Discussion Papers 2005. 
Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border 
Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe 12-67. p. 
I  BACKGROUND STUDY OF THE HUNGARIAN–
ROMANIAN AND THE HUNGARIAN–
UKRAINIAN BORDER REGIONS 

1  Hungarian–Romanian border region 
1.1   Historical dimension 
The Hungarian–Romanian border region experienced several stormy periods, just 
like the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region, although its development from its 
creation until now has been totally different. Although the present Hungarian–
Ukrainian borderline is a young formation created by the peace treaty signed in the 
Great Trianon Palace
 around Paris on 4 June 1920, the border region in the 
broader sense had already had frontier functions during the course of history. The 
present border region is situated where the “core area” of the historical Hungary, 
and Transylvania, a territory that had always had a kind of independence, meet. 
This frontier function became especially palpable in the mid–16th century, when 
Hungary broke into three pieces as a result of the Turkish occupation and the 
Duchy of Transylvania became independent. From that time on, the internal bor-
derlines dividing Hungary began to function as real borderlines and became a 
military, political and cultural buffer zone for a long time. 
In addition to the frequent changes of the borders as a function of the power re-
lations, the already difficult situation is further complicated by the fact that a sig-
nificant part of the present border region belonged to the so-called Partium, i.e. the 
annexed parts”. The name of the territory comes from the fact that the Hungarian 
“parts” consisting of four counties were awarded to the princes of Transylvania 
during the 16th and 17th centuries, without being annexed to Transylvania, with the 
condition that after the death of the last prince these territories would be subject to 
the authority of the Hungarian king again. After several changes of the authority, in 
1877 this territory was melted into the neighbouring counties, so it ceased to exist 
in the administrative sense of the word. 
The border zone between the Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania, a part of 
the Kingdom with its own inner public administration, never functioned as a di-
viding border
 – with the exception of the time of the Turkish occupation –, unlike 
the present borderline between Hungary and Romania
. The internal border, almost 
unnoticeable for centuries, became a very much palpable borderline after the Peace 
 
12 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Treaty of Trianon – with a different location, though. Probably it was Romania 
among the neighbouring countries the relationship to whom was the most tense for 
a long time. It is mostly due to the fact that among the artificially designated new 
state borders, the designation of the Hungarian–Romanian border, completely ne-
glecting the ethnic relations, was the most painful for the mutilated mother country, 
because of the loss of territories bigger than the “remaining” country and the large 
number of Hungarian ethnic population living in them. The new eastern borders cut 
the biggest territory and population from Hungary. As much as 103 thousand 
square kilometres and 3.5 million population was given to Romania, of whom 
some 1.7 million declared themselves Hungarians. It was logical that the most fre-
quently declared objective of the Hungarian revisionist efforts was to reclaim Tran-
sylvania and the Partium from Romania, in addition to Upper Northern Hungary 
from Slovakia. This was achieved temporarily by the two Vienna Awards made in 
1938 and 1940. 
Following World War II, just because of the temporary re-annexation of the 
North Transylvanian territories to Hungary, the Romanians became rather untrust-
ing towards the Hungarians. Also, because of the debates and other measures fur-
ther exacerbating the assumed or real ethnic conflicts, the mutual lack of trust 
caught hold in the thinking of the two nations (mostly of the leading elite). The 
“friendship and brotherhood” declared in the socialist era only existed in the slo-
gans, in reality the relationship between the two countries was rather tense. The 
border functioned as a real wall in these times, practically blocking any co-opera-
tion and it was almost impossible even to pass the border. Following the revolution 
of 1989, the collapse of the dictatorship of Ceausescu, the hope was born for the 
settling of the relationships. However, the co-operation quickly starting at lower 
levels was seriously hindered by the reviving nationalism, which brought to the 
surface again the latent or suppressed problems, which naturally resulted in the 
growing fear of the modifications of the border. 
Although there are definitely positive changes in the relationship of the two 
countries nowadays, it is very difficult to annihilate the prejudices gathered for 
decades or centuries, so it is feared that the problems may occasionally appear for a 
long time. The favourable political, economic and social transitions, however, 
gradually amount to the easing of the suspicious, untrusting and consequently often 
tense relations, because both parties are slowly starting to recognise the necessity 
of co-operation, learning from the European examples. The co-operation as close 
as possible is inevitable not only because of the Euro-Atlantic integration of the 
two countries, but also because the Trianon borders tore apart economic units that 
had functioned for centuries, and divided shaping macro-regions. The dominant 
principle behind the designation of the border was the principle of “reorganiza-
tion
”, which aimed at the creation of viable successor states by the acquisition of 
the necessary macro-infrastructure, above all the traffic system, especially the key 
 
13

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
railway networks. This is why the victorious powers awarded to the successor 
states the semi-circle shaped railway network constructed on the line of medieval 
market towns, on the edge of the mountains and the Great Hungarian Plain, which 
of course created the connection among the states of the shaping Little Entente. 
The “railway-driven” state borders, however, neglected not only the ethnic borders 
(they ran in almost completely Hungarian–inhabited territories), but also tore the 
towns of the direct border region and their catchment areas, in some cases even 
splitting settlements (e.g. Nagylak). The result was a distorted spatial structure on 
both sides, and in Hungary also a town-deficient border region, peripheral in both 
economic and spatial structural sense, was born. 
The designation of the border resulted in harmful effects that are still palpable, 
and the elimination of the negative consequences can only be achieved by the op-
eration as a single region of the territories that used to make an organic whole. In 
order to achieve this, however, the borderline separating the two countries has to 
disappear not only from the map but also from the minds of the people, especially 
the responsible political leaders. 
Over the decade and a half since the systemic change, the opinion about the 
border of those living along the eastern borders of Hungary changed several times 
and rather quickly. After the strict isolation typical for long decades, the change of 
the political systems in 1989 raised the hope in many that the opening of the bor-
ders would allow the regular touch with their relatives on the other side of the bor-
der, and that the relationship between the two countries would be finally normal-
ised. The initial enthusiasm, however, was soon overshadowed by the difficulties 
concomitant with the systemic change, because in Hungary it was mostly the east-
ern part of the country, originally in a backward position that suffered the most 
from the economic transformation, the shift to the market economy. The declining 
standards of living, the mass unemployment etc. made more and more people think 
that the unlimited opening of the Eastern borders was a mistake. The Hungarian–
Romanian border was crossed not only by masses of emigrants escaping from the 
troubled inner political conditions following the revolution in Romania, but a for-
merly unknown phenomenon, criminals and illegal workers appeared, too. 
Parallel to these processes, in the East Hungarian areas, suffering from very 
many difficulties anyway, more and more people became anxious about their living 
after the mass influx of cheap labour, and many people also felt that the reception 
of refugees was an excessive sacrifice by Hungary. The concerns that are still pre-
sent sometimes are well demonstrated by the fact that those who opposed the 
signing of the Hungarian–Romanian Agreement Declaration in 2001 forecast the 
inflow of millions of Romanian labour force – but these fears later turned out to 
have no ground. 
These days uncertainty is not so typical feeling any more of those who live in 
the direct border region, because it is certain now that Romania (after the Hungar-
 
14 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
ian accession on 1 May 2004) will join the European Union in 2007 too, which 
raises several issues. It is perceived by the people on both sides of the border that 
the role of the region will be significantly appreciated after it becomes temporary 
an external and after 2007 an internal EU border, which offers a possibility never 
seen before for the catching up. Despite the large number of open questions, most 
people on both sides of the Hungarian–Romanian border are looking forward to the 
possibility of the restoration of the former, organically born economic, infrastruc-
tural etc. relations and to the decrease of the separating role of the border. 
1.2   Legal dimensions 
The present Hungarian–Romanian border region (Figure 1) – as we have referred 
to it several times before – is not the product of an organic historical development, 
it was created on legal grounds, it is an artificial borderline created by the Peace 
Treaty of Trianon 
signed on 4 June 1920. The designation of the border, which to-
tally neglected the arguments of Hungary and the ethnic principles, carried from 
the beginning the danger of territorial revision in case of another war. This actually 
took place after the 2nd Vienna Award (when North Transylvania and the Székely 
Land were annexed back to Hungary, temporarily increasing the territory of the 
mother country with 43.5 thousand km2-s and 2.6 million inhabitants). 
Following the conclusion of World War II, however, the state borders desig-
nated at Trianon were restored. The agreement on the re-start of goods traffic was 
signed with Romania first (as soon as in 1945). At this time the bilateral border 
traffic covering the direct border zone (a 10–15 kilometre wide stripe) was revived, 
but this had to be eliminated, by the pressure of the Soviets. During the 1950s, the 
defence of the border became more and more serious; sometimes mine blockades 
were located along the borders of even the “friendly socialist countries”. No won-
der that the traffic across the border dropped to a fraction of what it had been be-
fore. 
The easing of the political climate only allowed in 1969 the bilateral border 
traffic (border crossing stations only available for the citizens of the two countries), 
although with significant restrictions. Only those were entitled for a licence to use 
these bilateral border crossings who lived within a 15 kilometre distance from the 
border (excluding from the beneficiaries the whole of the Hungarian ethnic group 
living in the Székely Land), and only certain border crossing stations could be 
used. During the 1970s, the improvement of the technical and living conditions (car 
use, the opening of more and more border stations, the boom of tourism etc.), as 
well as the political consolidation considerably increased the traffic across the 
Hungarian–Romanian border, too. Although the border became more closed again 
 
15

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
during the dictatorship of Ceausescu, no restrictions were introduced in the form of 
official contract between the two states. It is another issue that other official tools 
(taxes, duties, requirement of the proof of financial coverage of the stay abroad 
etc.) and less official ones (presents and tips to the frontier guards; passengers in-
tentionally kept waiting for a long time) efficiently influenced the will to travel, 
and these “habits” are still there sometimes, making the trip difficult for the pas-
sengers. 
Figure 1 
The Hungarian–Romanian border region 
 
Source: Edited by the authors. CRS of HAS Debrecen Department. 
The legal frameworks of the border defence and border traffic will significant 
change again because of the introduction of the Schengen norms, which Hungary 
will have to apply when becoming a full-right member of the European Union. 
However, as the Romanian citizens can travel without visa to the member states of 
the European Union since 2002, the main difficulty will be not the more strict legal 
regulations but the proof of the adequate financial means. 
In addition to the agreements on the border defence and border traffic, of course 
several other inter-state agreements were made between Hungary and Romania 
which directly influenced the progress of the cross-border relations. The most im-
 
16 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
portant is the Hungarian–Romanian Treaty (Act No. XLIV. of 1997), which basi-
cally determine the frameworks of co-operation. The primary task of the inter-gov-
ernmental special committees 
set up in accordance with the Treaty (e.g. Special 
Committee for the Co-operation of the Ethnic Minorities, Special Committee for 
the Co-operation in the Field of Economy, Trade and Tourism, Special Committee 
of Cross-border Issues and Inter-municipal Co-operation, Special Committee for 
the Co-operation in the Field of Transport, Water Management and Environmental 
Protection etc.) is to work out and supervise the co-operations concerning the 
“common issues” of Hungary and Romania. 
Several co-operation agreements between the two countries were and are still in 
effect, covering almost all fields of the socio-economic life (e.g. the agreement on 
inter-modal freight traffic, Hungarian–Romanian investment protection agreement, 
agreement on the mutual recognition of degrees and certificates issued by accred-
ited educational institutions and of academic degrees, Hungarian Hungarian–
Romanian agreement on the co-operation in privatisation etc.). Among the agree-
ments
, the ones on water management and environmental protection are of special 
importance because of the geographical endowments. 
The basic framework in this latter issue was defined by the Hungarian–Roma-
nian Agreement on the Border Rivers, signed in 1986, and the agreement on the 
Co-operation in the field of the protection of the environment”, in effect since 
2000. Several other water management agreements are still in effect, too (e.g. the 
Agreement on Flood Protection, Agreement on the Inland Waterways, Regulation 
of the Exchange of Information 
etc.). A closer co-operation is evidently justified by 
the fact that the border section divides natural eco-systems (including eco-corridors 
of great value), also, there is a surface and sub-surface water connection between 
the two territories, with several rivers and streams crossing the border, there are 
common surface and subsoil water bases in the region. In addition, the industry in 
the border region – especially in the Romanian part – is characterised by outdated 
and polluting technologies, which means a high environmental risk, justified by the 
series of cyanide and heavy metal pollutions of the Tisza River and the tributaries. 
Besides the Treaty and the international agreements in effect, the direct cross-
border co-operation is considerably affected from the Hungarian side by the Act 
No. XXI of 1996 (on Regional Development and Physical Planning)
 and its 
amendment in 1999
, while the similar Act No. CLI of 1998 and the connected gov-
ernment decrees in Romania
, which provide a legal framework for the develop-
ments affecting the border region, implemented from national and other resources. 
In the relationship of Hungarian and Romania in the recent years, the greatest 
attention was gained by the Act No. LXII of 2001 on Hungarians living in 
neighbouring countries (commonly known as the “Status Law”) and the connected 
so-called “Hungarian–Romanian Declaration of Agreement”. As regards the exe-
cution of the Act, which provided special (health care, travel, employment etc.) 
 
