Discussion Pappers 2010. No. 82.
Cities, Regions and Transborder
Mobility Along and Across the Border
CENTRE FOR REGIONAL STUDIES
OF HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
DISCUSSION PAPERS
No. 82
Cities, Regions and Transborder
Mobility Along and Across
the Border
by
Tamás HARDI
Series editor
Gábor LUX
Pécs
2010
Discussion Pappers 2010. No. 82.
Cities, Regions and Transborder
Mobility Along and Across the Border
ISSN 0238–2008
ISBN 978 963 9899 36 0
© Tamás Hardi
© Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
2010 by Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Technical editor: Ilona Csapó.
Printed in Hungary by Sümegi Nyomdaipari, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Ltd., Pécs.
Discussion Pappers 2010. No. 82.
Cities, Regions and Transborder
Mobility Along and Across the Border
CONTENTS
1 Introduction – Borderless World, Borderless Europe?................................................. 5
2 Border regions and cross-border movements ............................................................... 5
2.1 Region along the border-border region, border area-cross-border region ............ 7
2.2 The role of the European integration in the future of the border areas ................. 9
2.3 Model of cross-border movements and interactions........................................... 11
3 The urban network and the border.............................................................................. 15
3.1 Centres in the proximity of the border................................................................ 15
3.2 Hinterlands and state borders ............................................................................. 18
3.3 Specific city types along the borders .................................................................. 21
4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 25
References........................................................................................................................ 26
Discussion Pappers 2010. No. 82.
Cities, Regions and Transborder
Mobility Along and Across the Border
List of figures
Figure 1 Territories and levels in the world system ..................................................... 10
Figure 2 Model of the development of cross-border movements ................................. 12
Figure 3 Distortion of the market catchment area ........................................................ 19
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
1 Introduction – Borderless World, Borderless Europe?
A decisive social experience of these days is the increasing permeability of the
internal borders of the European Union. This actually means the elimination of
the physical barriers to border crossing, the freedom of travel. It is naturally diffi-
cult to overrate this change for those who were once not even allowed to cross the
border, and later in another period of history had to wait for hours, often in almost
intolerable conditions, in front of the border crossing stations and were only able
to continue the travel after humiliating procedures. It is natural that the partial and
then the complete opening of the borders was welcomed with enthusiasm. We
have to say that the ever easier permeability of the borders serves the integration
of the economic and political macro-systems of the nation states; it is leading to
the birth of an enlarging supranational economic and political space, in which the
free flow of persons, labour, goods and capital are secured. Border regions play a
specific role in this system. Will this cross-border flow pass them by, will they
remain struggling peripheries of the nation states, or do they use, can they use the
opportunities offered by their new situation? Is space opening up for them too?
The question of our study is in what circumstances and to what extent the popula-
tion and economy of border regions can make use of the possibilities offered by
the accessibility of the other side and if there is a chance for the birth of single
cross-border regions.
Borders and border areas are all unique, individual phenomena. The birth,
change and character of the spatial borders depend to a large extent on the spatial
unit (in this case: state) they surround, but this is a mutual relationship: states,
border regions, and the characteristics of the state border all influence each other
(Hardi, 2001). This is why it is not enough to analyse the political, social, eco-
nomic and cultural features of the border regions via the comparison of case
studies; we have to strive for the generalisation of the deeper lying reasons,
placing them into a theoretical and historical context.
2 Border regions and cross-border movements
The analysis of cross-border areas is widespread in the literature of regional
studies and geography, as they are special areas due to their proximity to the state
border. Our starting point is the definition by Hansen, according to whom the
concept of border region relates to “that part of the natural space where economic
and social life is directly and significantly influenced by the existence of an inter-
national border. In this sense we can differentiate between open or potentially
open regions and closed regions” (Hansen, 1977). In his definition, Hansen de-
5
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
termines the basic types of the border areas. On the basis of his designation we
can say that the characteristics of these areas are mostly influenced by the border,
accordingly, the types of the borders also define the characteristic features of the
areas next to the borders. The border itself, however, can be characterised in
many ways, and the characteristics of the borders are also influenced by the
quality of the nearby territories, i.e. we can actually see a close interrelatedness.
On the other hand, it is just the versatility and uniqueness that makes it diffi-
cult to designate border regions, because border regions – starting from the
definition of Hansen – spread to the point where the social and economic modi-
fying effects of the border are still palpable. Borders or border sections of differ-
ent character may have a totally different impact on the economy of border
regions, so it is not possible to generally demonstrate socio-economic indices
significantly correlating with the presence of the border. The author made
attempts in which the correlations between the distance from the border and dif-
ferent indices (incomes, export ratio etc.) were taken into consideration, but no
general correlation could be detected. Guichonnet and Raffestin (1974) said that
the border is a unique system of relations in itself, it may be conflict-laden or free
from conflicts, depending on place and time. As regards the impacts of the bor-
ders, we can distinguish among short, medium and long term effects, which can
also differ in their intensity and direction and also can be direct or indirect (in-
duced) effects.
As the most general characteristic, border regions are often cited in literature
as areas in a peripheral situation compared to the national centre. So much is cor-
rect; however, in a given country only a relatively small area can be defined as the
national centre, compared to which all other areas show peripheral characteristics
to some extent, and this national centre is not necessarily far from some (modern)
border. Moving in a chosen direction away from the centre, it is a natural ten-
dency that the differences increase as we get farther and farther from the centre.
This difference is true in the neighbourhood of the central area just like in areas
more distant from that, and it is a question where we can draw the boundary of the
zone where the proximity of the border has a stronger impact on socio-economic
processes than the distance from the centre does. The proximity of the border can
increase the features that get worse and worse as we approach the periphery (e.g.
isolation, bad accessibility, worse economic indices), but the border may as well
have positive impacts on economy and society, effects that can even turn around
this tendency (a nearby traffic junction of the neighbour country may alleviate the
isolation, capital may find the border region more attractive as a result of
geographical proximity or cultural similarity).
So we can only say that border regions are always different in some way than
non-border regions, but border regions cannot be designated theoretically or on
the basis of a few indices, as a hinterland or an agglomeration can be. Border
6
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
regions are so unique phenomena that they can only be examined by individual
border sections designated by the known types of borders.
We can examine border regions as geographical peripheries of a country; we
can designate as border areas administrative units (municipalities, micro-regions,
counties etc.) that are in the proximity of a border, so we assume that the presence
of the border has an impact on them. We can see to what extent these areas are
different from the national average, and what typical disparities can be demon-
strated among the respective border regions and the sections within the same bor-
der region.
2.1 Region along the border-border region, border area-cross-border region
First of all we have to clarify the phenomena we want to deal with in our study.
