slovak insured are treated in the hospital in Esztergom.
When taking the initial steps it should be taken into account that cooperation is
strongly hindered by the differences in administrative and taxation systems, legis-
lation methods, markets, planning, currency and language.
Regarding the national development level of euroregions it can be stated that
the first organisational steps to establish well-operating units have been taken. In
order to make this organisational form complete, it is necessary to develop various
networks between settlements, existing natural and cultural values, communica-
tions corridors, etc. In the background there should be a common development
policy, which should be realised continuously, on the level of everyday activities,
and not only if external resources are granted (Moll, 2000).
According to Hungarian public opinion it is a long-range aim in the relations
between the two countries to make the role of borders unessential. There are two
important arguments for it, one of them being the unification of the Hungarian
people living on both sides of the border without changing the borders themselves,
and the other is an even broader idea, which also justifies the above desire: the
claim to strengthen the Carpathian Basin consciousness. We are going to live in a
period of our common history, when the right of self-determination can be exer-
cised with no invaders present, under democratic conditions. Regarding our long
historical past, we have to count on the revival of the centuries-long coexistence in
the future, which will be determined by a modern, local consciousness of Carpa-
thian Basin identity based on equality and self-determination.
This long-range aim can be achieved by satisfying a very practical claim, i.e.
dissolving the isolation and making continuous efforts to eliminate the critical
situation in the borderlands. Solving different problems like the high rate of unem-
ployment, the large number of those moving away, the lack of economic dynamism
and the various disadvantages in settlement services give a lot to do in the future.
The greatest ambition of each euroregion is to find a way out of isolation. An ex-
ample of this is the general phenomenon that they try to make use of the disadvan-
tage. It is a well-known fact that, because border crossing was rather difficult, there
was only little industrialisation in these areas, which, however, meant that they
could preserve the beauty of the landscape. It is their ambition to exploit this com-
mon asset.
61
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Regional planning and drawing up documents of common development are in-
volved in the description of the aims of all euroregions. By now several eurore-
gions have started to draw up their programme or have completed their develop-
ment document. The experience gained in this way is as follows:
– Financing the plans in Hungary happens at random and from various re-
sources (Phare CBC, Regional Development Fund, county resources, their
own resources);
– In Slovakia, a special fund administered by the Ministry of Public Construc-
tion and Regional Development has been established and it ensures the nec-
essary resources for the plans on the Slovak side;
– Owing to the different resources it rarely happens that both sides have the
necessary money for common planning, so the plans are drawn up at different
points of time. There is often a time lag even if both sides have the necessary
resources at the same time. The Phare CBC financed the project of Neogradi-
ensis Euroregion on the Hungarian side, while the same project on the Slovak
side did not get any support;
– Owing to partly financing peculiarities, symmetrical rather than uniform
plans have been drawn up on the two sides, and the other party has not al-
ways been involved in implementing these plans;
– While making these plans, they take the existing documents into considera-
tion, especially, where there is an institution of regional development on ei-
ther side;
– The ambitions of euroregions and the aims outlined in their plans are not al-
ways in accordance with the competence of the members of the given eurore-
gion. In many cases the plans are much more ambitious than what the partici-
pants could ever realise or what they could exert a significant influence on.
Such are the development of communications axes, the railway or the elimi-
nation of contamination of rivers.
Euroregions also have an important national aim. If they can accomplish their
activities, and a growing number of euroregions can realise their plans, if the de-
veloping networks of relations spread extensively, then the participants will gain
everyday experience in the cooperation practice of the two neighbouring countries.
The experience gained in this way can be used at a national level, too.
3.5.1 The Euroregion of the Three Branches of the Danube
The Euroregion of the Three Branches of the Danube was founded in 2001 by the
General Assembly of Gyır-Moson-Sopron County (Hungary) and the Csallóköz-
Mátyusföld Regional Association (Slovakia), with the Gyır office of the county
62
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
general assembly as its headquarters, while in Dunaszerdahely [Dunajska Streda] it
is the office of the regional development agency that is in charge of organisational
tasks.
The central body of the euroregion is the council, which consists of 14 members
from each side. The board consists of Hungarian and Slovak sections, with 5
members each. The chairman’s office is held by two chairmen alternately, each for
one year. Work committees help the work of the euroregion. The administrative
organ of the euroregion is the secretariate, and the secretary’s duties are performed
by one person on each side, one in Gyır and one in Dunaszerdahely [Dunajska
Streda]. The incomes of the budget of the euroregion are made up of the
contributions of the members and the resources gained on tenders.
It is an important result that, with the support of the local government of Gyır-
Moson-Sopron County, and with the assistance of the Central Statistical Office of
the county and the Statistical Office of the Nagyszombat [Trnava] district, the sta-
tistical publication of the whole of the region has been issued.