17

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
allowances for the Hungarians living outside Hungary, no final solution has been 
reached until now, despite the series of negotiations. 
The legal frameworks of the co-operation are considerably affected by the 
changes in connection with the Euro-Atlantic integration processes, because there 
are significant differences in this respect between the two countries. Hungary be-
came a full-right member of the European Union on 1 May 2004, following the 
signing of the accession treaty on 16 April 2003. Romania, on the other hand, is not 
included in the first round of the enlargement, and the associated member status, 
which Romania gained in 1993, will remain in effect until 2007. Although consid-
erable progress has been achieved in Romania too in the field of the harmonisation 
of law, the country reports regularly mentioned that no actual progress has been 
made in the field of the assertion of the principle of partnership and in the estab-
lishment of monitoring, evaluation and the system of regional statistics – despite 
the fact that each of these alone sets back the accession to the European Union. 
Although there are no special administrative units or separate border govern-
ment system on either side of the border, three business zones have been created on 
the Hungarian side (the Bihar, the Békés county and the Makó Business Zones), 
which offer different allowances and try to utilise the advantages of the border lo-
cation and strengthen the economic co-operation between the border regions. 
In the intensification of the cross-border co-operation, a significant role can be 
played by the Euroregions created in the 1990s and the more recently shaping 
smaller scale Euroregional organisations and initiatives, and by the twin city rela-
tions
, which may be the most effective tools of everyday operative co-operation 
(e.g. Nyíregyháza–Szatmárnémeti1, Debrecen–Nagyvárad2, Békéscsaba–Arad, 
Szeged–Temesvár3 etc.) 
In the Hungarian–Romanian border region, two large Euroregions with different 
character, history and operational conditions can be found: the Carpathians Eu-
roregion  
and the Danube–Körös–Maros–Tisza Euroregion (Figure 2). The direct 
preliminary of the establishment of the Carpathians Euroregion covering the 
Northern half of the border region was the creation of the Carpathians Foundation 
in 1989, which for the first time in Hungary declared the importance of keeping in 
touch with the people on the other side of the border. Because of the stormy his-
torical events of these years and in order to decrease the tensions, the representa-
tives of the border regions of the neighbour states concerned (Hungary, Poland, 
Slovakia and The Ukraine
) sat down and founded on 14 February 1993 (using the 
already existing organisational elements of the Carpathian Foundation) the Interre-
gional Organisation of the Carpathians Euroregion
, which Romania joined not so 
much afterwards. 
                                                           
1  In Romanian: Satu Mare. 
2  In Romanian: Oradea. 
3  In Romanian: Timişoara. 
 
18 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Figure 2 
Euroregions in the Hungarian border region 
 
19

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
This huge interregional organisation – as opposed to the Danube–Körös–
Maros–Tisza Euroregion founded in 1997 – is not an independent, bottom-up ini-
tiative, it started to work within frameworks defined “from above”, considering 
higher political objectives. In addition, the Danube–Körös–Maros–Tisza Eurore-
gion re-connected territories along the south-eastern borders of Hungary which had 
been a relatively more developed area within a single country, the Austro-Hungar-
ian Monarchy and had common historical past going back to centuries, whereas the 
Carpathians Euroregion is an absolutely “multinational” formation. 
Although both Euroregions have had and still have an indisputable role in the 
recognition of the partnership based on mutual advantages, they have not been able 
yet to implement their original objectives, because of different factors. The 
achievement of really intensive multilateral connections is blocked by the excessive 
size  
of the Euroregions in the first place: the territory of the Danube–Körös–
Maros–Tisza Euroregion covers 77,000 km2-s, that of the Carpathians Euroregion 
is 161,000 km2-s, their population reaches six and sixteen million people, respec-
tively. In addition to their too large size, especially in the territory of the Carpathi-
ans Euroregion, co-operation is hindered by historical–territorial– ethnic and other 
problems, inherited from the past. Having recognised these problems, the local ac-
tors were thinking about the establishment of smaller and thus more effective Eu-
roregional organisations. The concepts were followed by actions and now three 
micro-regional type interregional organisations operate along the border (Interre-
gio, Hajdú-Bihar–Bihor and the Bihar–Bihor Euroregional Organisation). 
1.3 Political dimension 
During the economic and political systemic change taking place at the end of the 
1980s and concerning all East-Central European countries, the single party sys-
tems, typical of the socialist state construction, were replaced again by parliamen-
tary democracy
. Both in Hungary and in Romania the system of political control 
was reorganised, and public administration, also the role of the individual tiers 
within the power hierarchy gradually transformed as a part of the Euro-Atlantic 
integration process. 
Another common feature is the fact that the former totally centralised, “top-
down controlled” system was replaced by an effort for decentralisation, giving the 
local self-governance, above all the municipal governments a role much more im-
portant than before. Although the extent of decentralisation is not the same in the 
two countries (especially Romania has still a lot to do in this respect), the self-or-
ganising spatial units are present now in both countries. 
The official cross-border relations are considerably set back by the fact that 
while in Hungary the micro-regions, compatible with the fourth tier of the NUTS 
 
20 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
system (the statistical planning system of the European Union) have been created, 
in Romania there is no “official” spatial level at this level (apart from the different 
self-organising micro-regional associations). In Romania it is still the County 
Councils that represent the lowest tier above the municipal governments and the 
meso-tier in the national hierarchy. Although the NUTS 2 level regions were built 
in both countries on the still operating counties (NUTS 3 level), the role and inde-
pendence of the latter is much more restricted in Romania than in Hungary, besides 
a strong central will. 
Co-operations are made difficult not only by the lack of the certain regional and 
administrative tiers, because the competencies of the individual institutions can 
differ even at the same level of hierarchy. Also, in some cases the tasks have not 
been clearly defined, or the adequate financial or other background is missing. This 
comes from the fact that in both countries the system of regional development is 
still shaping. In Romania e.g. the financial and institutional frameworks were com-
pletely reformed in 2001 (a new ministry was created), and the amendment of the 
act on local administration gave the local leaders new responsibilities, also allo-
cated a co-ordinating authority to the prefects, who are the local representatives of 
the central power. 
The cross-border relations of the four NUTS 2 regions along the Hungarian–
Romanian border (two in each country) can be significantly influenced by the or-
ganisational structure of the given regions. The situation in Hungary is quite sim-
ple, because the centre of both the North Great Plain and the South Great Plain 
(Hungarian – Észak-alföldi 
and Dél-alföldi) region is situated in the vicinity of the 
border, and four out of the six counties (Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg, Hajdú-Bihar, 
Békés and Csongrád counties) are adjacent to Romania. On the Romanian side, of 
the four counties of the Western Region, two have common borders with Hungary; 
in addition, the traditional western orientation of the regional centre (Temesvár) 
can be a guarantee for the deepening of the co-operations. On the other hand, the 
North-western Region has four counties  that  do  not  have  common  borders  with 
Hungary, also, the regional centre is not in a county along the border. The decisions 
made  in  Kolozsvár  (Cluj  Napoca  in  Romanian),  farther  from  the  border,  may  not 
necessarily  serve  the  support  of  the  cross-border  initiatives,  because  of  the  other, 
inner tasks of the counties making the region; and the promotion of the cross-border 
co-operations will not be the most important development priority, either. 
Since the regions are very young and primarily political formations without real 
administrative functions, self-governance content and character in both countries, 
they do not appear as independent executive power factors in the national political 
life of either country, not to mention the supranational level. This is well demon-
strated by the fact that the Euroregions operating along the Hungarian–Romanian 
border were created not on regional but county grounds, and there are counties in 
Romania that are part of the border region but not of the Euroregional organisation 
 
21

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
– and the opposite occurs, too. It is directly coming from the above-said that no 
regionalist parties emerged, the organisational–institutional frameworks of self-
governance have not been built out, and although the border region experienced 
several internal and external conflicts deriving from ethnic oppositions in the past 
century, separatism has not become a typical effort. 
The dominant political parties consist of those forces on both sides that play a 
leading role in the national politics, too. At the moment there are four parties in 
Hungary and five in Romania that have reached the threshold to get into the Par-
liament, and the representation of the individual regions is the responsibility of the 
MPs from the electoral districts and the county-level party lists. 
When enumerating the possibilities of interest representation, the organisations 
created  on  ethnic  minority  grounds  should  always  be  mentioned.  These  play  a 
significant  role,  despite  the  fact  that  they  are  not  definitely  regional  in  character, 
although  the  Romanian  ethic  minority  has  a  higher  proportion  in  Hungary  in  the 
border  regions.  The  Romanian  ethnic  minority,  which  is  negligible  in  number  in 
Hungary,  has  a  national  self-government  but  no  parliamentary  representation  in 
Hungary. 
The situation is different in Romania, because the Hungarian ethnic minority, 
making 7.1% of the population of Romania, has a representation in the Parliament 
by the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania; in fact, the Alliance was in 
the government during the 1996–2000 government cycle. This occurred despite the 
fact that the Alliance is not a political party but an organisation involved in active 
ethnic minority protection, working on national and democratic grounds, responsi-
ble for the public representation of the Hungarian ethnic group living in Romania 
at national and partly municipal level and for the co-ordination and promotion of 
the different forms of the self-organisation of the society. In the present govern-
ment cycle, the Alliance is in the opposition but is supporting the government. Of 
its 12 senators (8.6% of the possible mandates) five persons, of its 27 representa-
tives in the Lower House (7.8% of the mandates) 13 people are from one of the 
border regions. In addition to the representation in the Parliament, the Alliance has 
gained significant positions in the local administration: in four of the 42 Romanian 
counties (including Szatmár along the border) the president is Hungarian and the 
representatives of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania have several 
position of national importance (Constitutional Court, Government Secretariat etc.) 
As regards the participation in the parliamentary and municipal elections, we 
can say that the electoral activity of the population on both sides of the Hungarian–
Romanian border region lags behind the national averages. The data of the last 
parliamentary elections show that in Hungary Hajdú-Bihar county was the least 
active (68.4% participation in the elections, as opposed to the national average of 
73.5%), in Romania it was Satu Mare (45.2% participation, as opposed to 56.5% 
on the national average). Both counties are situated right along the border. 
 
22 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
1.4 Economic dimension 
At the analysis of the economic conditions concerning the Hungarian–Romanian 
border region, in each case the data of the NUTS 2 level regions with a common 
border section were considered. This makes practically impossible the demonstra-
tion of the data at the direct, narrower border region; however, NUTS 4 level mi-
cro-regional data are only available in Hungary, this territorial tier has not been 
established yet in Romania. 
In the countries of this region, no statistical data are published about the pro-
gress of the net regional product, and Hungary and Romania are not exceptions, 
either, thus we used the available national and regional GDP data for the analyses. 
After the economic decline following the systemic change, GDP started to grow in 
Hungary in the mid–1990s, increasing from 36.5 billion USD in 1996 to 64.9 bil-
lion in 2002. This is not true for Romania, however: during these six years, the 
amount of gross domestic product did not significantly change, in this field too 
there is a stagnation. 
The difference between the two countries is well demonstrated by the figure of 
GDP per capita. As opposed to the figure of Hungary, just over 5,100 USD, there 
is only a 1,700–1,800 USD figure in Romania. The GDP per capita in the border 
regions well demonstrates the positions that these regions have within their coun-
tries. While in 2001 the GDP per capita was 7,953 and 8,498 Euros in the two Hun-
garian regions, respectively (as opposed to the national average of 12,018 Euros, in 
purchasing power parity), in Romania the two border regions had figures of 6,079 
and 5,290 Euros, respectively, compared to the national average of 5,700 Euros 
(Figure 3)
The differences between Hungary and Romania can be clearly seen in the 
breakdown of the employees by economic sectors, as well. In the 1990s, the number 
of  agricultural  employees declined in both Hungarian regions. This decline was 
especially striking in the first few years of the decade, the process has slowed down 
since then. Although the share of agricultural earners is still higher in the two 
Hungarian regions in question than the Hungarian average, it is still significantly 
lower than in the two neighbouring Romanian border regions (Table 1)
As regards the number of industrial employees, the effects of the above-men-
tioned economic restructuring were visible in the labour market. The number of 
those employed in industry decreased fast, parallel to the decrease in the number of 
total employment (this is especially true for the South Great Plain region), then it 
started to rise again after 1998. The only difference in the field of construction in-
dustry and trade is that the growth started in these activities a year or two earlier. 
On the whole, on the Hungarian side of the border 6–7% of the employees work in 
agriculture, some 30–31% does industrial activities and more than 60% are em-
ployed in services. 
 
23

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Figure 3 
Gross domestic product, 2001 
PPS
%
12000
60
10000
50
8000
40
6000
30
4000
20
2000
10
0
0
Hungary
South Great North Great
Romania
North-West
West
Plain
Plain
GDP/capita (PPS)
% of EU-15 (PPS)
Source: EUROSTAT. 
Table 1 
Employment, by activity of national economy (end of year) 
Year Total 
Hungary 
North Great  South Great 
Romania West 
North-West 
Plain 
Plain 
thou persons 
1992 3,118.6 398.7 375.6 10,458 976.0 
1,376.8 
1993 2,835.9 348.9 337.2 10,062 942.2 
1,337.2 
1994 2,619.2 328.2 312.0 10,011 953.9 
1,318.8 
1995  2,508.3 311.6 308.1 9,493 940.1 1,234.5 
1996  2,391.0 299.3 280.5 9,379 914.9 1,231.9 
1997  2,337.1 294.3 273.8 9,023 881.4 1,173.9 
1998  2,387.1 264.5 245.1 8,813 832.6 1,203.6 
1999  2,678.7 295.8 281.8 8,420 780.4 1,147.7 
2000  2,703.1 330.9 318.5 8,629 821.1 1,170.0 
2001 2,698.1 330.3 311.4 n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. 
2002  2,739.2 339.7 313.3 9,234 803.0 1,164.0 
2003  2,700.1 340.7 313.3 8,306 811.0 1,131.4 
 