Some parts of territories along the border – areas not delimited or only closed
from the border side –, delimited by certain principles can be given the following
names: area along the border, border region, border area, cross-border region; we
have to check, however, if these concepts can be classified in accordance with the
already known types of regions. For this activity we can use the typifying of the
regions by regional studies (Horváth, 1998; Lengyel–Rechnitzer, 2004; Haggett,
2006), so we can approach the concept of border region from statistical-planning,
homogeneity and functional-nodal aspects.
If we use the statistical-planning approach, then, taking the glossary of the re-
gional policy of the European Union into consideration, we take the NUTS 3 spa-
tial units adjacent to the borders as areas along the border, and their groups along
the respective border sections make the border regions.1 The development pro-
grammes of the Union recognise these areas during the preparation and
implementation of border area development programmes. This is an imperfect
bureaucratic solution: “regions” in this case integrate spatial units that were cre-
ated on different – usually administrative – logics, and their only common feature
is that they are located along a state border.
Studies with a geographical approach definitely need, however, a functional
concept of border areas, as this is the only way to comprehend the actual cross-
border processes. This attitude can be found in the literature of the topic. Border
areas can be defined as single-feature, homogeneous regions. Hansen (1977,
1983) considers as border areas those territories along the borders whose life,
socio-economic processes are considerably influenced by the existence of a sate
1 In this case then we create regions from areas that were delimited on other grounds, and we get a new
spatial concept by their aggregation. County borders are typically delimited as a result on political
bargaining, and the main reason for their delimitation was the creation of the administrative units of the
centralised state.
7
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
border. This definition was born in times when the European borders had a sepa-
rating character, and what should be emphasised in this definition is the impact of
the state border as a barrier to the territories in its neighbourhood, with typically
negative connotations. Kovács (1990) dealt in his essay with the transition of the
hinterlands of the border cities, the impact that the borders drawn in the early 20th
century and the territorial development of the new nation states had on the border
cities and their hinterlands. The essay was focused on the interruption of the
interactions of border cities and their environment annexed to other states. A new,
dynamic definition was made by Martinez, who defines the different types of
border areas on the basis of the number and depth of cross-border interactions and
accordingly differentiates among alienated, co-existing, mutually cooperating and
integrated border areas (Martinez, 1994). This demonstrates the change in the
historical role of the border, so the attitude of border research should change as
well. Taking these trains of thought further, we can see that historical transitions
transform the relation of states to each other, and through this the functions of the
state borders We must not forget, on the other hand, that borders separate areas
with different geographical endowments We have mentioned previously that the
characteristic features of the state border have close interrelations to the features
of not only the designated states but also of the border areas. Accordingly, the
functional approach demonstrated above and the respective categories by Marti-
nez are not only the stages of a temporal change but can also be spatial types,
following the unique features of the border areas (Hardi, 2001). Thus border areas
with different geographical endowments have different chances for creating inte-
grated cross-border regions.
We can say then that the basis of the definition of the border area can be the
existence of cross-border interactions, as a common feature defining a border
area. In our time, in the age of permeable borders, those areas can be taken as
border areas the everyday life of which are fundamentally influenced by the inter-
actions with the neighbour border area, and we can talk about cross-border
regions in areas where these interactions mark a spatially designable and intensive
system of relations. Literature on the spatial boundaries more and more often
mention the fact of life that the sharp differentiation among regions (in this case
among areas belonging to different states) is now an obsolete feature, and we can
more and more frequently observe the birth of zones (border areas) with transitory
features among the systems (Fleischer, 2001; Novotny, 2007). These border areas,
coming from their geographical (social, economic, spatial structural) endow-
ments, are varied in width and depth on the different sides of the border. Within
them those special areas can be born which we can call cross-border regions.
Functional regions are cross-border in the sense that the administrative boundaries
are not obstacles to the implementation of their affairs. These functional spaces
can be organised vertically and/or horizontally. Typical vertical integrations are
8
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
areas built on the urban hierarchy, or on hinterlands organised along the centre-
periphery system, i.e. cross-border nodal regions, whereas horizontal areas are
those units that are created by certain activities or other features, such as the
labour market, joint infrastructure, joint business or economic sector, and mutual
dependence (Veggeland, 1997, 64).
This definition may be criticised if we ask what defines a border area if there
are no interactions with the other side, or these interactions are weak and occa-
sional. As we used permeable borders for our definition, our answer to this ques-
tion may be that in this case, i.e. if these interactions could be born physically, in
the absence of institutional barriers, but they still are not created, then this border
area should primarily be seen as a population and economic periphery which, due
to its geographical characteristics, has connections primarily to its own central
region. We would probably find very few examples for this in Europe.
2.2. The role of the European integration in the future of the border areas
The transformation of the function of the state borders and their symbolic signifi-
cance for the nation states was brought about by two important historical proc-
esses: the end of the Cold War on the one hand, when the demolition of the
separating walls had a positive symbolic value (see the Pan-European Picnic or
the Berlin Wall); on the other hand, this phenomenon coincided with the need of
integration of the small nation states, forced by globalisation, which had to go
along with breaking down the separating role of state borders. A real integration
process between countries will necessarily lead to the weakening of the separating
character of the border and the increase of their permeability. The goal of the
international integration process is the creation of a larger, more effective eco-
nomic and political space which is more competitive in the world economy; in
this space, parallel to the increase of the depth of the integration, borders are be-
coming more and more permeable. This is an economic and political imperative
on the global scale, as an effect of which nation states are willing to eliminate
some of the separating functions of their state borders. The borders (of symbolic
value) of the nation states have been seriously attacked from two sides. State bor-
ders of course do not cease to exist, but new spatial categories have also been
created, decreasing the relative significance, symbolic value and separating role
of the state borders in the eyes of the society, the economy and the political
sphere. A supranational spatial level (integration) was born and also a subnational
spatial level (region) – where no such thing had existed before. Kolossov and
O’Loughlin (1998) summarised this transition as in the figure below (Figure 1).
9
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
Figure 1
Territories and levels in the world system
Source: Kolossov–O’Loughlin (1998).
It is a question what impact this integration process has on linking border areas
and the birth of cross-border regions. Slightly sobered up from the euphoria of
integration, we have to see that, despite the integration efforts in economy and
politics, the spatial units for the self-identification of society remains the locality
or the nation state – apart from the exceptions, of course. In the 20th century, the
nation-building of the totalitarian and other social systems was so strong that it
succeeded in transforming the mental maps of people, and so the permeability of
the borders and the decrease of their symbolic role has not yet reinstalled cross-
border regional identity even in regions that used to be single regions in history
(Chromý–Kuldová–Kuera, 2008; Siwek, 2008).