The development of Infolánc, an Austrian, Hungarian and Slovak programme, a
common database of environmental protection, is in progress in cooperation with
the Hungarian Reflex Környezetvédelmi Egyesület (Association of Environmental
Protection). It will be accessible on the Internet. The Austrian side is also involved
in the programme through the Austrian organisation of the Communal Forum, a
trilateral cooperation of local governments (Hardi, 2001b).
3.5.2 Vag–Danube–Ipel Euroregion
The document of the euroregional cooperation was signed on July 3rd 1999 by Pest
County, Komárom-Esztergom County (Hungary) and Nyitra [Nitra] County (Slo-
vakia) on board the ship ’Táncsics’ sailing from Neszmély along the Hungarian-
Slovak borderline of the Danube, within the framework of the ’Bridge-Building
Days’. The establishment of the euroregion was preceded by five years of civil
organisational work of mainly the Rákóczi Alliance. The Regional Development
Council of Central Transdanubia and the Regional Development Council of Fejér
and Veszprém counties joined the cooperation agreement later.
The Slovak Džurinda-cabinet approved of the euroregional cooperation with a
decision of the prime minister. Then the operative staff of the euroregion, the civil
organisation under the name of Vag–Danube–Ipel Development, which was regis-
tered as a partnership association, was founded. It is in charge of the realisation of
the objectives of the euroregion by participating in tenders, since there are no other
resources available for the euroregion. Two secretariates, one in Tatabánya and one
in Nyitra, take part in this work.
63
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
They signed agreements with other euroregions, such as the Slovak–Polish Ta-
tras Euroregion and the Czech-Polish Silesia Euroregion. In the summer 2002,
these euroregions made up a notice (the ‘Neszmély notice’) with the purpose of
establishing the alliance of the euroregions of the Visegrád countries. On the one
hand this would help the work of other euroregions in a similar position, and on the
other hand they could enforce their interests better.
The euroregion also operates the European Information Point, which is in
charge of providing information about the European Union and its tender opportu-
nities. The euroregion has gained financial support from the Phare CBC for two of
its programmes, one of them being organising the Europe citizen-training academy
and this was the reason why they signed an agreement with the Europäische
Staatsbürger-Akademie (ESTA) in Bocholt. The other programme was the green
corridor programme of the Danube. It is a programme of environmental protection,
which focuses on repairing the damage caused by the Danube barrage in the Hun-
garian-Slovak border section of the Danube.
In 2001 the ’Programme of the Hungarian and Slovak Cross-Border Coopera-
tion’ was completed, which is in fact the regional development programme of Vág-
Duna-Ipoly Euroregion. Its ambition is to provide a framework for the eight opera-
tive programmes drawn up recently as well as for new programmes (Hardi, 2001a).
3.5.3 Ister–Granum Euroregion
Within Vag–Danube–Ipel Euroregion the Ister–Granum cross-border small region
was established with the participation of the Council of Small-Regional Develop-
ment of Esztergom–Nyergesújfalu, the villages Tokod and Tokodaltáró (Hungary)
and Párkány [Štúrovo] and the neighbouring villages in Slovakia. At present 53
Hungarian and 47 Slovak settlements belong to it.
This euroregion can be found at the junction of three rivers, the Danube, the
Garam and the Ipel. The reconstruction of Mária-Valéria Bridge between Eszter-
gom and Párkány [Štúrovo] was a strong motive to develop relations between
them. Since then this region at the junction of three rivers, which used to be a ho-
mogeneous unit, has been able to form an independent region again. Its core is
made up of the former royal and ecclesiastical centres (Esztergom, Visegrád). One
third of the region is a nature conservation area. By reuniting the former primatial
wine-district the Ister–Granum international ’wine road’ is being organised. A
similar asset is thermal water, which Párkány [Štúrovo] is already exploiting.
The main decision-making organ of the euroregion is the assembly. Its members
are the mayors of the 100 settlements, who have equal rights to vote, and their
work is helped by the proposals of eight professional committees and the board.
Their main objectives are as follows: building a cargo ferry between Párkány
64
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
[Štúrovo] and Esztergom, exchange of students, organising the wine road, pro-
moting village, cultural and bathing tourism, diverting the Helsinki corridor
marked V/c towards Esztergom–Párkány [Štúrovo] and the protection of rivers.
3.5.4 Ipoly Euroregion and Ipel’ský Euroregion
The treaty of cross-border cooperation of the Ipoly Euroregion was signed in
Balassagyarmat in 1999. The document mentions two organisations, Ipoly Eurore-
gion (with Balassagyarmat as its headquarters) in Hungary and Ipel’ský Euroregion
(with Ipolyság as its headquarters) in Slovakia. Their chairmen were the parties
signing the document and the organisation is also operating with two centres. The
document calls the established organisation an alliance, the objective of which is
the preparation for the European integration processes, promoting sustainable de-
velopment in the area, eliminating backwardness, preserving existing (especially
environmental) values and drawing up programmes of regional development. The
signed documents agree with the Madrid charter of 1980, which concerns eurore-
gions. The documents had been deposited in Brussels, where at the end of 2002,
their application was approved of under the name Ipel’–Ipoly Euroregional Alli-
ance.