24 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
continuoing Table 1 
Year Hungary North Great 
South Great 
Romania West North-West 
Plain 
Plain 
thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of 
 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
sons 
sons 
sons 
sons 
sons 
sons 
Agriculture, sylviculture, forestry and hunting 
1992 311.2 
10.0 62.3 
15.6 63.3 16.9 
3,443
32.9 296.2 30.3  510.2 37.1 
1993 229.3 8.1 41.5 
11.9 44.1 13.1 
3,614
35.9 301.9 32.0  537.7 40.2 
1994 188.2 7.2 31.8 9.7 36.3 11.6 
3,647
36.4 304.6 31.9  527.5 40.0 
1995 172.2 6.9 31.2 
10.0 33.2 10.8 
3,265
34.4 282.9 30.1  472.2 38.3 
1996 159.2 6.7 28.2 9.4 31.7 11.3 
3,320
35.4 284.0 31.0  487.2 39.5 
1997 151.8 6.5 27.0 9.2 30.8 11.2 
3,384
37.5 283.1 32.1  501.5 42.7 
1998 144.7 6.1 27.8 
10.5 29.0 11.8 
3,349
38.0 282.7 34.0  502.2 41.7 
1999 143.7 5.4 27.1 9.2 29.3 10.4 
3,466
41.2 286.4 36.7  519.4 45.3 
2000 131.4 4.9 23.9 7.2 27.3
8.6 
3,570
41.4 294.9 35.9  537.3 45.9 
2001 119.6 4.4 21.3 6.4 24.9
8.0 n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a.  n.d.a. n.d.a. 
2002 113.1 4.1 20.7 6.2 23.6
7.5 
3,357
36.3 222.0 27.6  396.0 34.0 
2003 106.6 3.9 20.2 5.9 21.9
7.0 
2,888
34.8 237.2 29.2  434.2 38.4 
Industry 
1992  997.1 32.0 124.0 31.1 125.6 33.5 3,301
31.6 333.0 34.1  421.4 30.6 
1993  871.3 30.7 106.5 30.5 111.4 33.1 3,030
30.1 305.1 32.4  395.1 29.5 
1994  798.3 30.5 104.0 31.7 103.5 33.2 2,882
28.8 301.2 31.6  363.4 27.6 
1995 763.6 30.4  98.9 31.7 104.7 34.0 2,714
28.6 284.5 30.3  347.2 28.1 
1996 737.4 
30.8 95.5 
31.9 93.9 33.5 
2,741
29.2 280.8 30.7  350.3 28.4 
1997 733.5 
31.4 95.8 
32.6 91.8 33.5 
2,450
27.2 237.4 26.9  312.4 26.6 
1998 750.9 
31.5 88.1 
33.3 83.6 34.1 
2,317
26.3 231.5 27.8  317.1 26.3 
1999 829.8 
31.0 98.6 
33.3 93.0 33.0 
2,054
24.4 204.3 26.2  272.3 23.7 
2000  832.4 30.8 106.5 32.2 106.8 33.6 2,004
23.2 218.9 26.7  259.7 22.2 
2001  825.7 30.6 107.8 32.6 101.1 32.5 n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. 
2002 816.4 29.9 108.7 32.5  99.2 31.6 2,311
25.0 233.0 29.0  321.0 27.6 
2003 789.2 29.2 107.1 31.4  96.2 30.7 2.059
24.8 235.1 29.0  287.1 25.4 
 
25

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
cont. Table 1 
Year Hungary North Great 
South Great 
Romania West North-West 
Plain 
Plain 
thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of 
 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
sons 
sons 
sons 
sons 
sons 
sons 
Construction 
1992  147.3  4.7 15.8  4.0 12.6  3.4 579  5.5  48.9
5.0  55.7 4.0 
1993  125.9  4.4 12.6  3.6 11.2  3.3 574  5.7  43.1
4.6  51.1 3.8 
1994 104.6 4.0 10.1 3.1 9.8 3.2 563  5.6  46.4
4.9  55.2 4.2 
1995  92.2 3.7 8.9 2.8 9.7 3.2 479  5.0  44.8
4.8  47.0 3.8 
1996  78.7 3.3 7.4 2.5 8.1 2.9 475  5.1  45.2
4.9  49.6 4.0 
1997  71.2 3.0 6.7 2.3 7.9 2.9 439  4.9  38.5
4.4  43.8 3.7 
1998  81.9 3.4 8.2 3.1 9.6 3.9 391  4.4  37.7
4.5  43.8 3.6 
1999  107.3  4.0 11.0  3.7 12.2  4.4 338  4.0  33.5
4.3  38.9 3.4 
2000  112.4  4.2 12.1  3.7 12.9  4.1 353  4.1  33.2
4.0  39.4 3.4 
2001  116.7  4.3 12.8  3.9 14.0  4.5 n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. 
2002  118.9  4.3 13.3  4.0 14.5  4.6 413  4.5  43.0
5.4  53.0 4.6 
2003  121.5  4.5 13.1  3.9 13.8  4.4 396  4.8  36.1
4.5  40.9 3.6 
Trade 
1992  277.4  8.9 35.4  8.9 33.2  8.8 754  7.2  69.6
7.1  92.9 6.7 
1993  227.9  8.0 29.0  8.3 26.6  7.9 585  5.8  70.8
7.5  76.9 5.8 
1994  189.0  7.2 25.1  7.7 23.3  7.5 636  6.4  81.1
8.5  68.5 5.2 
1995  177.8  7.1 20.9  6.7 22.0  7.2 865  9.1  101.8 10.8  95.6 7.7 
1996  163.8  6.8 18.6  6.2 18.9  6.8 772  8.2  96.4 10.5  87.3 7.1 
1997  154.4  6.6 18.3  6.2 18.0  6.6 802  8.9  129.0 14.6  81.9 7.0 
1998  154.2  6.5 18.1  6.8 14.6  6.0 835  9.5  93.2 11.2 106.1 8.8 
1999  267.4 10.0 29.6 10.0 28.9 10.3 756  9.0  79.5 10.2  96.1 8.4 
2000  283.2 10.5 33.8 10.2 32.5 10.2 776  9.0  85.9 10.5  93.0 7.9 
2001  292.3 10.8 34.8 10.5 33.0 10.6 n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. 
2002  306.9 11.2 33.9 10.1 35.0 11.2 859  9.3  90.0 11.2 102.0 8.8 
2003  297.1 11.0 32.9  9.7 33.2 10.6 906 10.9  98.4 12.1 120.8 
10.7 
 
26 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
cont. Table 1 
Year Hungary North Great 
South Great 
Romania West North-West 
Plain 
Plain 
thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of 
 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
sons 
sons 
sons 
sons 
sons 
sons 
Hotels and restaurants 
1992 64.8 2.1 5.4  1.4 6.4 1.7  175 1.7 15.7 1.6 21.8 1.6 
1993 57.7 2.0 5.6  1.6 6.1 1.8  131 1.3 12.9 1.4 17.3 1.3 
1994 52.9 2.0 5.3  1.6 5.4 1.7  136 1.4 11.1 1.2 28.2 2.1 
1995 50.6 2.0 5.0  1.6 5.2 1.7  123 1.3 15.3 1.6 13.2 1.1 
1996 48.5 2.0 4.5  1.5 4.7 1.7  116 1.2 16.5 1.8 13.2 1.1 
1997 52.1 2.2 5.5  1.9 4.5 1.6  130 1.4 15.9 1.8 10.8 0.9 
1998 53.4 2.2 5.9  2.2 4.4 1.8  98 1.1 11.0 1.3 11.9 1.0 
1999 74.0 2.8 8.1  2.7 7.7 2.7  100 1.2 11.0 1.4 11.6 1.0 
2000 77.4 2.9 8.6  2.6 8.4 2.6  93 1.1 11.2 1.4 12.1 1.0 
2001 77.0 2.9 8.5  2.6 8.0 2.6 n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. 
2002 80.3 2.9 9.2  2.8 8.3 2.7  112 1.2  9.0 1.1 20.0 1.7 
2003 76.3 2.8 9.0  2.6 8.0 2.6  105 1.3 11.7 1.4 12.6 1.1 
Transport and storage, post and telecommunication 
1992  274.2 8.8  37.6  9.4 26.8  7.1  649 6.2 64.4 6.6 73.6 5.3 
1993  266.0 9.4  37.2 10.7 26.7  7.9  592 5.9 59.9 6.4 66.7 5.0 
1994  248.2 9.5  34.0 10.4 25.2  8.1  556 5.6 58.3 6.1 61.5 4.7 
1995  239.9 9.6  32.3 10.4 25.5  8.3  556 5.9 58.7 6.2 62.4 5.1 
1996  228.5 9.6  30.8 10.3 22.4  8.0  547 5.8 52.1 5.7 61.6 5.0 
1997  215.5 9.2  29.1  9.9 20.9  7.6  505 5.6 47.7 5.4 55.0 4.7 
1998 213.7 9.0  7.8  3.0  7.4  3.0  461 5.2 43.8 5.3 51.1 4.2 
1999  226.4 8.5  8.4  2.8 10.2  3.6  405 4.8 39.0 5.0 48.3 4.2 
2000  227.7 8.4  27.4  8.3 22.8  7.2  419 4.9 39.0 4.7 49.3 4.2 
2001  224.6 8.3  27.1  8.2 27.1  8.7 n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. 
2002  228.9 8.4  28.1  8.4 23.6  7.5  458 5.0 47.0 5.9 56.0 4.8 
2003  220.2 8.2  27.3  8.0 22.5  7.2  402 4.8 40.2 5.0 50.6 4.5 
 
27

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
cont. Table 1 
Year Hungary North Great 
South Great 
Romania West North-West 
Plain 
Plain 
thou 
% of  thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of  thou  % of 
 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
per-
total 
sons 
sons 
sons 
sons 
sons 
sons 
Other activities of the national economy 
1992 1,046.7 
33,6 118.2 29.6 107.7 28.7 1,557
14.9 148.2
15.2 201.2 14.6 
1993 1,057.8 
37.3 116.4 33.4 111.0 32.9 1,536
15.3 148.5
15.8 192.4 14.4 
1994 1,038.0 
39.6 117.9 35.9 108.5 34.8 1,591
15.9 151.2
15.9 214.5 16.3 
1995 1,011.9 
40.3 115.2 37.0 107.6 34.9 1,491
15.7 152.1
16.2 196.9 15.9 
1996 974.9 
40.8 
109.1 
36.4 
100.9 36.0 
1,408
15.0 139.9
15.3 182.7 14.8 
1997 958.6 
41.0 
112.0 
38.1 
100.1 36.6 
1,313
14.6 129.9
14.7 168.5 14.4 
1998 988.5 
41.4 
108.5 
41.0 96.5 39.4 
1,362
15.5 132.7
15.9 171.4 14.2 
1999 1,030.1 
38.5 113.0 38.2 100.4 35.7 1,301
15.5 126.7
16.2 161.1 14.0 
2000 1,038.7 
38.4 118.7 35.9 107.7 33.8 1,414
16.4 138.0
16.8 179.2 15.3 
2001 995.8 
36.9 
118.0 
35.7 
107.6 34.5 n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. 
2002 1,070.2 
39.1 120.8 36.1 109.3 34.9 1,724 18.7 159.0
19.8 216.0 18.6 
2003 1,089.3 
40.3 131.1 38.5 117.8 37.6 1,550 18.7 152.3
18.8 185.2 16.4 
Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, National Institute of Statistics (Romania). 
The figures and the transitions since 1998 show a completely different picture in 
Romania. The proportions of those living from agriculture and forestry are much 
higher in both regions than in Hungary (in 2002 it was 27.6% in the Western Re-
gion 
and 34% in the North-western Region). These figures have not decreased con-
siderably since 1990, in fact, in the North-western Region the share of agricultural 
employees has increased. The share of industrial employment, on the other had, 
rapidly decreased, parallel to the decline of the Romanian industry. The number of 
those working in industry dropped from 30–34% in the early 1990s to 22–26% in 
2000, but since that time it has increased again to 27–29% in 2002. Parallel to the 
decrease in the number of total employment, the number of tertiary employees de-
creased, too, their share is below 40% in both regions. 
Unemployment was an unknown phenomenon in both countries before the sys-
temic change (1989), but became one of the most important social problems within 
a few years. The comprehension of unemployment data are made difficult by the 
fact that sometimes there are different calculation methods within the same coun-
try, and there has been a discussion for a long time about the selection of the 
method most adequately reflecting the real situation. In Hungary, the national un-
 
28 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
employment figures reached their peak in 1993, at approximately 12%, since then 
this number has been continuously decreasing, making approximately 8% now 
(Table 2). The North Great Plain Region is also in an unfavourable situation, as 
opposed to the major part of Hungary, the decrease in the number of the unem-
ployed did not start in 1993, the situation only improved after 1998. The present 
unemployment rate in the counties of the North Great Plain ranges from 6 to 9%. 
The South Great Plain region is in a better situation, as regards the unemployment 
rate, it followed the national tendencies. Now it has the best position along the 
eastern border, in Csongrád county the unemployment rate is even lower than the 
national average. 
In Romania, unemployment appeared a little later than in Hungary, but the pace 
of the growth in the number of the unemployed was faster, the number of jobless 
people multiplied from 1991 to 1992. Looking at the western border region of Ro-
mania, it is more difficult to find evident tendencies. Following the peak in 1993, 
when unemployment rate was around 10%, a decrease could be seen for a few 
years, but a new and even stronger wave of unemployment hit the region after 
1997. By 2003 the number of unemployed decreased again, the proportion of the 
registered unemployed is around 6% in the Western and the North-western Region 
(Figure 4). 
Table 2 
Unemployment rate, based on the number of registered unemployed, 
 1992–2003 
Year 
Unemployment rate (%) 
Hungary 
South Great  North Great 
Romania North-West  West 
Plain 
Plain 
1992 
12.3 14.6 18.1 8.2 8.9 6.8 
1993 
12.1 13.7 17.1 10.4  9.8  8.8 
1994 
10.4 11.7 15.8 10.9 10.1  9.2 
1995 
10.4 10.6 15.7 9.5 8.6 7.5 
1996 
10.5 10.8 16.5 6.6 5.6 5.9 
1997 
10.4 11.1 16.5 8.9 8.1 8.3 
1998 
9.1  9.7 14.5 10.4  8.8 10.6 
1999 
9.6 10.5 16.3 11.8 10.0 12.6 
2000 
8.9  9.9 15.6 10.5  8.5 10.4 
2001 
8.0 9.2 13.7 8.8 6.6 5.6 
2002 
5.8 6.2 7.8 8.1 7.6 7.1 
2003 
5.9 6.5 6.8 7.2 6.0 5.9 
 Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, National Agency for Employment (Romania). 
 