Another important question, besides the joining and integration of the large
European systems, is how the internal borders of the European Union will de-
velop. This is a function of the strategic creation of the internal structure of the
European integration, which in our opinion is not finalised as yet. This may have
a dominant impact on how much the daily issues of the border regions can be
joined. It is an important question whether we become a Europe of nation states
which a) has a strong external protecting wall and well-marked (but of course
permeable) internal nation state borders, and actually resembles a confederation
or b) is an integration on its way to federation, where state borders have a weaker
10
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
and weaker role but the spatial frameworks remain clearly designated. A third, c)
option is the “Europe of the regions” mentioned so frequently, which would
strengthen integration and the level of the regions instead of the level of nation
states, similarly to the figure by Kolossov–O’Loughlin. The birth of cross-border
regions is given a supporting integration framework the least by the first option
and the most by the third option. The present geopolitical situation (especially the
impact of the Eastern enlargements) makes the first option more probable.
2.3 Model of cross-border movements and interactions
As we could see, the basis of the birth of border areas and cross-border regions is
the existence of cross-border movements and interactions (i.e. movements and
interactions maintained with the neighbouring border area). This circle does not
only contain travels but also other dimensions of contact, such as friendships,
acquaintanceships, marital relations and media consumption. It is important
though for our topic that it is the regular interactions and movements that matter
and not the occasional ones.
The opening of the borders necessarily leads to the increase of the number and
range of motivations for the movements. Krakover (1997), however, emphasises
that the openness of the border does not always result in tangible achievements,
especially in situations where it is not possible to establish significant trade rela-
tions between the two separated countries (e.g. because of the weak economy).
Short-term interests (e.g. the incubation of start-up economic companies, protec-
tionism) are thus against the opening of the borders. Anderson and O’Dowd
(1999) emphasise that the cross-border relations are asymmetric, because there
are differences between the border regions as well.
We should then examine the geographical frameworks, social, political and
economic factors which determine these interactions, their directions, frequency
and magnitude.
The spatial movements of humans are usually motivated by economic necessi-
ties and benefits. The concept of economic benefit does not only include profit
realised during economic activity (business, work) but also if the individual can
use certain functions, services (education, healthcare, transport infrastructure,
residence) with less travel, or at lower price, maybe in better quality – with less
expenses. The basic reason for regular cross-border movements is the benefit
derived from them.
Due to the spatial organising activity of the nation state, “the other side of the
border” is not our natural space of movements. In order to use the other side more
or less regularly during our everyday activities, we must have a benefit that makes
us neglect the obstacles coming from the existence of the state border (border
11
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
checks, different social and cultural environment, mental border, other currency
etc.). In other words, the profit realisable must be bigger than the existing barriers.
This is true for inter-state, international migrations in general. What makes
movements between border areas different is usually that the benefits coming
from the differences are made more accessible by spatial proximity, so local or
regional level paths of movements are enough to use the benefits as a normal
activity of our life.
The direction and magnitude of the movements are determined, in our opinion,
by the features of the neighbour states and border areas, their differences, and the
accessibility of the other side. The mechanism of these is summarised in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Model of the development of cross-border movements
Source: Author’s construction.
Movements, migrations between two states occur as a result of differences that
have evolved between socio-economic development levels (and accordingly the
realisable incomes) and the national systems (e.g. taxation, healthcare, educa-
tional etc. systems). Naturally, this motivation can also appear in case of move-
ments between border regions; in fact, the probability of movements is greatly
12
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
promoted by the spatial proximity of the neighbour system. For example, between
Slovakia and Hungary, it is especially the inhabitants of the Hungarian towns and
cities near the border who establish businesses and buy cars in Slovakia, moti-
vated by the differences in the two taxation systems. Similarly, it is especially the
border areas of Slovakia from where students attend the educational institutions of
the Hungarian towns and cities along the border. Of course people from other
parts of Hungary also travel to Slovakia to buy cars and Hungarian ethnic students
from Slovakia also attend educational institutions elsewhere in Hungary, but these
phenomena have a measurable magnitude and thus become parts of the everyday
life in the border area where these activities can be realised within the daily range
of movement.
The attraction coming from the differences between the states can be modified
considerably by the economic features, structure and development dynamics of
the border areas. It is of little use to be neighbour to the peripheral area of a rich
country: there, we cannot utilise the income disparities between the states, and a
citizen living in the border area can only take part in large-distance international
migration. This is justified by our surveys in relation to Hungary and Austria,
where cross-border daily commuting was done by 10–12 thousand people in
2004, but the larger share of this number was concentrated in the northern part of
the border; moreover, the border area in Hungary involved in commuting was
wider in this area (Hardi, 2005). The number of employees commuting from
Slovakia to Hungary in late 2007 was approximately 28–30 thousand, but two-
thirds of them lived and worked along the Danubian border (Hardi–Lampl, 2008).
The economic structure of the border areas may even reverse the disparities
between the states. Along the northern stretch of the Polish-German border, we
find the economically less developed territories of Germany where in some cases
the incomes of the Polish middle class can be higher now than those of the
significant part of the population living in the peripheral German areas
(Sontheimer, 2008). Similarly, the difference in economic development levels of
the border areas motivates (in addition to spatial structural and urbanisation-
related reasons) cross-border suburbanisation in our region. The migration of
citizens from Bratislava to the border areas of Austria and Hungary takes place
mainly due to the fact that in this region the peripheral areas of Austria and
Hungary are adjacent to the dynamic economic centre of Slovakia. Although real
estate prices are usually higher in Austria, and in fact, also in Hungary than in
Slovakia, the situation is just the opposite in the border area: in the Hungarian part
of the area real estate prices are significantly lower than in Bratislava. A similar
situation has evolved between Szczecin and East Germany. So we always have
look at the positions of the border areas within the respective countries (centre or
periphery), as well as the development levels relative to each other and the
dynamics of their development. We could make a longer list of the differences
13
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
and the consequent examples. We can say that the socio-economic development
disparities of the neighbour countries and their border areas have an impact on
what social groups and for what reasons decide to visit and use the other side of
the border.
The volume of this phenomenon, i.e. the number of movements, interactions is
regulated by accessibility, i.e. what sort of barrier the border represents. This has
many components. Spatial structure is important. If a city is located close to the
border, it evidently has a stronger attraction on the other side of the border than if
the same city can be found at a distance from the border, in worse traffic condi-
tions. The permeability of the border is also influenced by the transport network.
In the northern part of the Austrian-Hungarian border, excellent infrastructure and
dense public transport have also contributed to the fact that a larger part of cross-
border commuting is concentrated here than in the south part of the border area
with a poor transport situation.