The most important organ of the organisation is the assembly, which consists of
all the members, and it makes decisions regarding everything that affects the eu-
roregion. The assembly has a mandate for four years and choses a board of 12
members, 6 of which are members of local governments and 6 people are members
of social organisations. The secretariate conducts operative affairs. The ambition of
the two euroregions was to unite and apply for admission to the Alliance of Euro-
pean Regions as one common organisation. This happened in 2004.
3.5.5 NEOGRADIENSIS Euroregion
To be able to seize the support opportunity provided by the Small Project Fund of
the Phare CBC programme, Nógrád County established NEOGRADIENSIS eu-
roregion with Losonc as its centre together with the Slovak partner organisation at
the beginning of the year 2000. The choice of name was justified by the fact that
the old Latin name of the county does not hurt the national feeling of either party.
The partner organisation of the euroregion became the NEOGRADIENSIS Eurore-
gion Society, because the euroregion can work in this legal form. The main organ
of the euroregion is the assembly, the board elected from its members, the supervi-
sory committee and the work committees. The two parties take part in the assembly
at par, each having 15 representatives, and they have at least one session a year
65
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
alternately in the two countries. They also take part in the board at par (7-7 people),
they are designated by the contracting parties and they have sessions at least two
times a year. The post of the chairman is for two years, but besides the current
chairman, there is a co-chairman elected by the other country. Secretarial and oper-
ating duties are performed by the Nógrád County Agency of Regional Develop-
ment.
3.5.6 Sajó–Rima [Slaná–Rimava] Euroregion
The background of organising Sajó–Rima [Slaná–Rimava] Euroregion is that the
Trianon Peace Treaty had divided the one-time Gömör County into two, as a result
of which 252 settlements belonged to the Slovak side whereas only 22 remained on
the Hungarian side. With new circumstances emerging, the establishment of the
euroregion was determined by a geographical unit, taking aspects of environment
protection into consideration. This was the valley of the rivers Sajó [Slaná] and
Rima [Rimava], including the former Gömör County, too.
Three Slovak districts and four Hungarian small regions, altogether 123 settle-
ments from Hungary and 300 from Slovakia take part in the cooperation. The de-
velopment of the relations started with expanding relationships of families, and in
the last decade cultural and sports relations have also become increasingly signifi-
cant. The idea of international cooperation originates from a students’ self-gov-
ernment, which drew the attention of a Hungarian mayor to the possibility of inter-
national cooperation on a study trip to France. He inspired Hungarian students to
invite students from the other side of the border to the programmes they organised,
and this was how cooperation between the leaders of the settlements began. The
connections with the French student self-government have continued and helped
with participating in international tenders. These relations have developed into a
euroregional organisation.
Due to legal difficulties, first they signed an agreement of cooperation, in the
framework of which they organised the programmes of the ’Gömör Summer’, to
which Slovak visitors were also invited. The Alliance of Slovak Entrepreneurs also
takes part in the annual programmes of the Hungarian Gömör Expo as exhibitors.
The result of the fairs is that several business relations have been developed be-
tween the entrepreneurs living on both sides of the border, what is more, several
Slovak–Hungarian joint companies have been founded.
The leaders of Sajó–Rima [Slaná–Rimava] Euroregion signed the agreement of
cooperation in Rozsnyó [Rožňava] in October 2000. The centre of the euroregion
became Rimaszombat [Rimavska Sobota], where an office of the euroregion has
been working since October 2000. The official registration of the agreement of
cooperation took place in Brussels in 2004.
66
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
In the summer 2003 the consultative council of euroregions was set up in the
Visegrád countries, with the Sajó–Rima [Slaná–Rimava] Euroregion as one of its
founding members. The charter of foundation of the consultative council was sent
to Brussels. According to the agreement they are invited to take part in meetings
concerning the region as observers.
3.5.7 Miskolc–Kassa [Košice] Euroregion
It was the town strategy of Miskolc drawn up in 1996/97 that made it possible to
develop twin-settlement relations from their rather representative kind of relations
into real, practical activity. The main ambition was to make Miskolc a euroregional
centre, which would promote accession to the union. The proposal pointed it out
that the two towns should not be rivals, rather partners in the regional cooperation.
The framework convention was ratified on May 7th in Kassa [Košice], then on
May 11th 1997 in Miskolc. However, it only laid down neighbourly relations re-
garding the two towns.
In 1999 there were already four parties taking part in the talks: the town of
Kassa [Košice], the region of Kassa [Košice], Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County and
the town of Miskolc. Since this time the two towns have been employing an offi-
cial each to arrange routine matters. The Kassa [Košice]–Miskolc Euroregion was
established in May 2000 with the purpose of taking the new opportunities provided
by the European Union.