29

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Figure 4 
Unemployment rate (ILO standard, end of year) 
14
12
10
8
%
6
4
2
0
Hungary
South Great
North Great
Romania
North-West
West
EU-15
Plain
Plain
2000
2001
Source: EUROSTAT. 
Figures regarding foreign direct investments are only available for the Hungar-
ian regions. There are significant differences in this respect between the two Hun-
garian regions of the Great Hungarian Plain, the Northern Great Plain region at-
tracted less investors during the 1990s than its southern counterpart. The differ-
ences almost completely vanished by 2001, moreover later the Northern Great 
Plain region attracted a lot more foreign capital. The amount of the registered 
capital of the businesses gradually increased over the last ten years, a stop in this 
growth only occurred in the recent years. The registered capital of the foreign-
owned businesses amounted to approximately 434.7 billion Forints in the North 
Great Plain and some 203.7 billion in the South Great Plain region in 2003. 
A relatively little volume of capital has arrived at the two regions from the 
neighbouring country, because the major part of the Romanian capital (a total of 30 
million USD until the end of the year 2000, only one-sixth of the Hungarian capital 
export to Romania) went to Budapest. The main reason for this is the fact that there 
is no significant Romanian minority along the border (e.g. the language problems 
are already there), so the Romanian companies prefer the Hungarian capital city or 
the western part of Hungary, considering them as a good “springboard” towards the 
European Union. 
 
30 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
In Romania, the foreign direct investments are characterised by a spatial con-
centration both as regards the number of the companies and their registered capi-
tal
: the share of Bucharest is almost 60% is both respects. The lagging of the rest 
of the country is well indicated by the fact that in the four Romanian counties (Satu 
Mare, Bihor, Arad and Timiş) adjacent to Hungary, which are otherwise among the 
most developed territories, the total volume of the investments is significantly 
lower than in the Hungarian counties (Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg, Hajdú-Bihar, 
Békés and Csongrád), which are peripheral territories by Hungarian standards. The 
inflow of Hungarian capital into Romania mostly favour the Hungarian-inhabited 
regions, the four Romanian counties along the state border and the inner Transyl-
vanian territories 
(Cluj, Covasna, Mures and  Hargitha), and Bucharest, which 
stands out as an island with a high share from the investments. Understandably, 
several factors contribute to the promotion of the Hungarian investments, including 
the fostering of traditions, the use of Hungarian language and the assistance of the 
population torn from the mother country all explain why the Hungarian capital in-
vestments are implemented in the mostly or significantly Hungarian-inhabited re-
gions, along the border and in the inner Transylvanian counties. 
At the end of the year 2000, there were some 3,500 Hungarian businesses with 
a total capital of 180 million USD in Romania (this means that Hungary has the 7th 
position among the foreign investors in Romania and 12th position as regards the 
volume of the invested capital). The businesses usually prefer the Hungarian-in-
habited territories 
instead of the Romanian-inhabited ones. The main reason for 
this, apart from the language problems, is the large distance and the backward in-
frastructure. The Hungarian businesses are mainly interested in the counties along 
the border (Szatmár, Bihar, Arad and Timiş) and the inner Transylvanian territo-
ries, including the ones in the Székely Land (Hargitha, Covasna). It is also charac-
teristic that while 33% of the companies operate in the border region, “only” 23.5% 
of them are located in the Székely Land, while their share from the amount of in-
vested capital is 11.1% and 25.5%, respectively. The Hungarian companies in-
vesting in the direct border region are less capital-intensive: the average amount of 
their capital is not more than one-fourth of their non-Hungarian counterparts. When 
looking at these data, however, we cannot neglect the fact that the MOL (the Hun-
garian oil and gas company), which is responsible for almost a half of the total 
Hungarian investments in Romania, operate most of its filling stations in Bucharest 
and the Székely Land. 
The borders opening up after the systemic change offered new possibilities for 
the citizens who wish to live on tourism, even if the biggest part of Hungary’s 
eastern border region 
is not among the most population tourist destinations. The 
rapid increase in the number of commercial accommodations shows that the local 
people are trying to use the new opportunities. Within a few years, the number of 
 
31

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
beds in commercial accommodations increased by several thousand, reaching 
39,500 in the North Great Plain Region
On the other hand, in Romania the statistics show stagnation, in the case of the 
Western Region even a decline in the number of beds in commercial accommoda-
tions. Despite the growing number of beds in commercial accommodations, a de-
crease in the number of foreign guests can be seen on both sides of the border, 
which is more drastic in Romania and moderate in Hungary. Nevertheless the 
North Great Plain region can be qualified as definitely successful for being able to 
increase the number or guests nights since 1995, besides a decreasing number of 
guests. In the remaining part of the border region, however, the role of tourism in 
income-generation is decreasing. 
The total passenger traffic across the Hungarian–Romanian border mostly 
adapted to the national trends over the last decade, although special characteristics 
could be seen as well. The systemic change resulted in the complete opening of the 
borders, amounting to a sudden growth in the traffic of all border sections. This 
reached its peak in 1995, after a gradual increase (in 1995, 115,138,000 border 
crossings were registered). Since then there has been a continuous decline, which is 
the result of a natural balancing process, and according to experts the traffic will 
stabilise around the present 80–90 million border crossings (Figure 5)
In addition to following the national trends, the most important regional char-
acteristics is the fact that the Hungarian–Romanian border was the busiest in 1990 
and not 1995, because of the inner political events in Romania. The average daily 
number of vehicles has been some 8–10% of the total figure for Hungary over the 
last few years, while this figure was 19.5% in 1990, due to the large number of 
refugees. In the following five years, however, the traffic continuously decreased 
and dropped by almost a half. Since then the size of the traffic has more or less sta-
bilised, besides some ups and downs. If unpredictable political events or economic 
reasons do not occur, a similar traffic is expected in the coming years. The volume 
of passenger traffic is unlikely to decrease after the introduction of the Schengen 
norms of border defence, either, because the right of the Romanian citizens to 
travel without visa, gained not so long ago, will remain. 
At  the  border  crossing  stations  of  the  Hungarian–Romanian  border,  a  total  of 
12,179,982 border crossings were registered in 2001. The majority of the traffic was 
managed  by  the  Biharkeresztes–Ártánd,  the  Nagylak,  the  Csengersima  and  the 
Gyula border crossing stations. The temporarily working bilateral border crossings, 
although they have a great significance locally and in the time of holidays, did not 
produce  a  considerable  traffic  in  2001,  similar  to  the  years  before:  not  more  than 
3,048 persons were registered crossing the border. The overwhelming  majority of 
the total traffic was made by the journeys of the Romanian citizens, a lesser part by 
those of the Hungarians, while the citizens of other countries together did not reach 
20%. 
 
32 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Figure 5 
Personal traffic across the checkpoints of the Hungarian–Romanian border, 
1989–2001 
25 000 000
20 000 000
15 000 000
 (person)
10 000 000
5 000 000
rsonal traffic
e
P
0
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Kiszombor
Méhkerék
Battonya
Nyírábrány
Lőkösháza
Gyula
Csengersima
Nagylak
Biharkeresztes
Altogether
 
 Source:  Hungarian National Headquaters of the Hungarian Border Guard, 2001. Edited by the 
authors. 
Similar to the previous years, the motivation of a significant part of the cross-
border traffic was the difference in some of the market prices in the two countries. 
The main attraction for the Hungarian citizens living in the border region is still the 
cheap fuel in Romania (there are so-called “petrol tourists” specialised on this). 
The main motivation of the Romanian shopping tourism is the procurement of 
food, technical devices and other consumer goods. Some special sales promotions 
can thus significantly influence the number of tourists with shopping purposes. In 
the recent years, however, a gradual equalisation occurred in the price levels in the 
two countries, and although the “confirmed” marketers go on regularly visiting the 
neighbouring country, the number of border crossings with shopping purposes is 
gradually decreasing. Those living in the direct vicinity of the border still visit the 
other country with shopping intentions, but this makes an ever smaller share of the 
total traffic, due to the decreasing differences between the price levels in the two 
countries. 
 
33

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
From March to October, i.e. the period of the seasonal agricultural, food 
processing and construction industry works and in the peak of the tourism season, 
the number of Romanian citizens arriving at Hungary for employment reasons is 
still high. Following the recent abolishment of the obligator visa for the Romanian 
citizens, a new phenomenon has appeared: more and more buses full of Romanian 
tourists cross the Hungarian–Romanian border, designating some European Union 
country as a destination, however, the motivation might as well be employment in 
Hungary – of course we do not have information about the real intentions. 
On the whole we can say that practically the same problems have to be tackled 
on the two sides of the Hungarian–Romanian border, although there are huge dif-
ferences between the level of development of the Hungarian and the Romanian side 
in many respects. Although the most serious problems are the same (outdated eco-
nomic structure and infrastructure, little interest of the foreign capital, lack of 
capital), still the possibilities are completely different on the two sides of the bor-
der, because of the enormous development advance of Hungary. This makes co-
operation difficult and at the same time inevitable. An interesting feature of the 
geographical location of Satu Mare (Szatmár), Bihor (Bihar), Arad and Timiş (Te-
mes) counties on the Romanian side the Hungarian–Romanian border
 is the fact 
that they are twice as far from their own capital city as from Budapest, which is 
another factor calling for the development of the cross-border connections. Be-
cause of the common interests and the willingness of the Romanian party for a 
more intensive co-operation in order to achieve a successful socio-economic 
catching up and the Euro-Atlantic integration, there is a justified expectancy on 
both sides. 
1.5 Social dimension 
Similar to the general characteristics of the European demographic trends, the 
number of population has been continuously decreasing in Hungary since the cen-
sus of 1980. As regards regional differences in this respect, we can say that the 
number of population in the South Great Plain has decreased, in accordance with 
the national tendencies, whereas it increased in the North Great Plain region until 
1992 (due to the high natural increase) and the decrease only started in 1992. In 
Romania, including the Western and North-western Region neighbour to Hungary, 
the number of population reached its highest figure in 1990, since then the decrease 
has been continuous (Table 3)
In Hungary, the figures of natural increase have been negative since 1982, but 
there are significant differences in this respect between the two Hungarian regions 
in question: while the balance of births and deaths was positive in the North Great 
 
34 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
 
 
 
TABLE 3 
 
Population and population density, 1988–2003 
 
35

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Plain region until 1992, the South Great Plain has been characterised by a natural 
decrease for more than two decades now. In Romania natural decrease started in 1992, in 
the same year in the North-western Region and only one year earlier in the Western 
Region. The slowing down of the pace of natural increase started in 1996 in the Western 
Region and in 1998 in the North-western Region (Table 4)
Table 4 
Natural increase per 1,000 inhabitants, 1988–2003 
Year Natural 
increase 
(‰) 
Hungary 
South Great  North Great 
Romania North-West  West 
Plain 
Plain 
1988 –1.5 
–2.48 
1.24 5.5 n.d.a. n.d.a. 
1989 –2.1 
–2.59 
0.61 5.3 n.d.a. n.d.a. 
1990  –1.9 –3.03 1.08  3.0 3.13 0.09 
1991  –1.7 –2.32 0.82  1.0 1.33 –1.19 
1992 
–2.6 –3.56 –0.12  –0.2 –0.33 –2.57 
1993 
–3.2 –3.91 –0.89  –0.6 –1.11 –2.71 
1994 
–3.0 –3.78 –0.69  –0.8 –1.09 –2.91 
1995 
–3.3 –4.37 –0.48  –1.6 –1.65 –3.57 
1996 
–3.7 –4.69 –1.00  –2.5 –2.09 –4.16 
1997 
–3.8 –5.14 –1.16  –1.9 –2.06 –3.50 
1998 
–4.3 –5.73 –1.89  –1.5 –1.57 –3.27 
1999 
–4.8 –6.05 –2.52  –1.4 –1.65 –3.24 
2000 
–3.8 –5.00 –1.78  –0.9 –1.30 –2.90 
2001 
–3.5 –4.51 –1.71 n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. 
2002 
–3.5 –4.60 –1.98  –2.7 –2.80 –4.00 
2003 
–4.1 –5.38 –2.69  –2.5 –4.00 –2.40 
Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, National Institute of Statistics (Romania). 
Just like the whole of Hungary, the North Great Plain and the South Great Plain 
regions can be regarded as almost completely homogeneous as regards ethnic com-
position. The definition of the Gypsies from ethnic aspect is problematic, because 
the Gypsies do not make a single ethnic group, only estimated data are available 
about their number and the majority of them declare themselves as Hungarians. In 
both Hungarian border regions in question, a rather scattered Slovak, Romanian 
and German ethnic minority live in the largest number (Figure 6). The number of 
Romanians living in Hungary is approximately 15,000–25,000 people, some 60–
75% of them live along the border, mostly in Békés and Hajdú-Bihar counties, and 
another significant group of them in Budapest. The village called Méhkerék (in 
 
36 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Békés county) is the only settlement in Hungary where the census data show a 
Romanian majority (80.7%). The Romanian minority has wide-ranging cultural 
autonomy in Hungary (minority self-government, newspaper and television pro-
gramme in their mother tongue, cultural organisations, elementary and secondary 
education). Their most important organisation is the Cultural Alliance of Romani-
ans in Hungary, but the Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches have a significant 
role in the preservation of the ethnic identity, too. In the border region, 19 Roma-
nian Orthodox and three Greek Catholic parishes operate, together with one Roma-
nian Orthodox episcopacy. 
Figure 6 
Ethnic composition of population in North and South Great Plain, 2001 
Slovak
0,44%
Slovak
Romanian
0,02%
0,28%
Romanian
0,06%
German
German
0,44%
South 
0,08%
Gipsy
Great 
North 
Gipsy
1,00%
Plain
Great 
3,08%
Plain
Other
Other
0,86%
0,17%
Hungarian
Hungarian
96,99%
96,59%
 Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office. 
In Romania, the share of the Romanian ethnic population from the total 
population was almost 90% both in 1992 and in 2001. The most significant ethnic 
minority are the Hungarians, whose proportion decreased from 7.1% to 6.6%, their 
number from 1,620,000 to 1,480,000 from 1992 to 2001. In addition to the Gypsies 
who are hard to classify, there is no other ethnic minority apart from the 
Hungarians in Romania whose share from the total population reaches 1%. A 
characteristic feature of the Hungarian ethnic group living in Romania is that only 
 