The concept of accessibility also contains the presence and strength of linguis-
tic, cultural and mental barriers. It is not by chance that our survey made among
the commuters across the border revealed that the biggest problems for the com-
muters in the Hungarian–Austrian border region are the language and cultural
differences, while these problems – evidently – were much less of a problem in
the circle of the Slovakian-Hungarian commuters, given the fact that the state
border does not mean linguistic and cultural separation in the latter case. The mi-
norities living in the border areas usually contribute to the increase of accessi-
bility in the broader sense, to the decrease of the language barriers (Kocsis–Wast-
Walter, 1992). Mental separation, discrimination concomitant with working in
another country was also much more frequent in the Hungarian–Austrian case
(Nárai, 1999) than in the Slovak–Hungarian border area.
Institutional integration is also meant to break down the barriers. In the pre-
vious chapter we showed that the efforts for EU accession allowed the free
crossing of the borders, and the different measures allowed employment, purchase
of real estate, studying etc. on the territory of another state. All these together
opened up new possibilities for the border areas, as they resulted in the rapid in-
crease of the number of interactions and movements, and also in their purposes.
The other arena of international integration, on the other hand, is the sphere of
national systems (education, healthcare etc.), which are only slowly approaching
each other and retain major differences despite the Union’s integration. These
may be barriers to movements across the border areas. By the integration of these
national systems we mean that the systems become permeable, i.e. we can rela-
tively easily use the institutions and infrastructure in the other country. A Hun-
garian hospital can e.g. make a contract with Slovakian health insurance, allowing
patients living in the border area to use the health services in Hungary. The same
does not work the other way round for the time being. What is more, even the
14
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
handling of the urgent cases is unsolved, as the ambulance service cannot
transport a patient to the nearby hospital of the neighbour country. These are only
simple examples, but several others, the permeability level of which impacts the
amount of possible movements, could also be raised from telephone services to
educational systems.
3 The urban network and the border
3.1 Centres in the proximity of the border
As we could see from the previous chapters, the geographical character and the
function of the borders have changed a lot in the course of history. Nevertheless
the border kept its basic function of being the dominant spatial structural element
and factor of the society and the economy. This spatial role of the border
strengthened with the birth of the nation state borders. The inner spatial structures
of the states are usually adjusted to the state borders. The backbone of this spatial
structure is the urban network, the total of the junctions of the space and their
relations. The urban network of the respective political entities (states) is evolving
specifically within the borders of the entity, influenced by both the natural and the
socio-economic environment.
Haggett (2006), when introducing the analysis phases of nodal regions,
describes the spatial process by which the birth of the urban network can also be
comprehended (Figure 1). The first phase of the six is the analysis of the direc-
tions of spatial movements and relations. On a historical scale this is strongly
influenced by the natural environment, as the directions of the relations were very
much influenced by transport possibilities, e.g. passes across the mountains,
routes usable in the plainlands of the Carpathian Basin even in times of flood,
river crossing places etc. The content and intensity of the relations, on the other
hand, were influenced by economy and society, after they reached the develop-
ment level when they would produce for exchange (appearance of marketed
goods as opposed to self-subsistence) (Beluszky, 2001). The transport of these
goods is what created the basic structure of the space, the system of routes. The
junctions of the routes provided chances for the development of centres and towns
by offering the best available geographical location. The settlement development
chances coming from the possibility of relations and from the central location is
what Tibor Mendöl called positional energies (Mendöl, 1963). These positional
energies in turn determine the development of the junctions, and the actual or
potential positions in the urban hierarchy. Junctions are surrounded by zones at
different levels of development, which influence the birth of the hinterlands of the
15
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
towns, the functional content and symmetry of the inter-city relations, the func-
tional hierarchy of the settlements.
Walter Christaller, the academic working out the theoretically ideal system of
central places, proved that in a theoretically single plainland with homogeneous
population density, the settlements at the different level of hierarchy are located in
a hexagonal system, in a way that a hexagon is made from the lower rank central
places, with a higher rank central place in the middle of each hexagon, and these
places also make a hexagon, in the middle of which an even higher level central
place is born. This hexagonal order is repeated at ever higher grades. This theo-
retical order of Christaller’s space is of course disturbed by the lack of spatial
homogeneity (different population density, natural conditions, orography), and as
Mendöl remarks, the disparities of the positional energies basically distort this
hexagonal system, as there will be places and junctions in better positions where
more important central places will be born.
Because positional energies are functions of spatial relations, state territories
and accordingly state borders can have a considerable impact on them. Partly, the
borders themselves can have such impacts, and partly also the neighbour states
and territories.
The direct impact of the borders can vary, depending on the character of the
border. First, they separate two urban networks with different historical develop-
ment paths. Within a national economy, the size of the central places, the
distances among them, and the majority of the other functions determining central
goods and services (e.g. the structure of demand, prices, wages, tax system and
the expenses of distance) are the same. Crossing the border, however, all of these
factors are different, which changes the location and size of the central places and
their distance from one another (Jeanneret, 1984, in Imre, 2008). In the case of a
strongly separating border, the units of an urban network close to the state border
are in worse positions then their counterparts in the vicinity of the national centre.
The opening up of the border will have different impacts on the respective cen-
tres. The possibility of border crossing can in itself be an important positional
energy, similar to that offered by a ford or a ferry across a river in the Middle
Ages: it attracts movements, especially when there are few border crossing facili-
ties, it manages special cross-border commerce, and it stores the goods trans-
ported (legally or illegally) across the border and distributes them towards the
inner areas of the country. Let us think in this place of the settlements along the
border to Austria, Yugoslavia, or Ukraine in the 1980s and 1990s, invaded by
merchants and soldiers of fortune from all parts of the country, who rented even
garages in both Hungary and Burgenland at a high price to store their goods.
If borders are open, this positional energy more or less ceases to exist. The
opening up of the border takes place anyway between countries whose socio-
economic systems are converging towards each other. The border region actually
16
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
becomes a transit area in this case, when its positional energy is primarily
influenced by the development level of the state and region on the other side. A
more developed state can have a positive impact on the centres in the border area
of a less advanced sate. If state “A” is more developed than state “B”, the fol-
lowing situations can emerge.
The border area of state “A” is a periphery within it own country, its centres
− in the vicinity of the border are weak, while there are important centres in
the border area of state “B”. Such a situation has evolved in the Austrian–
Hungarian border region, apart from the hinterland of Vienna, and also in
the middle and southern parts of the Romanian-Hungarian border region. In
these areas, the border cities have considerable capital absorption capacity
in the poorer countries, as they are situated close to the more developed
country and are important economic centres in their own countries. This
leads to an interesting asymmetry between the periphery of the advanced
state and the dynamic urban area of the less developed country. Slovakia
e.g. is much less developed than Austria, still many people move from Bra-
tislava to the border areas of Austria, and a similar phenomenon can be seen
in the case of Oradea or Arad in Romania, from where many move to Hun-
gary, while many Hungarian employees commute to Romania to work.