It may weaken the relations between Kassa [Košice] and Miskolc that neither
founding politician takes part in the public life of their town. At present it is rather
the larger region, i.e. county relations that are becoming stronger. An example of
this is the fact that the common economic utilisation of the international airport in
Kassa has become the subject of an agreement between Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén
County and the town of Kassa [Košice].
3.5.8 Zemplén [Zemplín] Euroregion
The Zemplén [Zemplín] Euroregion was founded in April 2004 with the participa-
tion of 32 Slovak and Hungarian small regions, civil organisations and local gov-
ernments. The founders of the alliance were the Királyhelmec [Kráľovký Chlmec]
Agency of Regional Development (Slovakia) and the Zemplén Regional Enterprise
Developing Fund (Hungary).
The establishment of the Zemplén [Zemplín] Euroregion promotes the eco-
nomic development and more efficient cooperation of small regions in southern
Slovakia and northern Hungary. They elaborate common programmes of develop-
67
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
ment and cooperation, which affect the economic development of both areas and
try to eliminate their backwardness. In this way commercial relations are also ex-
panding. The Slovak partner organisation is planning to establish a centre in Ki-
rályhelmec [Kráľovký Chlmec], like the one in Hungary. The euroregion relies on
the intellectual and infrastructural base provided by the Zemplén [Zemplín]
Regional Enterprise Developing Fund.
3.5.9 The Carpathians Euroregion
The Carpathian Euroregion can be looked upon as a symbolic euroregion, as the
secretary-general of the European Council Catherine Lalumiere, who signed the
document of cooperation together with the Hungarian, Polish and Ukrainian for-
eign ministers on February 14th 1993 in Debrecen, also did. In the beginning Slo-
vak and Rumanian local governments also took part in the cooperation, but in the
end, owing to home political reasons, the representatives of the governments did
not sign it. In 1998 Romania and in 1999 Slovakia became members of the organi-
sation with full powers (Süli-Zakar, 2001). This euroregion can be considered
symbolic because it is a huge territory (150,000 km2) and it has a large population
(14.7 million people), which makes the cooperation of 26 member regions rather
difficult. The numerous state borders, manifold customs and legal systems further
increase those difficulties. However, the aim of the euroregion was that in this poor
region, where people have suffered so much, peoples or rather their governments
and political participants should communicate with each other. The Carpathians
Euroregion is an organisation of this purpose (Figure 14).
The most important result of the activities The Carpathians Euroregions has
achieved so far is the growth of political confidence, but the economic cooperation
has not been really successful yet. Mention must be made of the 17 new border
stations, which have improved the situation of communications, which used to be
one of the main obstacles to cooperation between the countries of the region. They
have not managed to change the extremely centralised decision-making system of
the individual member-countries, either, which means slow and unforeseeable cen-
tral decisions prevailing.
The two towns Eperjes and Kassa [Košice] in Slovakia take part in the activities
of The Carpathians Euroregion, but real events are only the results of the work
done by the Carpathian Fund (with Kassa as its headquarters). This organisation
was set up on the decision of the generous supporter of the Carpathians Euroregion,
The Eastwest Institute – New York (EWI), when, owing to a bank failure in the
Ukraine, the organisation lost its funds. Since both in a territorial sense and re-
garding the aim of their activities the mission of the two organisations are the
same, they have signed an agreement of cooperation, too (Süli-Zakar, 2002).
68
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Figure 14
The Carpathians Euroregion
PL
Rzeszów
UA
Przemyśl
Tarnów
Lvov
Krosno
Prešov
SR
Ivano-
Košice
Uzhgorod
Frankovsk
Miskolc
Czernowitz
Nyíregyháza
Botoşani
Eger
Satu Mare
Baia Mare
Suceava
Debrecen
Szolnok
Zalău
H
Oradea
Miercurea
Ciuc
RO
Source: Edited by the author.
4 Summary
4.1 Towards coexistence
Resolving all kinds of differences, differences between groups of countries, coun-
tries, cultures and languages, sexes and species has been a crucial question of hu-
man thinking for centuries. As G.E. Lessing expressed the equality of religions in
his world-famous drama Nathan, The Wise in the age of religious intolerance, now
the European Union recommends its member states equality between countries,
peoples and cultures and that they should resolve the differences by negotiations.
There was and there has been a whole system of inequalities not only between the
old member states and between the new ones but also within the countries for cen-
69
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
turies, but the Union makes treaties with its members to eliminate differences, con-
flicts and inequalities by negotiations.