37

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
a part of them concentrate in the proximity of the Hungarian–Romanian border. 
The biggest contiguous ethnic block can be found in the inner part of Romania, in 
the Székely Land. Another larger contiguous Hungarian-inhabited territory can be 
found in the northern part of the Hungarian–Romanian border, whereas the 
Hungarian population is only sporadic now along the southern part of the border 
(Figure 7).  
In the preservation of the ethnic identity of the Hungarians living in Romania, 
the non-governmental organisations play an important role. Their number started to 
increase rapidly after the fall of the dictatorship in Romania: in 2002, as many as 
1,500 Hungarian non-governmental organisations were registered in the country, 
whose main field of operation is education and culture, also the knowledge of 
Hungary and tourism. The number of associations of economic character is 
significant, too. 
As regards migration processes, the Hungarian border regions have been char-
acterised by a migration loss for decades, the major part of that being internal mi-
gration, towards to economically more advanced Hungarian territories, the number 
of those leaving Hungary is negligible. In the Hungarian regions along the Hun-
garian–Romanian border, the combined share of foreign citizens of any nationality 
is less than 1% from the total population. Most of them are immigrants (38%) and 
Hungarians moving back to Hungary (23%). In Romania there are only national 
level data, which show that the main actors in the international migrations, apart 
from the Romanians, have been the Hungarian and the German minority since 
1990. As regards the destinations of the migrations, a considerable change occurred 
during the last decade, the emigration from political and ethnic reasons in the early 
1990s was replaced by a migration because of economic reasons (Table 5, 6)
In Hungary the density of the population has been continuously decreasing, par-
allel to the decline of the number of population (the population density was 109.4 
persons per km2 in 2001). Both the North Great Plain and the South Great Plain 
regions are much less densely populated than Hungary as a whole (75 and 87.8 
people per km2, respectively in 2001). The population density has been continu-
ously decreasing in Romania, too, including the two border regions neighbour to 
Hungary, which are much more scarcely populated than the national average (Ta-
ble 3)
. The share of the urban population was continuously increasing in Hungary 
until 1994, since then it has only grown moderately with some ups and downs, 
mostly due to the settlements newly awarded the town status. The North Great 
Plain region is less, while the South Great Plain more urbanised than the national 
average, and since 1988 the proportion of urban population has been continuously 
increasing in both regions. In Romania, the share of urban population increased by 
5.2% in 1988–2000, with some ups and downs, but a moderate decrease has oc-
curred since 1998. The share or urban population is stagnating in the border regions 
(Table 7)
 
38 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 7 
 
HUNGARIANS IN ROMANIA, 2001 

 
39

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Table 5 
Emigrants by nationality and country of destination in Romania, 
1990–2000 
 
1990 1991 1992 1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998 1999 2000 
Emigrants by nationality / ethnic group (number of persons) 
Total 96,929 
44,160 31,152 18,446 17,146 25,675 21,526 19,945 17,536 12,594 14,753
Romanians 23,888 
19,307 18,104 8,814 10,146 18,706 16,767 16,883 15,202 11,283 13,438
Germans 60,072 
15,567 8,852 5,945 4,065 2,906 2,315 1,273
775
390
374
Hungarians 11,040 7,494 3,523 3,206 2,509 3,608 2,105 1,459 1,217
696
788
Jews 745 
516
224
221
177
131
191
136
198
111
66
Other 
1,184 1,276
449
260
249
324
148
194
144
114
87
nationalities 
Emigrants by country of destination (number of persons) 
Australia 611 
301
297
236
220
136
165
207
206
124
143
Austria  
3,459  4,630 3,282 1,296 1,256 2,276
915 1,551
941
468
270
Canada 1,894 
1,661 1,591 1,926 1,523 2,286 2,123 2,331 1,945 1,626 2,518
France 1,626 
1,512 1,235
937
787 1,438 2,181 1,143
846
696
809
Germany 66,121 
20,001 13,813 6,874 6,890 9,010 6,467 5,807 3,899 2,370 2,216
Greece 576 
354
143
80
87
193
274
232
316
214
328
Hungary 10,635 
4,427 4,726 3,647 1,779 2,509 1,485 1,244 1,306
774
881
Israel 1,227 
519
463
324
417
316
418
554
563
326
433
Italy 1,130 
1,396
528
645 1,580 2,195 1,640 1,706 1,877 1,415 2,142
Sweden 996 
381
686
199
176
520
310
468
129
98
90
U.S.A. 4,924 
5,770 2,100 1,245 1,078 2,292 3,181 2,861 2,868 2,386 2,723
Other 
3,730 3,208 2,288 1,010 1,363 2,504 2,367 1,841 2,640 2,097 2,200
countries 
Source: National Institute of Statistics (Romania). 
 
 
 
40 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Table 6 
Repatriated by nationality and country from where they repatriated in Romania, 
1990–2000 
 
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 
Repatriated by nationality / ethnic group (number of persons) 
Total 
3,095 3,443 3,077 3,257 3,304 5,507 6,265 8,432 11,287 10,467 12,442
Romanians 2,139 2,544 2,255 2,296 2,428 4,604 5,332 7,288 10,289 9,823 12,138
Germans 177 
116 
106 
139
146
196
225
268
248
141
40
Hungarians 290 283 185 284
267
259
311
361
355
202
176
Jews 172 
154 
198 
200
129
76
0
144
85
72
42
Other 
317 346 333 338
334
372
397
371
310
229
46
nationalities 
Repatriated by country from where they arrived (number of persons) 
Austria  
160 
142 
121 
215
323
569
567
455
198
113
20
France 164 
240 
191 
229
137
670 1,075 1,159
328
139
111
Germany 531 
556 
579 
606
673
853
764
692
422
273
242
Greece 162 
182 
106 
150
101
256
117
396
394
235
178
Israel 264 
254 
273 
259
165
162
211
151
300
83
61
Republic of 
18 12 128 195
122 1,171 1,752 4,092
8,109 8,359 10,365
Moldova 
U.S.A. 409 
433 
448 
348
329
487
420
441
259
255
172
Other 
1,387 1,624 1,231 1,255 1,454 1,339 1, 359 1,046
1,277 1,010 1,293
countries 
Source: National Institute of Statistics (Romania). 
 
41

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Table 7 
Population by area, 1988–2003 
Year 
Population by area (as percentage of total) 
Hungary 
South Great 
North Great 
Romania North-West  West 
Plain 
Plain 
urban rural urban rural urban rural urban rural urban rural urban rural 
1988  59.4 40.6 56.1 43.9 49.4 50.6 51.9 48.1 n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. 
1989  61.9 38.1 61.5 38.5 54.8 45.2 53.2 46.8 n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. 
1990  62.0 38.0 61.6 38.4 55.1 44.9 54.3 45.7 51.6 48.4 62.7 37.3 
1991  62.3 37.7 61.8 38.2 55.9 44.1 54.1 45.9 51.6 48.4 62.4 37.6 
1992  62.7 37.3 62.1 37.9 58.3 41.7 54.3 45.7 51.6 48.4 61.6 38.4 
1993  63.2 36.8 62.2 37.8 60.0 40.0 54.5 45.5 51.9 48.1 61.8 38.2 
1994  62.8 37.2 64.3 35.7 60.0 40.0 54.7 45.3 52.2 47.8 61.9 38.1 
1995  62.6 37.4 64.2 35.8 60.0 40.0 54.9 45.1 52.5 47.5 62.6 37.4 
1996  63.6 36.4 64.6 35.4 60.0 40.0 54.9 45.1 52.6 47.4 62.5 37.5 
1997  62.9 37.1 65.0 35.0 60.2 39.8 55.0 45.0 52.7 47.3 62.6 37.4 
1998  63.5 36.5 65.6 34.4 61.0 39.0 54.9 45.1 52.7 47.3 62.2 37.8 
1999  63.3 36.7 65.6 34.4 60.9 39.1 54.8 45.2 52.7 47.3 62.3 37.7 
2000  63.6 35.4 65.6 34.4 61.0 39.0 54.6 45.4 52.6 47.4 62.2 37.8 
2001  64.1 35.9 66.8 33.2 61.9 38.1 n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. 
2002  65.0 35.0 67.7 33.3 62.9 37.1 53.3 46.7 51.1 48.9 61.7 38.3 
2003  64.8 35.2 67.8 32.2 62.7 37.3 53.4 46.6 51.2 48.8 61.7 38.3 
Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, National Institute of Statistics (Romania). 
One of the most critical aspects of the judgement of the socio-political changes 
taking place in 1989–1990 is the increase of the number of crimes in the Eastern 
European societies. In each county the population was shocked by the fact that af-
ter the former relative security they had to get used to the relatively high number of 
crimes. Comparing the Hungarian and the Romania border regions, we can see that 
the number of crimes increased in both regions, but in Hungary the number of 
crimes almost doubled, slowly from an originally relatively high level, whereas in 
Romania the number of known crimes increased from an extremely low level 
(which was a “by-product” of the dictatorship) by almost fivefold within a short 
time. 
It is difficult to compare the school education of the population, because of the 
differences in the collection of statistical data and in the educational systems (dif-
ferent length and forms of education). In general we can say that both nationally 
and in the border regions more than 90% of the population in the adequate age 
 
42 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
have at least primary school education and the share of those with secondary or 
higher education is dynamically growing in both countries. In the Hungarian–Ro-
manian border the number of secondary and higher education institutions is accept-
able, several institutions with great traditions can be found here, but especially in 
Romania the equipment of the institutions and the subjects taught do not always 
meet the requirements. 
The conditions of the use of social and cultural services changed a lot in the 
border regions during the 1990s. As a result of the detrimental effects of the eco-
nomic transition, the inhabitants are only able to spend a smaller part of their in-
comes on culture, on the one hand; on the other, the institutions offering socio-
cultural services themselves face financial problems (the physical condition of the 
buildings is bad, their technical equipment is outdated, some of them have been 
closed down). In addition, the expansion of the home entertainment facilities (tele-
vision, VCR or DVD, Internet) contributes to the decreasing use of the capacity of 
the cultural institutions. Consequently, the popularity of these institutions has de-
creased in both countries. 
Maybe the health services are the field where the most significant differences 
can be seen between the conditions in Hungary and Romania, as regards the social 
dimension. Looking at the number of hospital beds per 10,000 inhabitants and the 
number of population per one general practitioner, a decline could be seen in the 
border regions of both countries after 1990, but these indices are still much higher 
in Romania than in Hungary (Table 8). This is due to the fact that in Romania the 
rationalisation of the health care system is still to be done (as an effect of the 
paternalistic supply system inherited from the socialism), the better quantitative 
indices hide considerable qualitative problems. 
2  Hungarian–Ukrainian border region 
2.1 Historical–geographical dimension 
The regions along the present Hungarian–Ukrainian border made a single organic 
unit for centuries, as part of the historical Hungary. The Austro–Hungarian Monar-
chy, a loser of World War I, fell into pieces in 1918–1919, and the formerly born 
nationalist movements strengthened. All the borders of Hungary were designated 
by the peace treaty signed in France, in Trianon (nearby Versailles) on 4 June 
1920. When designating the borders in the region, the ethnic, economic and catch-
ment area aspects were completely neglected, the most important aspect of the 
designation of the borderlines was infrastructure, within that especially outer rail-
way line running connecting the market towns. As a consequence of this, a signifi-
 
43

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
cant number of Hungarian minority remained in the Transcarpathia, and the hostile 
relations after the war made it impossible for the towns detached from Hungary 
(Ungvár, Beregszász, Munkács) and their hinterlands, which remained in Hungary 
and lost their gravity centres. This territory had always been a periphery from 
socio-economic aspect within the historical Hungary, and now it was cut by a bor-
der, which put it into an even more difficult situation, the new border regions be-
came the “peripheries of the periphery”. 
Table 8 
Hospital beds per 10,000 inhabitants, 1990–2003 
Year 
Hospital beds per 10,000 inhabitants 
Hungary 
South Great  North Great 
Romania North-West  West 
Plain 
Plain 
1990 
98.5 86.4 81.7 89.2 95.9 106.0 
1991  100.7 86.1 81.1 89.2 96.0 107.0 
1992 
98.7 83.8 79.9 78.5 83.3  97.0 
1993 
97.7 84.5 79.5 78.7 83.5  96.6 
1994 
96.1 83.9 79.9 76.9 81.8  93.7 
1995 
90.7 83.0 74.2 76.7 82.7  94.8 
1996 
89.9 81.5 74.4 75.6 82.1  96.0 
1997 
82.4 75.0 73.0 73.8 81.3  94.1 
1998 
83.0 76.0 73.0 73.1 81.5  92.5 
1999 
84.0 76.0 75.0 73.1 81.2  92.5 
2000 
83.0 76.0 74.0 74.4 82.5  89.1 
2001 79.1 
71.8 
74.3 
n.d.a. n.d.a. n.d.a. 
2002 
79.2 72.3 71.8 75.0 84.4  82.7 
2003 
78.9 71.8 72.3 65.7 72.2 73.1 
Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, National Institute of Statistics (Romania). 
Although the regional borders did not change considerably since they were 
designated, the territories cut from Hungary and now belonging to The Ukraine 
have experienced several changes. Due to the changes of the borders, the inhabi-
tants of the Transcarpathia were the citizens of five states in the 20th century with-
out moving from their birth of place. There is a frequently told anecdote in which 
an old man in the Transcarpathia is asked how many placed he has visited in his 
life. He answers he has been to the Austro–Hungarian Monarchy, Czechoslovakia, 
the kingdom of Hungary, the Soviet Union and The Ukraine. When he is told that 
he must be a great traveller, he answers he has never moved out from his village. 
 