Also, a similar situation has emerged between the eastern border areas of
Germany and the Polish border city, Szczecin. Movements of this direction
would have been unimaginable only ten years ago.
An important urban centre can be found in the border area of state “A”, and
− there are developed centres in state “B” as well. In these cases the border
cities of state “B” gain a significant positional energy from their location. A
typical example for this is the relationship among Vienna, and Sopron, GyĘr
and Bratislava, where it is the relations towards Vienna and the access to the
Austrian capital city that have given a tremendous amount of positional en-
ergy to the other respective cities. Their development has been much more
dynamic over the last two decades than the progress of Eisenstadt and
Wiener Neustadt2, both in the vicinity of Vienna in their own country. The
three cities above (Bratislava, GyĘr and Sopron) have profited from the
proximity of Vienna according to their hierarchy levels occupied in their
respective countries. The greatest benefit has been achieved by Bratislava,
due to its geographical location right by the border.
Both states have peripheral regions, void of centres, in the adjacent areas. In
− this case the institutionalised openness of the border is in vain, as it can only
give a very weak positional energy to the municipalities, towns and cities.
We may even call the border an iron curtain of settlement geography.
2 Kismarton and Bécsújhely in Hungarian, respectively.
17
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
3.2 Hinterlands and state borders
One of the most striking phenomena in the relations of the border and cities is the
case of fragmented hinterlands. A city near the state border cannot shape its hin-
terland in all directions around itself, because it cannot have attraction on the
other side of the border, or this attraction is incomplete. If we examine the issue
of complex hinterlands in itself, this statement seems to be true. We have to con-
sider, on the other hand, that the proximity of the border can also be a positive
energy for the development of the cities, as we have already demonstrated. These
positive energies can even be definitely large in some cases, and the hinterlands
of the cities may reach into the territory of the other state in some functions. The
concept of cross-border “shopping tourism” covers the phenomenon when the
differences of the exchange rates or prices, the disparities of the goods supply,
maybe the differences in the regulations concerning trade or services lead to the
purchase or use of goods and (non-touristic) services in another country by pri-
vate persons. The quantities of purchases may be below the volume of trade on a
personal basis but considerable on the whole, and the main motivation of travel
may be the purchase or use of goods or services. If these disparities are signifi-
cant, a small town in the border area can have a hinterland much larger on the
other side of the border than in its own country, even including settlements at
higher levels of the hierarchy than the respective town itself. An example for this
can be Lenti, whose marketplace was regularly visited in the second half of the
1990s by customers from the capital city of Slovenia and Croatia, while its hin-
terland in Hungary did not reach beyond 15–20 kilometres at that time. Similar
examples could be mentioned in commuting employment and the use of certain
services (e.g. dentistry). If the prices and costs decrease, shopping tourism will
survive where the differences of supply are a strong motivation. This may mean
the rich country – poor country disparity, but the really lasting disparities of
supply come from the disparities of the settlement network, i.e. from the cross-
border rural-urban relations.
In Lösch’s theory, the catchment areas of the markets theoretically have a cir-
cular or hexagonal shape in case of undisturbed development, so they spread in all
directions out of the centre, while this in reality is blocked by the state border
with political and customs border functions, not allowing the birth of a complete
market catchment area, hinterland (Rechnitzer, 1999; Niebuhr–Stiller, 2004)
(Figure 3).
We have to add that the distortion of the market catchment area is not only the
effect of the border as a barrier. Even in the case of open borders, the market
catchment area may be narrowed down by the fact that the socio-economic or
even the technical systems of the neighbour country may be more or less differ-
ent, so a town in the vicinity of the border cannot extend its hinterland as freely to
18
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
the neighbour cross-border areas in the other country as to its own national territo-
ries. What does this mean? There may be several deviations between the two
states that might make urban-rural relations across the border more problematic
and expensive. From administrative and public service aspects, citizens living on
one side of the border in state “A” are foreign citizens, even if they are close spa-
tially, so they do not have or only have limited access to institutions maintained
by the taxpayers of the citizens of state “B” (healthcare, education, labour
services), or they may have access at higher costs, and prefer to use these services
on the territory of their own state, maybe further in space but at lower expenses.
The category of cost-increasing factors contain many other items: currency ex-
change, higher telephone and transport tariffs, the uncertainty of border crossing,
loss of time, less dense transport network etc. Accordingly, cities can only extend
their hinterlands across the border in those urban functions where border crossing
does not mean an increase of costs, or only causes a negligible cost increase, and
the increased costs are compensated by the spatial proximity, or even a profit may
be gained from the comparative advantages.
Figure 3
Distortion of the market catchment area
Source: Niebuhr–Stiller, 2004, 5; re-edited by Imre, 2008.
Hansen (1981), using the logic of growth pole theories, comes to the conclu-
sion that the border is a barrier to the diffusion impacts radiating from the centre
to the nearby areas, the hinterland, and it blocks the spread of innovations. Thus,
the centre cannot use the benefits deriving from economies of scale and agglom-
erative factors. The opening of the borders will eliminate these obstacles, and by
19
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
the re-start of the diffusion processes the centres reinforce their positions and start
to develop. Hansen complemented his concept by saying that the launch of eco-
nomic development in the border regions depends to a large extent on the centre-
periphery relations, the accessibility of the centres and the economic development
level of the other, neighbouring border area. The opening up of the borders will
not eliminate the peripheral situation of the areas without centres or far from the
centres, as the centres are looking for each other’s complementary resources,
which strengthens the centre to centre relations in the first place. On the other
hand, it is just the different economic conditions (prices, supply, consumption
structure, supply of resources) that may trigger the activity of the border regions
and their centres, and can lead to specialisation in some activities (Rechnitzer,
1999).
It is already clear from Hansen’s activity that a development pole can have an
ambivalent impact on the territory on the other side of the border. The existence
of both a backwash or spread effect is possible as a result of the centres. A devel-
oping urban centre may drain resources from its environment (labour force, capi-
tal flows, radial transport network etc.), but it may as well develop its area by the
spread effect, distributing civilisation goods, innovation and incomes there, pro-
vided that the conditions for that are given.