Slovakia’s home policy is full of internal uncertainties. The reason for it is that
in a historical sense it is only a comparatively short time since it has been an inde-
pendent state, a national state. In the course of its history it always existed as a part
of larger and more developed countries so it could not gain sufficient (democratic)
experience in organising political life. Both its society and its economy were un-
derdeveloped since the territory belonging to the Slovak people was always the
periphery of larger countries (Hungary, Czechoslovakia). In these countries, the
inhabitants of economic and cultural centres, first of all cities were members of the
dominant nation, so owners, leading officials were of Hungarian and Czech origin,
or Slovaks who had assimilated into these nations. This lack of economic and po-
litical experience may be the reason for the strong ethnocentrism, which motivates
their political acts even today. This is the reason why neither national independ-
ence, nor international conditions stimulating democracy can make them develop
new relations based on equality with other ethnicities comprising the country. Their
political life keeps focusing on dangers that might threaten their national life. Slo-
vak political powers are afraid that they might lose their national identity or their
territories. This fear, however, leads to aggressiveness, to which other ethnicities,
first of all Hungarian people, react by trying to defend themselves, moving away or
assimilating.
Slovakia insists on the principle of the national state. Just like in the decades of
communism, now in bourgeois democracy they can also find the way of using de-
mocratic principles for building their national state. Their democratic state meets
the principle of bourgeois democracy and the majority principle, but it is always
the interests of the national majority that take priority over the interests of the na-
tive minority. Such interpretation of democracy precludes the possibility that the
population belonging to the national minority can exercise their right of self-deter-
mination.
At the beginning, existing laws did not make it possible for villages and towns
to develop cross-border cooperation in the field of economy. Since the introduction
of the new administrative system and the Act of Competence, i.e. since 2001/2002,
cross-border relations have been the competence of the new regional municipali-
ties. Market competition has led to a high rate of unemployment in these areas, so
it is urgent to develop cross-border economic cooperation and ensure the suitable
conditions for commuting labour force.
The new kind of Hungarian-Slovak relations, however, is being formed by even
deeper forces.
The present paper describes the international economic processes which forced
a new kind of market mobility on the peoples in the Carpathian Basin and pushed
the existing labour division into new political borders. This was supported by the
70
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Czech/Slovak policy, which, after 1920, created a rather closed kind of labour divi-
sion inside the new borders, in their own territories, excluding Hungary and other
parts of the Carpathian Basin. Therefore the borderlands remain peripheries in both
countries (and the Hungarian area along the Danube remains a dynamic connection
with Western Europe without making the northern bank of the Danube its gravity
zone). These peripheries will have to carry out development with the comparatively
low sums of money that they may gain at tenders of regional development. In spite
of such development they will never be able to achieve the degree of national dy-
namism. Consequently, much more moderate and controlled cross-border relations
will mean the new form of cooperation.
71
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
Hungarian-Slovak place-names
Hungarian
Slovak
Ágcsernyı
Čierna
Besztercebánya
Banská Bystrica
Dunaszerdahely
Dunajská Streda
Eperjes
Prešov
Érsekújvár
Nové Zámky
Felsınémeti
Vyšné Nemecké
Garam
Hron
Garamszentkereszt
Žiar nad Hronom
Ipoly
Ipeľ
Kassa
Košice
Királyhelmec
Kráľovký Chlmec
Komárom
Komárno
Losonc
Lučenec
Máriatölgyes
Dubnica nad Váhom
Nagyrıce
Revúca
Nagykapos
Veľké Kapušany
Nagyszombat
Trnava
Nagytárkány
Veľké Trakany
Nyitra
Nitra
Párkány
Štúrovo
Pozsony
Bratislava
Rima
Rimava
Rimaszombat
Rimavská Sobota
Rozsnyó
Rožňava
Simony
Partizánske
Torna
Turňa nad Bodvou
Tıketerebes
Trebišov
Trencsén
Trenčin
Turócszentmárton
Martin
Vágbeszterce
Považká Bystrica
Vágújhely
Nové Mesto nad Váhom
Zólyom
Zvolen
Zsolna
Žilina
72
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
References
BOROS, FERENC 2000: Szomszédunk, Szlovákia [Our Neighbour, Slovakia]. Budapest,
Kalligram.
BUCEK, MILAN 2000: Depressed Regions – or Depressed Regional Policy? 10 years of
Slovak experience. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung. – Heft. 7–8. pp. 403–410.
(Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung).
Csehszlovákia II. (é.n.) [Czechoslovakia II.] Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Bank,
Közgazdasági, Tanulmányi és Statisztikai Osztály.
DURAY, MIKLÓS 2000: Változások küszöbén [On the Threshold of Changes]. Budapest,
Osiris Kiadó. (Pro Minoritate könyvek.)
ERDİSI, FERENC 1996: Magyarország kommunikációs tengelyeinek alakulása [Changes in
the Communications Axes of Hungary]. – Tér és Társadalom. 1. 59–77. pp.
Facts 1985, 1991: Facts on Czechoslovak Foreign Trade. Czechoslovak Chamber of
Commerce and Industry. Prag. 1985. 52–58. pp., 1991. pp. 69–76.
FRISNYÁK, SÁNDOR 1996: Magyarország kultúrgeográfiai korszakai (895–1920) [Periods of
Culture-Geography in Hungary (895–1920)] – Tér és Társadalom. 1. 43–58. pp.
GRÚBER, KÁROLY 2002: Európai identitások: régió, nemzet, integráció [European
Identities: Region, Nation, Integration]. Budapest, Osiris Kiadó.