44 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Transcarpathia county on the Ukrainian side of the Hungarian–Ukrainian bor-
der region is situated in the south-western part of The Ukraine. It has a territory of 
12,800 km2-s, the southern slopes of the so-called Forested Carpathians (Ukrainian 
Carpathians by their new name) are in this county, and the Great Plain begins at the 
foot of these hills. The neighbours of Transcarpathia are Lemberg (Lvov) and 
Ivano-Frankovsk counties from the north-east, Romania and Hungary on the south, 
Slovakia and Poland on the west. The official name of the Transcarpathia adminis-
trative area is the Trans-Carpathian Territory (Zakarpatskaya oblast), which is di-
vided into 13 districts. The Transcarpathia region is not a separate geographical 
entity. The specification itself was used from the 1930s, until then the areas had 
been called the eastern part of Upper Northern Hungary, as Rusinsko or Podkarpat-
skaya Rus. Transcarpathia in the present sense became a reality only in 1944, when 
during the Soviet occupation a part of almost 13,000 km2-s were cut from Ung, 
Bereg, Ugocsa and Máramaros counties, and this territory was named Zakarpat-
skaya Ukraina, a year later Trans-Carpathian Territory. We have to mention, how-
ever, that practically the same area also belonged to Czechoslovakia after World 
War I, under the name Podkarpastka Rus, as determined by the Treaty of Trianon. 
The designation of the borders in Trianon also affected the administrative 
system of the Hungarian side, of course, because the mutilated counties remaining 
in Hungary without their gravity centres were not viable on their own. After a 
rather chaotic transitory period between the two world wars, the unification of the 
remaining parts of the former counties took place in 1949–1950. This reformed 
administrative system is still functioning, but the planning and statistical regions 
have also been designated, in accordance with the expectations of the European 
Union. The (NUTS 2 level) North Great Plain (Hungarian – Észak-Alföldi) 
Region
, neighbour to The Ukraine, consists of three counties: Hajdú-Bihar, Jász-
Nagykun-Szolnok  
and  Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg. The territory and number of 
population are of approximately the same magnitude as in the neighbouring 
Transcarpathia, although they are not the same administrative tier (Figure 8)
In the cross-border relations of two neighbouring states, the permeability of the 
borders plays a dominant role. It is important whether the border has a connecting 
(bridge)
 or the separating (wall) function. The Hungarian–Ukrainian (formerly 
Hungarian–Czechoslovakian, then Hungarian–Soviet) border has always been one 
of the most closed borders since it was designated in 1920. Following the division 
of Hungary after World War I, the relation between the successor states was rather 
hostile; the “wall” role was dominant. From 1944, this border section was the 
western gate of the Soviet Union, where the Soviets made their best not to let the 
tiniest part of the Western culture leak into the Soviet Union. In the socialist times, 
an alarm system was constructed on the Ukrainian side of the border. It is still 
there, although not used anymore. At the turn of the 1980s and 1990, the crossing 
of the border was simplified, but the approaching European Union membership of 
 
45

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Hungary and the concomitant introduction of the Schengen norms already raise a 
new problem. One thing seems to be certain: the Hungarian–Ukrainian border will 
be for a long time an external and strictly defended border of the European Union, 
which will restrict the everyday cross-border relations. 
Figure 8 
The Hungarian–Ukrainan border region 
 
Source: Edited by the authors. CRS of HAS Debrecen Department. 
2.2 Legal dimensions 
The Peace Treaty of Trianon of 1920 (Part 2., § 27.) designated the new borders of 
Hungary. The Transcarpathia region, now part of The Ukraine, belonged to 
Czechoslovakia then, then it became the part of Hungary again in 1939. As a con-
clusion of World War II, the line of the new state borders were designated by Hun-
 
46 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
gary and the Allied and Associated Powers in the Peace Treaty signed in Paris on 
10 February 1947. This treaty was complemented by the different re-demarcation 
documents signed in 1949 by the Republic of Hungary and the Federation of the 
Soviet Socialist Republics and then by the decree of legal force on the order of the 
state border, which came into effect in 1962. 
At the end of the 1980s, the political easing, the decreasing influence and then 
the disintegration of the Soviet Union had a fundamental effect on the borders and 
the border traffic. Hungary was one of the first countries to recognise the 
sovereignty of The Ukraine, gained in 1991 – before the disintegration of the 
Soviet Union –, but the establishment of the good neighbourhood and trustful 
relations had already started before that, and the diplomatic relations were 
officially established on 3 December 1991. The Hungarian consulate in Kyiv 
became an Embassy, and The Ukraine also opened its Embassy in Budapest on 26 
March 1992. The Hungarian representative office opened in Ungvár on 8 August 
1991 was given the chief consulate status on 2 June 1993. As one of the first steps 
in the establishment of the relations, the ministers of foreign affairs of Hungary and 
The Ukraine signed a declaration on 31 May 1991 on the protection of the rights of 
the minorities, followed later by the signing of border agreements (Annex 1).  
Annex 1 
The agreements concerning the Hungarian–Ukrainian border  
–  The agreement and its annexes between the Ministry of Transport of the 
Republic of Hungary and the Ministry of Transport Affairs of the Federation of 
the Soviet Socialist Republics on the railway border traffic, signed in Moscow 
on 15 September 1947. 
–  The agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of Hungary 
and the Government of the Federation of the Soviet Socialist Republics on the 
common use and maintenance of the road bridge over the Tisza River at Zá-
hony–Csop, signed in Budapest on 11 June 1963. 
–  The agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the 
Government of The Ukraine on the border crossing stations on the border 
between the two states, signed in Budapest on 26 February 1993. 
–  The agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the 
Government of The Ukraine on the handing over and reception of persons over 
the common state border, signed in Budapest on 26 February 1993 Act (No. 
XXIV. of 1995). 
–  The agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the 
Government of The Ukraine on the simplified state border crossing procedure 
of the inhabitants of the counties along the border, signed in Budapest on 26 
February 1993. 
 
47

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
–  The agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the 
Government of The Ukraine on water management issues concerning the border 
rivers, signed in Budapest on 28 July 1993 [Government Decree No. 120/1994 
(8 September)]. 
–  The agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the 
Government of The Ukraine on the implementation of the agreement between 
the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the Government of The 
Ukraine on the handing over and reception of persons over the common state 
border, signed in Budapest on 26 February 1993 Act (No. XXIV. of 1995), 
signed in Kyiv on 27 October 1994. 
–  The agreement between the Republic of Hungary and The Ukraine on the order 
of the Hungarian–Ukrainian border, the co-operation in issues concerning the 
border and mutual assistance, signed in Kyiv 19 on May 1995. 
–  The agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the 
Government of The Ukraine on the co-operation in fighting organised crime, 
signed in Kyiv 19 on May 1995. 
–  The Contract between the Republic of Hungary and The Ukraine on the order of 
the Hungarian–Ukrainian border, the co-operation in issues concerning the 
border and mutual assistance, signed in Kyiv 19 on May 1995. Announced: Act 
No. LV of 1998. 
–  The agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the 
Government of The Ukraine on the rail traffic over the state border, signed in 
Kv on 19 May 1995. Announced: Government Decree No. 176/1996 (29 No-
vember). 
–  The agreement between the Government of the Republic of Hungary and the 
Government of The Ukraine on the reconstruction of the road bridge over the 
Tisza river at the Hungarian–Ukrainian border, signed in Budapest on 16 
January 1996. Announced: Government Decree No. 132/1996 (28 August). 
Apart from the concrete border contracts, the most important document con-
cerning the Hungarian–Ukrainian border is the Treaty (whole name: “Treaty on the 
grounds of good neighbourhood and co-operation between the Republic of Hun-
gary and The Ukraine”), signed by the two parties in Kyiv on 6 December 1991, 
ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament in 1992 and by the Hungarian Parliament in 
1993. In the Treaty contract the parties declare, among other things, that the possi-
ble disputes between them will only be solved by peaceful means, they will never 
use their armed forces against each other in any case, they respect each other’s ter-
ritorial integrity, and state that they do not and will not have territorial claims from 
the other party. The agreement also states that the parties will promote the cross-
border co-operations in all fields, they do their best to create the conditions for the 
approach of their peoples on the ground of good neighbourhood and friendship, 
 
48 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
they use all means to promote the expansion of the relationships among their citi-
zens both at the level of the individuals and the level of the state, social and other 
organisations. They assist the establishment of the conditions for the expansion of 
the relationships and co-operation among the social organisations, trade unions, 
foundations, educational and cultural institutions, scientific institutes and mass 
communication, and for the intensification of the youth exchange programmes. 
They give a special attention to the development of the mutually advantageous bi-
lateral economic relations. 
In addition to the above-said, a number of interstate and intergovernmental 
agreements and contracts regulate the relations between the two countries. Agree-
ments were signed, among other things, on the co-operation in the field of trade 
and economy, technical and scientific issues, education and culture, the promotion 
and mutual protection of the investments between the Republic of Hungary and The 
Ukraine, plant sanitation and plant protection relations, international air, railway 
and road traffic
. Also, there are agreements on the co-operation in the field of en-
ergy management, the avoidance of double taxation, the co-operation in the field of 
environmental protection and regional development, the assistance in customs af-
fairs
 etc. Also, a number of Hungarian–Ukrainian intergovernmental joint com-
mittees have been set up, which co-ordinate the bilateral co-operations in their 
fields, prepare and supervise the bilateral agreements. There is e.g. a joint commit-
tee on trade and economic issues, one on technical and scientific issues, on envi-
ronmental protection and regional development co-operation, another on minority 
issues. 
Although it is not a bilateral agreement, we have to mention the Act No. LXII of 
2001, commonly known as the “Status Law”, on Hungarians living in neighbour-
ing countries, which gives special (health care, travel, employment etc.) allowances 
to the Hungarians living outside Hungary. 
The negotiations in connection with the EU accession are at a different level in 
Hungary and The Ukraine, consequently the extent to which the community law
the acquis communautaire has been taken over is different. In Hungary, legal har-
monisation is practically complete, deficiencies only being in the field of the insti-
tutional network responsible for the reception of the resources from the Structural 
Funds. On 16 April 2003, Hungary signed in Athens the contract on the accession 
to the European Union, as a result of which Hungary became a full-right EU mem-
ber state on 1 May 2004. To the opposite, The Ukraine is still at the first steps of 
the Euro-Atlantic integration; we cannot actually even talk about the taking over of 
the  acquis communautaire. The objective of the Ukrainian government is the ac-
cession of the country to the European Union as soon as possible, but the prepara-
tion is only in its initial phase. One of the first steps in this process is that The 
Ukraine wishes to become a WTO member in 2003. 
 
49

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
There are no special administrative territories on either side of the Hungarian–
Ukrainian border, but there are special business zones on both sides, established in 
order to develop the economy and promote investments in the border region. In 
Hungary, the Záhony and Region Business Zone was established in 1996, involving 
50 settlements of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg county, while in The Ukraine the Act on 
the  Special Economic Zone of the Transcarpathia came into force in May 2001, 
providing tax allowances for a duration of 30 years for the investors (its total terri-
tory covers 737.9 hectares, of which 212 hectares are in Munkács and its 
neighbourhood and more than 500 hectares in the Ungvár and Csap area). The 
businesses settling down in the zones can receive different tax allowances, state 
supports and preferential credits. There is a well functioning everyday connection 
between the two organisations. 
In the 1990s, the first Euroregions were established in East-Central Europe, too, 
aiming at the cross-border relations in the formerly isolated border regions. There 
is one such organisation in the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region, the Carpathi-
ans Euroregion, on whose establishment the contract was signed in Debrecen on 14 
February 1993 
by the representatives of the border regions of Hungary, Poland, 
Slovakia and The Ukraine. Simultaneously, the ministers of foreign affairs of Hun-
gary, Poland and The Ukraine ratified this by the signing of a Common Declara-
tion. The characteristic feature of this Euroregion is that its creation was influenced 
by politics, it was practically “top-down” created. Later on, Romanian counties 
joined the Euroregion. This was the first solely Eastern European Euroregional ini-
tiative, as its members only involve border regions from “post-communist” coun-
tries. The viability of the Euroregion is questionable, because of the different socio-
economic development level and political systems of the participating member 
countries, the differences among their legal regulations and public administration 
systems, also because of the giant size of the Euroregion (the organisation has con-
tinuously grown since its creation, presently it covers an area in excess of 161,000 
km2-s, its population is over 16 million people). Consequently, smaller bi- or trilat-
eral organisations have been established within the Euroregion, including the Inter-
regio along the Hungarian–Ukrainian–Romanian triple border (Figure 9)
The visa regulations are the same in Hungary and The Ukraine. Hungarian citizens 
can enter The Ukraine for duration of 30 days without a visa, in possession of a letter 
of invitation or a tourist voucher, with a valid return ticket, enough money, or in the 
case of official journeys, with a so-called delegation order of the sending organisation 
and the letter of invitation from the receiving party. The passport must be valid for at 
least half a year. The same rules apply to the Ukrainian citizens travelling to Hungary. 
Hungary became a full-right member of the European Union on 1 May 2004 and will 
have to introduce the Schengen norms in the defence of the borders. Consequently the 
freedom of travel without visa will probably cease to exist, probably from November 
2003 on the Ukrainian citizens can only enter Hungary in possession of a visa. 
 