In case of permeable borders, the developing centres can also have similar im-
pacts on the other side of the border; in fact, the proximity of the different
systems (with different taxation and wage costs in most cases) may even reinforce
these – either positive or negative – impacts. For example, in the western border
areas of Hungary for example the Austrian demand for labour resulted in a
shortage of labour supply in Hungary in some professions, especially in the case
of the trained labour force. This is a strong backwash effect, because the
education of the labour force, financed by Hungarian taxpayers, generated
incomes in another country. It is true, however, that the larger part of the wages
earned in Austria by Hungarian employees is spent in Hungary, and parallel to the
incomes, work ethic, innovation etc., in other words, spread effects also arrived at
the Hungarian region. In other cases, for example the Romanian cities in the
proximity of the border, there has been a strong backwash effect on the Hungarian
areas, because they drain investors with their better taxation conditions and lower
wage costs: investors only have to cross a border and can choose Oradea or Arad
instead of Debrecen or Szeged.
Backwash effects can be considerably reinforced by disparities on the two
sides of the border, as a result of which a developing urban centre may cause
problems for the other side of the border, but spread effects can also be strong,
because in some cases certain things may become innovations (e.g. work ethic,
behaviour culture, language skills etc.) which are no longer innovations in the
country of the centre.
20
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
3.3 Specific city types along the borders
As we have demonstrated, the impact of the state border on a border city or area
can be extremely varied; border location in itself is neither advantage nor disad-
vantage, and the treatment of the same border area can vary by historical periods
and states. The development of border cities depends to a large extent on the
geographical location of the given city or the region within its own country, and
also on the characteristics of the neighbour city or region on the other side of the
border. It means that practically all examples are unique, it is hard to generalise or
we can only come to very superficial conclusions. Nevertheless, we still have to
define general phenomena that may be generated in the life of the border city or
region by the state border and the change of its spatial and functional character.
The ESPON project conducted an analysis of morphological character
(ESPON project, 2006 in Székely, 2007). This classification gives a graphic de-
scription of the relationship of the city, the border and the neighbour city (and
also the functional urban zones of the cities), and classifies several European
cases into this system. The nine types are classified on the basis of the size of the
cities, their proximity to each other and the state border, and the extension of the
functional urban areas (narrow hinterland).
Type 1: twin cities, typically of small size, maybe making a structurally single
city cut by the borderline. Both have their own functional urban areas, even if
they have public transport connections. The best known example is the Görlitz–
Zgorzelec city pair on the German-Polish border.
Type 2: large city whose morphological zone is continued in the neighbour
state(s), in the form of small towns in the functional urban area of the big city, or
a contiguous suburban zone. Typical examples include Basel (Switzerland, Saint-
Louis – France, Lörrach – Germany) or Geneva (Switzerland, Anemasse –
France). A key area of cooperation is the organisation of joint public transport
networks. This may have legal obstacles especially if service providers are not
managed locally (e.g. state railways). In the ideal case cross-border service com-
panies are established.
Type 3: big city whose morphological zone is not continued in the neighbour
state(s), the small town(s) has/have their own functional urban areas and a rela-
tively small number of people commute daily from the small town to the
neighbouring city. Such an arrangement definitely decreases the necessity of
cross-border service companies. It is usually the small town that profits from the
proximity of the large city service providers. The best example is Strasbourg–
Kehl.
Type 4: a small cross-border morphological set. Coming from the size, organ-
isational problems are much less than at Type 2. Such examples are e.g. d’Esch-
21
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
sur-Alzette (Luxembourg) – Audun-le-Tiche (France) or Longwy (France) –
Pétange (Luxembourg) – Aubange (Belgium).
Type 5: a large city whose functional urban zone is continued in the neighbour
state(s), maybe spotted with small towns with their own secondary functional
urban areas. The macro-region of Luxembourg can be a good example. The two
major areas of cross-border interactions is the accessibility of the large city from
the other side (movement of labour force) and the development of the educational
infrastructure of the country of origin so that is should satisfy the labour demand
of the large city.
Type 6: two structurally connected large cities on the two sides of the border,
such as Heerlen (Holland) and Aachen (Germany). If cross-border technical co-
operation is needed, it is organised at a higher level. On the other hand, a
relatively large proportion of the cities prefer to pursue joint city marketing (aux-
iliary functions).
Type 7: two large cities on the two sides of the border, which are not con-
nected structurally, only their functional urban zones are adjacent to each other. It
is a version of the previous type, and a typical example for this is the cities of
Vienna and Bratislava.
Type 8: large cities relatively close to each other (at a distance of approxi-
mately 50 kilometres), whose functional urban zones are not adjacent in most
cases. Examples are the group of four cities: Hasselt-Genk, Maastricht, Aachen
and Liége; or Hasselt-Genk and Eindhoven. Even if there is some organisation for
cooperation, it only has a consulting and occasional role. Global strategies very
rapidly lead to fierce competition, because the cities are located at a large enough
distance to be able to avoid the joint use of infrastructure. The large-scale and
high quality intellectual centres (universities) or service centres (hospitals) are
limited by the national regulations, so they are not more susceptible to cross-
border cooperation than to collaboration with other institutions located farther
away.
Type 9: large city cut into two by the borderline. An example for this was the
divided Berlin (West Berlin did not have a functional urban area) or Nicosia
(Cyprus). It is an exceptional situation coming from problematic political deci-
sions, where there is no cross-border cooperation.
Based on our analyses made in the Carpathian Basin, we have to complement
the nine types with a tenth one: this is the category of towns in the vicinity of
which there is no central settlement on the other side of the border which could
influence the spread of the functional space of the given city beyond the border.
The MOT (Mission Opérationelle Transfontaliére – Cross-border Operational
Mission) puts forms of cross-border cooperations involving cities and urban
networks into three categories.
22
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
a) Cross-border agglomerations: urban zones of different size, contiguous or
separated by a river. This category contains Geneva (700,000 inhabitants), Basel
(600,000 inhabitants), cities that are the most similar in their structures to Lille (2
million inhabitants). Geneva and Basel are the examples with the most advanced
cross-border administrative structures. Despite its smaller scale, another example
is Görlitz–Zgorlezec (100,000 persons), where it is actually about the division of
an old German city since 1945.
b) Cross-border urban networks: these are cross-border cooperation networks
made by cities geographically close to each other (within 50 kilometres), without
structural contiguity. Such an agglomeration is the MAHHL (Maastricht–
Aachen–Heerlen–Hasselt–Liége) network, whose population reaches 800,000
inhabitants in a cross-regional space with a population of approximately 3 mil-
lion. Despite the cross-border structure, the objectives of the MAHHL network do
not include the organisation of an integrated urban space.
c) Cross-border urban regions (Euroregion type): regions located in two or
more countries whose largest cities are not too distant from one another
geographically (50–100 kilometres), and participate in cross-border cooperation
projects on urban issues. An example for this is the Basque Bayonne–San
Sebastián Eurocity (an elongated coastal region divided by structural breaks with
an already operating cooperation structure), Copenhagen–Malmö in the Öresund
Region (two urban zones connected by a bridge and a tunnel, with a sea strait in
between them, and with a fruitful cooperation already), and Vienna–Bratislava in
the Centrope region (a cross-border region involving four countries, which, in
addition to the two capital cities, includes GyĘr in Hungary and Brno in the Czech
Republic, and where cooperation is just winding up).