Practical Guide 2000: Practical Guide to Cross-border Co-operation. Guide 2000 -
Regional Policy, 3rd edition, by J. Gabbe, V. v. Malchus, H. Martinos, preface of the
European Commissioners M. Barnier and G. Verheugen. AEBR – European
Commission (ed.).
HANÁK, PÉTER 1978: Magyarország története. 1890–1918 [History of Hungary. 1890–
1918]. Budapest, Akadémia Kiadó.
HARDI, TAMÁS 2001a: Vág–Duna–Ipoly Eurorégió [Vag–Danube–Ipel Euroregion].
Pécs, MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja. pp. 1–7. Manuscript.
HARDI, TAMÁS 2001b: Hármas Duna-vidék Eurorégió [The Euroregion of the Three
Branches of the Danube]. Pécs, MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja. pp. 1–4.
Manuscript.
HERCZEGH, GÉZA 1998: Kelet-Közép-Európa mint történelmi régió [East-Central Europe as
a Historical Region] – Magyar Szemle. 9–10.
HEVESI, ATTILA – KOCSIS, KÁROLY 2003: A magyar–szlovák határvidék földrajza.
(Geography of Hungarian and Slovak Borderlands) Lilium Aurum. Dunaszerdahely.
HORVÁTH, GYULA (szerk.) 2004: Dél-Szlovákia. (Southern Slovakia) MTA Regionális
Kutatások Központja – Dialóg Campus Kiadó. Budapest–Pécs.
IVANIČKA, KOLOMAN 1998: Transfrontier Co-operation in the Geopolitical Strategy of the
Slovak Republic. – Koloman Ivanička (ed.) European Integration and Transborder Co-
operation. Proceeding on the International Conference. Banská Bystrica.
KISS GY., CSABA 1994: A területi autonómia jegyében. (About Territorial Autonomy) –
MOLNÁR IMRE (ed.) Szlovákok az európai történelemben [Slovaks in the History of
Europe] (Tanulmányok.) Budapest, Közép-Európa Intézet, Teleki László Alapítvány.
1994. 43–50. pp.
73
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
KOCSIS, KÁROLY 1988: A határ menti fekvés hatása egy régió népesedési viszonyaira [The
Effects of Borderlands on the Demographic Changes in a Region]. – Földrajzi Értesítı.
1–4. pp. 137–158.
KOCSIS, KÁROLY 2002: A közigazgatási térfelosztás változásai a mai Szlovákia területén a
XX. században. [Changes in Administrative Division in the Territory of Today’s
Slovakia in the 20th Century]. – PÁSZTOR, CECILIA (ed.): „Ahol a határ elválaszt”.
Trianon és következményei a Kárpát-medencében. Balassagyarmat–Várpalota, Nógrád
Megyei Levéltár. pp. 131–153.
LANSTYÁK, ISTVÁN 1999: Az 1999. évi kisebbségi nyelvtörvény [Minority Language Act
of 1999]. – Fórum Társadalomtudományi Szemle. 2. pp. 75–83.
LUDVIG, ZSUZSA – SÜLI-ZAKAR, ISTVÁN 2002: A Kárpátok Eurorégió együttmőködés
mérlege. Eredmények, problémák és perspektvák [The Balance of Cooperation of The
Carpathians Euroregion]. Budapest, Oktatási Minisztérium.
Magyarország exportpiacai 1934: 4. füzet. Csehszlovákia. (Export Markets of Hungary.
Booklet 4. Czechoslovakia) A Magyar Királyi Külkereskedelmi Hivatal Kiadványa.
Budapest.
MARTINEZ, O. J. 1994: The Dynamics of Border Interaction. New Approaches to Border
Analysis. – SCHOFIELD, CLIVE H. (ed.) Global Boundaries (World Boundaries Series 1.)
London and New York, 1–15. pp.
MÁTRAI, JULIANNA 1999: A kisebbségi magyar pártok politikai stratégiái Közép- és Kelet-
Európában [Political Strategies of Minority Hungarian Parties in Central and Eastern
Europe]. – Fórum Társadalomtudományi Szemle. 2. pp. 15–40.
MEZEI, ISTVÁN 2000: Határátkelık az Ipoly és a Tisza között [Border Stations Between the
Ipoly and Tisza Rivers]. Pécs, MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja. Manuscript.
MEZEI, ISTVÁN 2001: Az Ipolytól a Tiszáig. A magyar szlovák határ menti kapcsolatok.
(From the River Ipoly to the River Tisza. Hungarian and Slovak Cross-Border
Relations) Palócföld, 2-3. szám, 217–234.pp.
MEZEI, ISTVÁN 2004: Network of Cross-Border Relations of Hungary and Slovakia. In:
Cross-border Cooperations – Schengen challenges. Edited by István Süli-Zakar.
Debrecen, Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó. pp. 78–84.