50 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
 
Figure 9 
 
The Carpathian Euroregion with its existing euroregion-type 
interregional   organisations 
 
 
51

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
2.3 Political dimension 
At the end of the 20th century, during the socio-economic systemic change affecting 
all East-Central European countries, the single party system typical of the socialist 
system was replaced again by parliamentary democracy. The system of political 
control was reorganised both in Hungary and The Ukraine on new grounds, and the 
administrative system, also the role of the individual tiers within the power hierar-
chy are gradually transformed as a part of the Euro-Atlantic integration process. 
The formerly totally centralised, “top-down” control was replaced in Hungary 
by an effort for decentralisation. Local self-governance, especially of the munici-
palities, was given a role much more significant than before. This process has 
started in The Ukraine, too, but the public administration is still strongly concen-
trated and the socio-economic transformation slowly progresses. The acts and de-
crees concerning the self-governments have been changed and amended many 
times in The Ukraine. In July 1995, the county and local administration was cen-
tralised, by which the municipal and county government rights were taken over by 
the state administration. 
The development of the cross-border relations is an important objective in both 
countries, but it is made difficult by the different hierarchy and independence of 
the administrative tiers. While the municipal governments have broad self-govern-
ance rights in Hungary, in The Ukraine their independence is rather restricted. In 
The Ukraine the district level in public administration exists (there are 13 districts 
in the Transcarpathia), while in Hungary the micro-regions, compatible with the 
NUTS 4 level of the regional statistical system of the European Union, have been 
established. These micro-regions, however, do not have administrative functions. 
In addition, there are self-organising micro-regions in both countries (they are only 
now established in the Transcarpathia), whose borders do not coincide with the 
borders of the statistical micro-regions and the districts. In both countries there are 
counties compatible with the NUTS 3 level, but while these are the highest sub-
national administrative tiers in The Ukraine, in Hungary the NUTS 2 level regions 
consisting of counties have already been established. 
The Ukraine has been an independent state since 24 August 1991. It is a repub-
lic, a presidential–parliamentary republic as stated by the Constitution, but much 
more of a presidential republic in reality. At the top of the executive power there is 
the Cabinet of the Ministers, the top organ of jurisdiction is the High Court, the 
Constitutional Court. The president is elected for five years, the now president, 
Viktor Yuschenko was elected in December 2004 for this position. The 21 Novem-
ber 2004 runoff determined whether Ukraine fulfils its quest for democracy and 
integration into the Euro-Atlantic community or maintains its corrupt status-quo 
drifting increasingly toward an authoritarian system along the Eurasian model. The 
result was what some have dubbed the “Chestnut Revolution” – named for the 
 
52 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
chestnut trees that line the boulevards of Kyiv. Others called it the “Orange Revo-
lution” – named for the opposition's campaign colour. The election results demon-
strated deep regional divisions within the country. The people of 16 western re-
gions of The Ukraine voted with one voice for Yuschenko, while 9 eastern regions 
give one’s majority of votes to Viktor Yanukovich. 
Its Parliament (the Highest Council of The Ukraine) is a single-chamber parlia-
ment, with 450 representatives in it. They are elected for four years, 225 of them 
from party lists and the other 225 in electoral districts. Party lists can be made up 
by parties registered at least one year prior to the elections, or their election alli-
ances, but not by social organisations. In The Ukraine there are only national party 
lists, with not more than 250 names on it. The same representative can only run for 
the position either in an electoral district or from the party list. The parliamentary 
elections have only one round, there is no participation threshold for the validity of 
the elections, the representatives are elected by a simple majority. If two first rep-
resentatives are given the same number of votes, the voting is held again. 
At the latest parliamentary elections (31 March 2002), the distribution of the 
mandates changed significantly. The Ukrainian Communist Party received the most 
mandates (123), followed by the nationalist RUH (People’s Movement of The 
Ukraine, 46 mandates), the Ukrainian Socialist Party–Ukrainian Peasants Party 
(34), the People’s Democratic Party (28), also 114 independent representatives and 
105 nominees representing other parties. The alliance called Our Ukraine (an alli-
ance organised around the popular ex-president, Victor Yuschenko, consisting of 
10 middle-right wing parties, including the nationalist RUH) and the movement 
For the Single Ukraine (led by the leader of the presidential administration, Vo-
lodimir Litvin) received the most mandates (110 and 101, respectively). On the 
other hand, the Ukrainian Communist Party lost a lot of mandates (now they have 
only 65). In the Highest Council, Transcarpathia county is represented by 6 MPs 
from party lists, including 4 independent ones and one Hungarian representative, 
(István Gajdos), who is member of the Ukrainian United Social Democratic Party. 
In Hungary there were four parties at the elections of 2002 that reached the 
threshold to get into the Parliament (5%), the parties making the government coali-
tion (Hungarian Socialist Party and the Alliance of Free Democrats) received 
51.29% of the mandates, while the FIDESZ (Alliance of Young Democrats) – 
MDF (Hungarian Democratic Forum) coalition 48.71% of them. 
Because the Hungarian regions are very young, on the one hand, and do not 
have administrative functions, on the other, they do not appear on their own in the 
national political life or at the supranational level. In The Ukraine the regional tier 
has not even been created. It is well demonstrated by the fact that the Euroregions 
established in the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region (Carpathians Euroregion and 
Interregio) were organised on county and not regional grounds. It comes directly 
from the above facts that no regionalist parties have been founded, and although 
 
53

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
this border region has already experienced several internal and external conflicts 
deriving from ethnic oppositions, separatism has not at all become a typical objec-
tive. 
2.4  Economic dimension 
At the analysis of the endowments of the Hungarian–Ukrainian borders, one of the 
biggest problems is caused by the lack of comparable statistical data. In addition to 
the different ways of data collection, another problem in connection with the time 
series is the fact that The Ukraine became independent only in 1991, and the for-
mer Soviet data do not always reflect the truth, or they are very hard or impossible 
to obtain. In The Ukraine there were no available statistical publications for a long 
time, because of the financial difficulties of the publication, in fact, several statisti-
cal data are still not public. The Ukraine is only planning the submission of the re-
quest for the European Union accession; consequently the national regional statisti-
cal planning system compatible with the EUROSTAT has not been created yet. 
Another problem in both countries is caused by the several changes in the data 
collection and systematisation over the recent decade and a half, so in many cases 
the data are not comparable with each other. 
Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the independent Ukraine was 
born in 1991. Similarly to the other countries in the region, the Ukrainian economy 
fell into a crisis after the systemic change, from which the country is only starting 
to recover. The GDP per capita fell from 1991 to 1999 by more than 60% (calcu-
lated at purchasing power parity, from 5,180 USD to 2,200 USD), since then it has 
been rising again, the annual growth rate was 9.1% in 1991. The Hungary economy 
was affected by the systemic change, too, but the recession was not as serious as in 
The Ukraine. In 2001 the value of GDP calculated at purchasing power parity was 
still low compared to the European Union average, but it reached 13,400 USD (Ta-
ble 9)
. GDP figures at regional level are only available in Hungary, which show 
that the GDP calculated at purchasing power parity is moderately increasing in the 
North Great Plain region, but it has the last position in the order of the Hungarian 
regions. 
Because the Transcarpathia region situated at the western edge of the Soviet 
Union, it never was a target of large-scale industrial investments, the dominant 
branch of the economy is agriculture
. The economy of the county – all branches of 
that – is of low efficiency, characterised by a low technical level and organisation. 
The former urban industry went bankrupt and was closed down. The volume of 
manufacturing in the county is less than half the national average. The decline of 
the production, lasting until 1999, affected 70.5% of the companies in the county, 
 
54 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
influencing in a negative way the development of the real incomes of the popula-
tion. The recovery of the economy started in Transcarpathia in 2000, the decline of 
agricultural production stopped, the output of industry grew by 12% in 2000 and 
21% in 2001 compared to the previous year. 
Table 9 
GDP per capita at current prices, in US dollars, 2001 
Countries 
Based on current  
Based on current purchasing power 
exchange rates 
parities 
 
USD 
EU15 = 100 
USD 
EU15 = 100 
EU 15 
20,800 
100.0 
25,500 
100.0 
Hungary 5,100 
24.5 
13,400 
52.5 
Ukraine 720 
3.5 
4,150 
16.3 
 Source: www.oecd.org, Ukrainan data: www.worldbank.org. 
The volume of foreign direct investments is ever increasing in The Ukraine too, 
reaching a total of 8.8 billion USD by April 1, 2005. Nevertheless the volume of 
foreign direct investment per capita is still the one of the lowest among the coun-
tries in the region. The USA as the largest investor has a 1,207.8 million USD 
share from the cumulative foreign direct investments in The Ukraine, which is 
13.7% of all investments, followed by Cyprus with 1,115 million USD (12.7%). 
Great Britain has invested 938.6 million USD in The Ukraine (10.7%). The foreign 
investors usually prefer food processing and manufacturing industry, wholesale 
trade, financial sector and real estate. Among the regions, Kyiv has a 2 billion USD 
share from the foreign direct investments, followed by Kyiv region (462 million 
USD) and the Dnipropetrovsk region (484 million USD) until October 1, 2003. The 
number of businesses operating with the involvement of foreign capital is 9,161. 
The  Hungarian–Ukrainian foreign trade relations are characterised by a con-
siderably negative balance on the Hungarian side, because of the large-scale import 
of energy and raw materials. Among the neighbouring countries, the Hungarian 
investors and business co-owners have the first position in the Transcarpathia and 
the ninth position in The Ukraine as a whole. The businesses registered in Hungary 
have invested some 30 million USD until now in their Ukrainian businesses. It is 
promising that the volume of Hungarian export to The Ukraine increased by 43% 
in 2003 compared to the previous year, and the balance of the foreign trade of the 
year exceeded one billion USD, for the first time after a long time. In The Ukraine 
there are approximately 260 successful Hungarian–Ukrainian joint ventures, mak-
ing some 3,000 business contracts annually. The Ukrainian investors, who are usu-
ally short of capital, play a much less significant role in Hungary. 
 
55

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
In the Transcarpathia region the data of January 2004 showed that the total 
amount of foreign direct investment was 244.3 million USD, which is less than 5% 
of the capital invested in The Ukraine. By the volume of investments drawn the 
region occupies 10th place among the regions of Ukraine, by the investments per 
capita it is at 6th position in Ukraine. Since The Ukraine became independent, 
Hungary has continuously been the largest foreign investor in the Transcarpathia. 
Hungary is the fifth in the county with a total of 25.9 million USD, i.e. 10.6% of 
the foreign direct investments registered in the Transcarpathia. The largest investor 
is the USA with 15.6% of total volume, followed by Japan with 14.1%, Germany is 
the third with 11.9% and Austria the fourth with 10.8%. Among the investments, 
32 companies operate as joint ventures and 62 as completely foreign owned busi-
nesses. Among the neighbouring countries, the Hungarian investors and company 
co-owners have the first position in the Transcarpathia: there are more than 110 
Ukrainian–Hungarian joint ventures here. 
Unemployment is a serious problem in both border regions. In the North Great 
Plain the unemployment rate is constantly over the national average, and the pro-
portion of unskilled and long-term unemployed is high (Figure 10). The unem-
ployment indices of the Transcarpathia area were among the worst in The Ukraine, 
too till 2003. The official data reveal a very good situation as regards unemploy-
ment: according to them, in 2000 the number of registered unemployed was 11.6%, 
13.1% in 2001, 11.9% in 2002 and at the end of 2003 only 7.0%. These official 
data do not reflect the real number of the unemployment, as only every tenth job-
less person turns to the employment centres (thus the real share of the unemployed 
is at least ten times higher, according to the estimations). The social tensions are 
further exacerbated by the latent unemployment (involuntary holidays, decreased 
number of shifts, shorter working time). 
The Hungarian–Ukrainian border is characterised by a large number of people 
living from cross-border subsistence trade. The most frequent activity is the export 
of cheap Ukrainian fuel and products falling within the Inland Revenues Act 
(mainly tobacco and spirits) to Hungary. The Transcarpathia mostly import food 
and technical devices from Hungary. The main actors in this process are primarily 
the Transcarpathia population living in difficult economic circumstances, but fuel 
tourism is done by many on the Hungarian side of the border, too. This process can 
mainly be seen in the traffic figures of the Hungarian–Ukrainian border, which is 
affected to a large extent by the subsistence trade. 
The personal and vehicle traffic of this border section has changed a lot since 
the opening of the border in 1989. The dominant element of the Hungarian–
Ukrainian border is the border crossing station at Záhony, the major part of the to-
tal traffic still occurs here. In 1988, when Záhony was the only border crossing sta-
tion, 2,140,471 people crossed the border. The following political easing and the 
parallel opening of border crossing stations (four new stations: Lónya, Babarás, 
 
56 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Beregsurány, Tiszabecs) resulted in a travel fever never seen before, the Hungar-
ian–Ukrainian border was crossed by 11,210,839 persons in 1989 (a more than 
fivefold increase!). We have to mention, however, that a significant part of the pas-
sengers in 1989 were transit passengers: the primary travel destination of the citi-
zens in the Transcarpathia was Yugoslavia, very popular in the Transcarpathia, 
also, the transit traffic of Polish citizens “specialised” on small-scale retail trade 
and currency conversion was very intensive (more than 1 million people in 1989!). 
At that time the Soviet rouble could be officially converted. The increase of the 
traffic was followed by a decline until 1991: the bilateral border crossing station in 
Záhony ceased to exist, the number of transit journeys decreased, in 1991 the bilat-
eral border crossing stations did not operate all year round. 
Figure 10 
LFS-based unemployment rate, 1992–2003 
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
North Great Plain
Hungary
Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office. 
 
 
57

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Another rise could be seen again until the mid–1990s, at the peak of which, in 
1995, more than 15 million border crossings were registered at this border section. 
In this period the main motivation of traffic was the so-called “Z-tourism”, i.e. the 
export of used cars to The Ukraine, because from 1993 to 1995 used cars of Soviet 
make could be exported to The Ukraine free of duty. These cars were given in 
Hungary a temporary licence plate starting with a letter “Z”. Also, it was possible 
to reclaim VAT on the cars exported from Hungary. 
Since the introduction of the Ukrainian duty acts that came into force in 1996–
1998 (restriction of the import of food and technical devices, introduction of high 
duties), the traffic decreased until 1999, since then it has been rising again. The 
major part of the goods of those involved in subsistence trade is less and less mar-
ketable because of the new strict laws and customs regulations; the most important, 
practically only viable way of subsistence trade remained fuel tourism (Figure 11)
Figure 11 
Personal traffic across the checkpoints of the Hungarian–Ukrainan border 
between 1988 and 2001 
16 000 000
14 000 000
)
on 12 000 000
ers 10 000 000
f
i
c
 
(P
8 000 000
raf
 t
6 000 000
onal
4 000 000
ers
P
2 000 000
0
89
1988
19
1990
1
991
1992
1
993
1994
01
1
995
1996
1
997
1998
1
999
2000
20
Lónya
Barabás
Beregsurány
Tiszabecs
Záhony
altogether
 
Source:  Hungarian National Headquaters of the Hungarian Border Guard, 2001. Edited by the 
authors. 
 