When analysing border cities, we also have to take the impact on the birth and
the hierarchy level of the settlements into consideration. By such a “genetic” clas-
sification, the border cities can belong to three categories:
1) Cities created by the border itself. These can be seen along borders existing
for a long time, they are cities established as defensive and/or commercial centres.
They are typical along the historical, frontier type borders, like e.g. the former
trading centres of North America on the edge of the conquered territories. Typical
examples for this are the city pairs along the lower reaches of the Danube River,
on the Romanian-Bulgarian border (e.g. Nikopol–Turnu Măgurele; Ruse–
Giurgiu), and on the former border of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and
Turkey (e.g. Novi Sad–Petrovaradin, formerly Újvidék and Pétervárad). In these
cases the settlements are typically fortresses, or trading cities built on the two
banks of river crossing points opposite to each other.
2) So-called “substitute centres” born because of the relocation of the border.
The new border separates a part of the region or other administrative unit from its
former central settlement, which makes the designation of a new centre necessary,
23
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
or the settlement becoming a regional centre moves upwards the settlement
hierarchy. There are several examples for this in the Carpathian Basin (Komárom,
Lenti, Salgótarján etc.), but also in other regions (e.g. Bolzano in South Tyrol,
Pasewalk on the German-Polish border).
3) “Loser cities”, which lost their former positions in the urban hierarchy after
the relocation of the border. Parallel to this loss, their functional development was
not as dynamic in the 20th century, either, than that of their similar counterparts
located in other areas of the country. Several towns and cities like this can be
found in the Carpathian Basin. Losses may have two reasons in most of the cases:
3a) County seats that lost the major part of their counties, and were unable to
assert their interests at the reorganisation of the counties3, so the new counties
were given new centres. This was the fate of e.g. Balassagyarmat, Rimavská
Sobota [Rimaszombat] and Zlaté Moravce [Aranyosmarót] next to the Slovakian–
Hungarian, Berehove [Beregszász] and Vynohradiv [NagyszĘllĘs] next to the
Ukrainian–Hungarian, Zalău [Zilah], Sombor [Zombor] and Zrenjanin [Nagy-
becskerek] next to the Serbian–Hungarian, Gyula [Giula] next to the Romanian–
Hungarian and Sopron [Ödenburg] next to the Austrian–Hungarian border. The
development of these settlements was mainly blocked by administrative barriers.
3b) Some towns and cities found themselves in definite border location. These
settlements lost a part of their functional catchment areas and inter-municipal
relations. We have to take the fact into consideration that in the early 20th century
a “complex catchment area” in the present sense of the word, i.e. a region that is
organically integrated to a city in everyday issues, was significantly smaller than
it is now. The situation of the transport facilities and lifestyle (employment
structure and consumption habits of the rural population) at that time did not
make cities as mutually dependant on their wider environment as they are now.
The functional development of the settlements near the border was evidently set
back by the narrowing down of their hinterland, but our experiences suggest that
the following factors also played important, sometimes dominant role, besides the
loss of the catchment area:
Political reasons: in all countries, in the total or a part of the 20th century to-
− talitarian regimes were in power. With their control urban development also
took place, especially in its quantitative growth phase in the time of
intensive urbanisation (at different times by countries, from the 1950s to the
late 1980s). The border cities, because of their location and occasionally
ethnic composition, did not become targets of development in the
totalitarian period, and in some cases their development was consciously
held back. Examples for this include Sopron [Ödenburg], Baja, Esztergom,
Luenec [Losonc] or Subotica [Szabadka].
3 After the designation of the borders, the fragments of the old counties were integrated, the
administrative boundaries were redrawn and the new powers designated new centres.
24
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
Loss of transport connections: after the drawing of the borders some settle-
− ments lost the transport connections which promoted the development of the
economy of the settlement before. This was an especially great shock for
market towns that even had relations to distant areas. Also, several
settlements became destinations of infrastructure lines; they lost their
former junction characters. This happened in e.g. Mátészalka or Mohács.
We can also mention Trieste here, a city where the border drawn cut the
railway and road running to the city.
4) City quarter separated by the border, becoming an independent settle-
ment/city. In these cases the borderline drawn is running across the inner territory
of a settlement/city, disrupting the organic unity of the settlement. There are many
examples for this in Europe: e.g. Teschen in Silesia or Baarle–Nassau on the Bel-
gian–Dutch border. In the latter case the life of the city is not disturbed by the
border, only a mark painted on the pavement shows the location of the borderline
between Belgium and Holland. A typical example in the Carpathian Basin is
Sátoraljaújhely.
4 Conclusions
The regular spatial movements, traffic and relations of people have a basic influ-
ence on the formation of spatial structures and regions. This is especially true for
border areas and cross-border regions. In our study we paid attention to the clari-
fication of those concepts relating to spatial units within which our surveys should
be done.
For us it seems that the several decades or centuries of nation state develop-
ment and its impact on shaping the spatial structure made a permanent, or at least
long-lasting mark on the life of border regions. The tracks of movements within
the nation states are transforming only slowly and if the necessary conditions are
provided. Even under favourable circumstances, the other side of the border can
only be a real space of everyday movements for a small part of the population.
The integration efforts of the level of the Union and nation states will, in our
opinion, only partially promote the birth of cross-border regions, what is more
probable is the birth of transitory zones, border areas. Besides the further devel-
opment of these and the use of the possibilities we also have to consider that the
chances that the border areas offer are not the same for the inhabitants living on
the sides of the borders, in different geographical environments.
25
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
References
Anderson, J. – O’Dowd, L. 1999: Border, border regions and territoriality: Contradictory meanings,
changing significance. – Regional Studies. 7. pp. 593–604.
Beluszky, P. 2001: A Nagyalföld történeti földrajza [The Historical Geography of the Hungarian
Great Plain]. Budapest–Pécs, Dialóg Campus.
Chromý, P. – Kuldová, S. – Kuera, Z. 2008: Regional identity, contemporary and historical regions
and the issue of relict borders – the case of Czechia. 11th International ‘Łódz’ Conference on
Political Geography Historical Regions Divided by the Borders, Department of Political
Geography and Regional Studies, University of Łódz, September 17–19, 2008, Swinoujscie
(Poland).