MOLL, PETER 2000: Probleme und Ansätze zur Raumentwicklung in der europäischen
Grenzregionen Saarland-Lotharingen-Luxemburg-Rheinland-Pfalz-Wallonien. Raum-
forschung und Raumordnung. – Heft. 4. pp. 343–355.
MSK 1909: Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények. Új sorozat. (Hungarian Statistical
Publications. New series.) 27. kötet. Budapest. Atheneum.
MSK 1910: Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények. Új sorozat. (Hungarian Statistical
Publications. New series.) 61. kötet. Budapest. Atheneum.
MSK 1920: Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények. Új sorozat. (Hungarian Statistical
Publications. New series.) 76. kötet. Budapest. Atheneum.
Negotiation 2000) Negotiation Position of the Slovak Republic. Chapter 21. Bratislava, 6
December 2000. www.government.gov.sk
PAJKOSSY, GÁBOR (ed.) 2003: Magyarország története a 19. században. Szöveggyőjtemény
[The History of Hungary in the 19th Century. Textbook]. Budapest, Osiris Kiadó. pp.
423–430.
74
Mezei, István : Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 75. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 49.
PALÁDI-KOVÁCS, ATTILA 2003: Tájak, népek, népcsoportok [Regions, Peoples, Ethnic
Groups] Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó. pp. 21–55. (Válogatott tanulmányok.)
PETİCZ, KÁLMÁN 1998: Választások és felosztások [Elections and Divisions].
Dunaszerdahely, Lilium Aurum.
POPÉLY, ÁRPÁD 2001: A csehszlovákiai magyar kisebbség történeti kronológiája.
(Historical Chronology of the Hungarian Minority in Czechoslovakia) – Fórum.
Társadalomtudományi Szemle. 2. pp. 133–186.
POPÉLY, GYULA 1988: Az 1930. évi csehszlovák népszámlálás végrehajtása [National
Census in 1930 in Czechoslovakia] – JUHÁSZ, GYULA (ed.): Magyarságkutatás. A
Magyarságkutató Intézet évkönyve. Budapest, Magyarságkutató Intézet.
POPÉLY, GYULA 1995: Ellenszélben. A felvidéki magyar kisebbség elsı évei a Csehszlovák
Köztársaságban 1918–1925) [The First Years of the Hungarian Minority in Upper-
Northern Hungary in the Czechoslovak Republic 1918–1925] Pozsony, Kalligram.
RATZEL, FRIEDRICH 1897: Politische Geographie. München und Leipzig, Verlag von R.
Ordenburg.
SALLAI, JÁNOS 2004: Az államhatárok [Borders]. Budapest, Press Publica Kiadó.
SIDÓ H., ZOLTÁN 2004: Szlovákia gazdaságának változásai és területi jellemzıi [Changes
and Territorial Characteristics of Slovak Economy]. – JOBBÁGY, ISTVÁN (ed.) Váloga-
tott tanulmányok Szlovákia gazdaságföldrajzához. Komárom, Pont Kutatóintézet. pp.
51–91.
Statistics in focus 2002: GDP of the Candidate Countries–2001. Economy and Finance.
Theme 2–41/2002. EUROSTAT
SÜLI-ZAKAR, ISTVÁN 2001: A határmentiség az euroatlanti folyamatok tükrében, különös
tekintettel a Kárpátok Eurorégió mőködési területére [Cross-Border Relations in the
Euroatlantic Processes, With Special Regard to the Activity of The Carpathians
Euroregion] – BARANYI, BÉLA (ed.) A határmentiség kérdıjelei az Észak-Kelet-
Alföldön. Pécs, MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja.
SZARKA, LÁSZLÓ (n.d.) A szlovákok története [The History of the Slovaks]. Budapest,
Bereményi Könyvkiadó.
TÓTH, JÓZSEF 1996: A Kárpát-medence és a nemzetközi regionális együttmőködés [The
Carpathian Basin and International Regional Cooperation] – PÁL, ÁGNES – SZÓNOKYNÉ
ANCSIN, GABRIELLA (eds.) Határon innen-határon túl. Nemzetközi Földrajzi
Tudományos Konferencia. Szeged, JATE. 299–306. pp.
Yearbook of the Cz. 2002: Statistical Yearbook of the Czech Republic. Praha, Scientia.
326–329. pp.
Yearbook of the SR. 2002: Statistical Yearbook of the Slovac Republic. Bratislava. 397–
400. pp.
ZVARA, JURAJ – DUSEK, IMRE 1985: A magyar nemzetiség Csehszlovákiában [Hungarian
Ethnicity in Czechoslovakia]. Bratislava, Nakladatelstvo Pravda Könyvkiadó.
75
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 49.
Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations
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, so-
ciologists, 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 develop-
ment 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) 523 800
Fax: (36–72) 523 803
www.dti.rkk.hu
www.rkk.hu
Director general
Gyula HORVÁTH
Editor
Zoltán GÁL
galz@.rkk.hu
76
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 49.
Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations
Papers published in the Discussion Papers series
Discussion Papers /Specials
BENKİNÉ LODNER, Dorottya (ed.) (1988): Environmental Control and Policy: Pro-
ceedings of the Hungarian–Polish Seminar in the Theoretical Problems of Envi-
ronmental 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
HORVÁTH, Gyula (ed.) (2002): Regional Challenges of the Transition in Bulgaria and
Hungary
KOVÁCS, András Donát (ed.) (2004): New Aspects of Regional Transformation and the
Urban-Rural Relationship
BARANYI, Béla (ed.) (2005): Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian border regions as
areas of co-operation along the external borders of Europe
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 Hungary
No. 3
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1987): Administrative Division and Administrative Geography
in Hungary
No. 4
SIKOS T., Tamás (1987): Investigations of Social Infrastructure in Rural Settle-
ments 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 Back-
ward Areas in Hungary
No. 8
SZÖRÉNYINÉ KUKORELLI, Irén (1990): Role of the Accessibility in De-
velopment and Functioning of Settlements
77
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 49.
Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations
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
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
ERDİSI, Ferenc (1992): Transportation Effects on Spatial Structure of Hungary
No. 14
PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, Ilona (1992): The Basic Political and Structural Problems in
the Workings of Local Governments in Hungary
No. 15
PFEIL, Edit (1992): Local Governments and System Change. The Case of a Re-
gional 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
BENKİNÉ Lodner, Dorottya (1995): The Legal-Administrative Questions of
Environmental Protection in the Republic of Hungary
No. 21
ENYEDI, György (1998): Transformation in Central European Postsocialist Cit-
ies
No. 22
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1998): Changes in the Politico-Geographical Position of Hun-
gary 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 Sec-
ond 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 Preparation
for the Structural Funds
No. 30
BARTA, Györgyi (1999): Industrial Restructuring in the Budapest Agglomera-
tion
78
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 49.
Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations
No. 31
BARANYI, Béla–BALCSÓK, István–DANCS, László–MEZİ, 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 Hungary’s Re-
gional 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 Hun-
gary
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
No. 38
BARANYI, Béla (2002): Before Schengen – Ready for Schengen. Euroregional
Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hun-
gary
No. 39
KERESZTÉLY, Krisztina (2002): The Role of the State in the Urban Develop-
ment of Budapest
No. 40
HORVÁTH, Gyula (2002): Report on the Research Results of the Centre for
Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
No. 41
SZIRMAI, Viktoria – A. GERGELY, András – BARÁTH, Gabriella–
MOLNÁR, Balázs – SZÉPVÖLGYI, Ákos (2003): The City and its Environ-
ment: Competition and/or Co-operation? (A Hungarian Case Study)
No. 42
CSATÁRI, Bálint–KANALAS, Imre–NAGY, Gábor –SZARVÁK, Tibor
(2004): Regions in Information Society – a Hungarian Case-Study
No. 43
FARAGÓ, László (2004): The General Theory of Public (Spatial) Planning (The
Social Technique for Creating the Future)
No. 44
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (2004): Carpathian Basin and the Development of the Hungarian
Landscape Theory Until 1948
No. 45
GÁL, Zoltán (2004): Spatial Development and the Expanding European Integra-
tion of the Hungarian Banking System
No. 46
BELUSZKY, Pál – GYİRI, Róbert (2005): The Hungarian Urban Network in
the Beginning of the 20th Century
No. 47
G. FEKETE, Éva (2005): Long-term Unemployment and Its Alleviation in Rural
Areas
No. 48
SOMLYÓDYNÉ PFEIL, Edit (2006): Changes in The Organisational
Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
79
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 49.
Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations
Hungarian-Slovak place-names
Hungarian
Slovak
Ágcsernyı
Čierna
Besztercebánya
Banská Bystrica
Dunaszerdahely
Dunajská Streda
Eperjes
Prešov
Érsekújvár
Nové Zámky
Felsınémeti
Vyšné Nemecké
Garam
Hron
Garamszentkereszt
Žiar nad Hronom
Ipoly
Ipeľ
Kassa
Košice
Királyhelmec
Kráľovký Chlmec
Komárom
Komárno
Losonc
Lučenec
Máriatölgyes
Dubnica nad Váhom
Nagyrıce
Revúca
Nagykapos
Veľké Kapušany
Nagyszombat
Trnava
Nagytárkány
Veľké Trakany
Nyitra
Nitra
Párkány
Štúrovo
Pozsony
Bratislava
Rima
Rimava
Rimaszombat
Rimavská Sobota
Rozsnyó
Rožňava
Simony
Partizánske
Torna
Turňa nad Bodvou
Tıketerebes
Trebišov
Trencsén
Trenčin
Turócszentmárton
Martin
Vágbeszterce
Považká Bystrica
Vágújhely
Nové Mesto nad Váhom
Zólyom
Zvolen
Zsolna
Žilina
80