58 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
2.5 Social dimension 
The  population trends were similar in the two neighbouring border regions. The 
number of population has been decreasing in both regions; since 1996 in the Tran-
scarpathia and 1992 in the North Great Plain (in the case of the Hungarian region, 
the 2001 data are taken from the last census, while the previous ones are the calcu-
lated figures on the ground of the census before 1990, this is why we can see such a 
big difference between the data of 2000 and 2001). The indices of natural increase 
are far above the national average in both border regions (Table 10), which is espe-
cially true for the Transcarpathia, where natural decrease only occurred in 1999, 
and after 2001 in the surveyed period (while natural decrease has been a tendency 
in The Ukraine as a whole since 1991). 
Since the late 1980s, outmigration has characterised both border regions. In the 
North Great Plain, the main destinations of the migrations are the western regions 
of Hungary and Budapest, only a few moves abroad. The biggest number of outmi-
grants has been from Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County for a long while. In the 
Transcarpathia, the direction of the migrations is to the east, but the number of 
those moving abroad is more significant, too. In 2000, the migration loss was 2,498 
people in the Transcarpathia, and those moving abroad accounted for more than 
half of that (1,259 people). The main destinations of the emigrants were Germany 
(33.9%), Hungary (32.4%), also the USA (11.1%), the Czech Republic (9.9%) and 
Israel (8.9%). 
The North Great Plain is not a densely populated region of Hungary, the density 
of population was 87.3 persons per km2 according to the 2003 data; with this figure 
the region lags far behind the national average (108.7 people/km2). To the opposite, 
the Transcarpathia region is a densely populated one by Ukrainian standards, de-
spite the decrease of the population in the recent years: the population density in 
the Transcarpathia is 97.7 persons/km2, as opposed to the national average The 
Ukraine that only reaches 78.9 persons/km2  (Table 10).  Both border regions are 
less urbanised 
than the average of their respective country. In the North Great 
Plain, the proportion of urban population has been increasing, like in Hungary on 
the whole, whereas the proportion of the urban population is lowest in Transcar-
pathia among all Ukrainian counties, in fact, this figure has been continuously de-
creasing since 1988 (Table 11). The main reason of the decrease is the worsening 
urban living conditions as a consequence of the economic crisis since the 1990s. 
All the autochthonous ethnic minorities in the territory of the Republic of Hun-
gary are characterised by a sporadic location, double identity, progressed assimila-
tion and strong emotional and cultural affection to Hungary. The North Great Plain, 
similarly to the whole of Hungary, can be regarded as a homogeneous region from 
the ethnic point of view. If we do not consider the Gypsies as an ethnic minority 
(the Gypsies are not a single ethnic group, there are only estimated data of 
 
59

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
 
 
Table 10 
 
Inhabitants number, population density and natural increase, 
1998–2003 
 
 
 
60 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Table 11 
Urban population as percentage of total, 1988–2003 
Year 
Hungary 
North Great Plain 
Ukraine 
Transcarpathia 
1988  59.4  49.4 n.d.a. 40.9 
1989  61.9  54.8 n.d.a. 41.1 
1990  62.0 55.1 67.5 41.5 
1991  62.3 55.9 67.8 41.8 
1992  62.7 58.3 67.9 42.1 
1993  63.2 60.0 67.9 41.4 
1994  62.8 60.0 67.9 41.1 
1995  62.6 60.0 67.9 39.8 
1996  63.6 60.0 67.8 39.1 
1997  62.9 60.2 67.9 39.1 
1998  63.5 61.0 67.9 39.0 
1999  63.3 60.9 68.0 39.0 
2000  63.6 61.0 68.0 39.0 
2001  64.1 61.9 67.2 37.0 
2002  65.0 62.9 67.2 37.0 
2003  64.8 62.7 67.5 37.0 
Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office; The State Commitee of Statistic of Ukraine. 
their number and most of them declare themselves Hungarian), the combined pro-
portion of all the minorities living here does not reach 1%. In the North Great Plain 
the Romanian ethnic minority is the most significant, although there are only three 
settlements in Hajdú-Bihar County where their proportion exceeds 1% from the 
total population. Besides them, a very small number of Slovaks, Germans and 
Ukrainians live here. At the same time, the proportion of those belonging to the 
Roma (Gypsy) ethnic group is significant, but there are no reliable data about their 
number. In Hungary the ethnic minorities have broad cultural autonomy, they have 
several local and national interest representation and cultural groups, in fact, they 
even have minority self-governments in several settlements of the North Great 
Plain. The ethnic minorities have a representation in the media, as well, they have 
newspapers published in their mother tongue and the National Television of Hun-
gary regularly broadcasts their ethnic programmes. 
The ethnic composition of the Transcarpathia region has always been mixed. 
According to the data of the census, its population was 600,000 people in 1910, 
when 59% of the population was Ruthene (Transcarpathian Ukrainian), 25% 
Hungarian, 11% Jewish, 3% German and 1.2% Romanian. A smaller number of 
Czechs, Slovaks and Gypsies lived here, too, but their combined share did not 
 
61

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
exceed 1%. In 1910, the share of Ukrainians was negligible. Following World War 
II, Transcarpathia became part of the Soviet Union, and the new political situation 
had an effect on the ethnic composition of the population. The most striking change 
was that the proportion of the Ukrainian population suddenly grew to 82.3%, which 
of the Hungarians decreased to 8.7% and of the Jews to 3.1%. The high proportion 
of the Ukrainians is explained, besides inmigration, by the fact that the data of 
1944 considered the Ruthene population with a 61.2% share as Ukrainians. The 
population censuses have not published data about the Ruthenes since 1946, so it is 
almost impossible to estimate their present number. According to the census of 
2001, besides the Ukrainians the most significant ethnic minority in the 
Transcarpathia is the Hungarian group forming a block along the Hungarian–
Ukrainian border, their proportion is 12.1% (Table 12, Figure 12). The ethnic 
composition of The Ukraine as a whole is quite different: besides the Ukrainians 
(77.8%), the most important minority are the Russians (17.3%), and there is no 
other ethnic group in the data of the census of 2001 whose share reaches 1% from 
the total of the population (Table 13). 
Since the birth of the independent Ukrainian state, the situation of the ethnic 
minorities in the Transcarpathia has improved. The act on the national minorities
approved of in 1992, secures the right of the use of the mother tongue and the right 
to the education in the mother tongue, to own cultural institutional system and eth-
nic-cultural autonomy. The act allows the operation of organisations protecting the 
interests of the minorities, the use of national symbols, the use of names according 
to the rules of the mother tongue, and the free cross-border relations with the 
mother nation, but does not allow the minorities to establish territorial autonomy.  
Table 12 
Ethnic composition of Transcarpathia, 2001 
Ethnic group 
Inhabitants number 
% of total 
2001 as % of the 
(thousand) 
1989 
2001 1989 
Ukrainian 1,010.1 
80.5 
78.4 
103.4 
Hungarian 151.5 
12.1 
12.5 
97.3 
Romanian 32.1 
2.6 
2.4 
109.0 
Russian 31.0 
2.5 
4.0 
62.7 
Gipsy 14.0 
1.1 
1.0 
115.4 
Slovak 5.6 
0.5 
0.6 
77.7 
German 3.5 
0.3 
0.3 
103.0 
Total 1,254.6 
100.0 
100.0 
100.7 
Source: National census of Ukraine, 2001. 
 
62 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
 
FIGURE 12 
HUNGARIANS IN TRANSCARPATHIA, 2001 
 
63

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Table 13 
Ethnic composition of Ukraine, 2001 
Ethnic group 
Inhabitants number 
% of total 
2001 as % of the 1989 
(thousand) 
2001 1989 
Ukrainian 37,541.7 
77.8 
72.7 
100.3 
Russian 8,334.1 
17.3 
22.1 
73.4 
Belorussian 275.8 
0.6 
0.9 
62.7 
Moldavian 258.6 
0.5 
0.6 
79.7 
Crimean tatar 
248.2 
0.5 
0.0 
– 
Bulgarian 204.6 
0.4 
0.5 
87.5 
Hungarian 156.6 
0.3 
0.4 
96.0 
Romanian 151.0 
0.3 
0.3 
112.0 
Polish 144.1 
0.3 
0.4 
65.8 
Jewish 103.6 
0.2 
0.9 
21.3 
Armenian 99.9 
0.2 
0.1 
– 
Greek 91.5 
0.2 
0.2 
92.9 
Tatar 73.3 
0.2 
0.2 
84.4 
Gipsy 47.6 
0.1 
0.1 
99.3 
Azerian 45.2 
0.1 
0.0 
122.2 
Georgian 34.2 
0.1 
0.0 
145.3 
German 33.3 
0.1 
0.1 
88.0 
Gagauzi 31.9 
0.1 
0.1 
99.9 
Other  
177.1 
0.4 
0.4 
83.9 
Source: National census of Ukraine, 2001. 
At the turn of the 1980s and 1990s it was possible to found open minority inter-
est representation organisations. The first and still the biggest interest representa-
tion organisation of the Hungarians living in the Transcarpathia is the Cultural As-
sociation of Hungarians in Transcarpathia
, founded in 1989. In addition, several 
other minority and professional bodies represent the Hungarians in The Ukraine 
(e.g. the Democratic Alliance Hungarians in The UkraineCultural Association of 
Hungarians in the Bereg region
,  Transcarpathia Community of Hungarian Intel-
lectuals
,  Association of Hungarian Teachers in Transcarpathia etc.). In several 
settlements of the Transcarpathia, where one of the national minorities make the 
majority of the population, the education takes place in their mother tongue (Table 
14), 
in fact, there is an independent higher education institution working with the 
support of the Hungarian state (Teacher Training College for the Hungarians in 
Transcarpathia). 
 
64 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Table 14 
The distribution of schools in Transcarpathia according to the language 
 of instruction, 1989–2001 
School year 
Ukrainian 
Russian Hungarian Romanian  Slovak 
1989/1990 594  40  86  13  – 
1990/1991 597  39  88  13  – 
1991/1992 602  38  88  13  – 
1992/1993 618  34  89  13  1 
1993/1994 621  32  90  13  1 
1994/1995 629  32  94  13  1 
1995/1996 631  30  97  13  1 
1996/1997 630  28  98  13  1 
1997/1998 631  18  98  13  2 
1998/1999 634  8  98  13  2 
1999/2000 634  8  99  13  2 
2000/2001 635  8  100  13  2 
Source: www.htmh.hu. 
In the North Great Plain region adjacent to The Ukraine, the languages of the 
ethnic minorities only play a role in the everyday connections with each other, in 
the field of culture and in keeping in touch with the mother nation. In Transcarpa-
thia, according to the ethnic composition, Ukrainian (the state language) is the most 
frequently spoken language, but the number of those speaking Hungarian, Roma-
nian and Russian language is also significant. Gypsy, Slovakian and German are 
also used. 
There are no comparable statistical data about crime, but in general it can be 
said that the number of known crimes has increased in both border regions since 
1988, and the number of crimes connected to the border has also grown. In addition 
to the smuggling of goods and the violation of the Inland Revenue Act, the organ-
ised smuggling of persons is more and more important. The direction of the illegal 
migration across the Hungarian–Ukrainian border is from the east to the west, from 
The Ukraine usually Chinese, Afghan and Vietnamese citizens try to get to West-
ern Europe through Hungary. 
In both border regions, the conditions of socio-cultural recreation are given, but 
as an affect of the negative economic processes of the 1990s, the population had to 
spend a bigger and bigger share of their income on their living, consequently their 
expenditure on culture decreased. The number of visits to theatres, cinemas and 
museums significantly dropped in the North Great Plain (Figure 13). It is true for 
 
65

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
both border regions, especially for the Transcarpathia, that because of maintenance 
and capacity utilisation problems, the physical state of the establishments – espe-
cially in the rural settlements – has deteriorated a lot, in fact, several institutions 
have been closed down. 
Figure 13 
The number of museum visitors and the audience of theatres and cinemas in the 
North Great Plain Region, 1988–2003 
8 000 000
7 000 000
6 000 000
5 000 000
4 000 000
3 000 000
2 000 000
1 000 000
0
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
 
Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Edited by the authors. 
Table 15 
Number of hospital beds per 10,000 inhabitants, 1995–2003 
Year 
Ukraine 
Transcarpathia 
Hungary 
North Great Plain 
1995 125.1 114.9  90.7  74.8 
1998 97.0 
108.3 83.0 73.3 
1999 96.5 83.4 83.6 74.6 
2000 95.0 83.8 83.2 74.4 
2001 96.6 84.4 79.0 74.3 
2002 97.3 86.4 79.2 71.8 
2003 96.6 84.8 78.9 72.3 
Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office; The State Commitee of Statistic of Ukraine. 
 
66 

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Background Study of the Hungarian-Rimanian anf the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2005. 12-67. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
As regards health care, both border regions are in a worse situation than the av-
erage of their respective countries, but the differences between the North Great 
Plain and Transcarpathia are considerable. Because of the differences of the statis-
tical data collection, comparable data are only available about the number of oper-
ating hospital beds per 10,000 inhabitants, by which index the Transcarpathia area 
is in a better situation (Table 15). However, this is only a quantitative index, and 
the equipment, technical level and instruments used in the Transcarpathia are very 
poor. In addition, the number of medicines and therapeutic equipment supported by 
the social insurance is very low, which often occurs that the in-patients of the hos-
pitals have to bring the medicines necessary for their treatment. 
 
 
 
 

 
67