Fleischer, T. 2001: Régiók, határok, hálózatok [Regions, borders, networks] – Tér és Társadalom.
3–4. pp. 55–67.
Guichonnet, P. – Raffestin, C. 1974: Géographie des frontieres. Paris, Presses Universitaires de
France.
Haggett, P. 2006: Geográfia – globális szintézis [Geography – A Global Synthesis]. Budapest,
Typotex.
Hansen, N. 1977: Border regions: a critique of spatial theory and an European case study. – Annals
of Regional Science. 15. pp. 255–270.
Hansen, N. 1983: International cooperation in border regions: an Overview and Research Agenda. –
International Regional Science Review. 8. 456–477. o.
Hardi, T. 2001: Az egységes határrégiók kialakulásának feltételei – lehetséges határrégiók a Kárpát-
medencében [Conditions of transborder region-formation – Potentional transborder regions in
the Carpathian Basin]. Ph.D. dissertation. Pécs, University of Pécs Faculty of Business and
Economics, Doctoral School for Regional Policy and Economics.
Hardi, T. 2005: Határon átnyúló ingázás, munkavállalás az osztrák–magyar határtérségben.
[Transborder labour force-commuting in the Hungarian–Austrian border region]. – Tér és
Társadalom. 2. pp. 65–81.
Hardi, T. – Lados, M. – Tóth, K. (eds.) 2010: Magyar–szlovák agglomeráció Pozsony környékén.
GyĘr–Šamorín, MTA RKK NYUTI – Fórum Intézet. http://agglonet.foruminst.sk
Hardi, T. – Lampl, Zs. 2008: Határon átnyúló ingázás a szlovák–magyar határtérségben
[Transborder commuting in the Slovakian–Hungarian border region]. – Tér és Társadalom. 3.
pp. 109–126.
Horváth, Gy. 1998: Európai regionális politika [European regional policy]. Budapest–Pécs, Dialóg
Campus.
Imre, G. 2008: A Magyar–ukrán határon átnyúló együttmĦködés szerepe az európai regionális
politikában Magyarország uniós csatlakozása után [The role of Hungarian–Ukrainian cross-
border co-operation in European regional policy after the EU-accession of Hungary]. Mimeo.
Jeanneret, P. 1984: Les effets économiques régionaux des frontières internationales – l’exemple de
la frontière franco-suisse de Genève á Bâle (Thèse). Neuchatel, Université de Neuchatel, Faculté
de droit et des sciences économiques.
http://doc.rero.ch/lm.php?url=1000,40,4,20060221083229-NM/1_these_JeanneretPh.pdf
Kocsis, K. – Wast-Walter, D. 1992: A nyugat-pannon határvidéken élĘ magyar és osztrák nemzeti
kisebbségek térbeli aktivitása [The territorial activity of the Hungarian and Austrian ethnic
minorities living in the West-Pannonian border region]. – Forray, R. K.–Pribersky, A. (eds.): A
határmenti együttmĦködés és az oktatás. Budapest, Oktatáskutató Intézet, pp. 132–134.
Kolossov, V. – O’Loughlin, J. 1998: New borders for new world orders: Territorialities at the fin-
de-siecle. – GeoJournal. 44. pp. 259–273.
26
Hardi, Tamás : Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2010. 27. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 82.
Kovács, Z. 1990: A határ menti területek központhálózatának átalakulása az elsĘ világháború
utántól napjainkig [The change of the urban network in the border regions between the end of
WW I to our period]. – Földrajzi Közlemények. 1–2. pp. 3–16.
Krakover, S. 1997: Boundary-openness model applied to Israel, Egypt and Gaza strip tri-border
area. Paper presented at the European Regional Science Association Summer Institute, Are.
Lengyel, I. – Rechnitzer, J. 2004: Regionális gazdaságtan [Regional Economics]. Budapest–Pécs,
Dialóg Campus.
Martinez, O. J. 1994: The dynamics of border interaction: New approaches to border analysis. In:
Schofield, C. H. (ed.): Global Boundaries. World Boundaries Series 1. London–New York,
Routledge, pp. 1–15.
Mendöl, T. 1963: Általános településföldrajz [The General Geography of Settlements]. Budapest,
Akadémiai Kiadó.
Nárai, M. 1999: A határ mente mint élettér – A határmentiség jelentĘsége az emberek életében [The
Border Region as Living Space – The Importance of the Border Region in the Life of the
People]. In: Rechnitzer, J. – Nárai, M. (eds.) Elválaszt és összeköt – a határ. GyĘr–Pécs, MTA
RKK. pp. 129–158.
Niebuhr, A. – Stiller, S. 2004: Integration effects in border regions. A survey of economic theory
and empirical studies. – Review of Regional Research1. pp. 3–21.
Novotny, G. 2007: Határon átnyúló regionális hálózatok Európában [Transborder regional networks
in europe]. In: Buday-Sántha, A. – Lux, G. (eds.): Évkönyv 2006. Pécs, PTE KTK Regionális
Politika és Gazdaságtan Doktori Iskola, pp. 385–408.
Rechnitzer, J. 1999: Határ menti együttmĦködések Európában és Magyarországon [Transborder
regional co-operation in Europe and in Hungary]. In: Nárai, M. – Rechnitzer, J. (eds.): Elválaszt
és összeköt – a határ. GyĘr–Pécs, MTA RKK, pp. 9–72.
Săgeăta, R. 2004: The Role of the doublet settlements in the Euro-Regions structure – A case study:
the Romanian–Bulgarian border space in the Danube sector. In: Wendt, J.– Bente, F.– Bodocan,
V. (eds.): Poland and Romania before Enlargement of European Union and NATO. Warsaw,
Carta Blanca, pp. 125–131.
Siwek, T. 2008: Teschen, Silesia: 90 years after dividing. 11th International ‘Łódz’ Conference on
Political Geography. Historical Regions Divided by the Borders, Department of Political
Geography and Regional Studies, University of Łódz, September 17–19, 2008, Swinoujscie
(Poland).
Székely, A. 2007: A határon átnyúló funkcionális városi területek kommunikációja Komárom
példáján [The communication of transborder functional urban areas – A case study of
Komárom]. In: Szónokyné Ancsin, G. – Pál, V. – Karancsi, Z. (eds.): A határok kutatója.
Szeged–Szabadka, Magyarságkutató Tudományos Társaság, pp. 241–248.
Veggeland, N. 1997: Europe at a new stage – Borderless regionalisation. – Regional Contact. 12.
pp. 57–65.
27