Discussion Papers 2005.
Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border
Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe 68-101. p.
II HUNGARIAN–ROMANIAN AND HUNGARIAN–
UKRAINIAN CROSS-BORDER CO-OPERATION
1 National
level
Cross-border relations in the region of our study can only be examined since the
enactment of the Peace Treaty of Trianon, designating the borders of Hungary in
1920. The hostile relations that emerged after World War I between Hungary and
the neighbouring successor states (Czechoslovakia and Romania) did not allow the
deepening of the cross-border co-operations. Following World War II, this region
became the interest zone of the Soviet Union, which resulted in an even closer iso-
lation. This was especially true for Transcarpathia, a region annexed to the Soviet
Union in 1944, but the situation was not much better in the Hungarian–Romanian
relation, either. The expression “friendship and brotherhood”, declared in the so-
cialist era, only existed at the level of slogans, in reality borders functioned as walls
in that period, making it practically impossible to co-operate or even cross the bor-
ders. In this period, the relations were practically only formal even at national
level; at local level, nothing could happen without consent “from above”.
The possibilities for the establishment of real cross-border co-operations in the
region were created by the political easement and the systemic change at the end of
the 1980s. Borders became more open, everybody was eligible for a passport, no
visa was necessary, new border crossing stations were opened, and even bilateral
cross-border traffic could start. At the late 20th century a great step forward was
thus made in the field of cross-border relations both towards Romania and the So-
viet Union. Following the disintegration of the latter, the Ukraine gaining its sover-
eignty in 1991 became Hungary’s new eastern neighbour.
The Hungarian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian relations were regu-
lated by a series of agreements at international level (for more details see the Back-
ground study). Of these, the so-called Treaties should be emphasised, which basi-
cally define the relationship between the Republic of Hungary to Romania and the
Ukraine.
The inter-governmental special committees (e.g. Special Committee for Co-op-
eration in Ethnic Minorities Issues; Special Committee for 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 Infrastructure, Transport, Water Management and Environmental Protec-
tion etc.), set up in accordance with the Treaty between the Republic of Hungary

68

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
and Romania on Understanding, Cooperation and Good Neighbourhood (Act No.
XLIV of 1997), are to work out and supervise the co-operations concerning the
“common issues” of Hungary and Romania.
In the Hungarian–Ukrainian relation, the Treaty (whole name: “Treaty on the
Bases of Good Neighbourhood and Co-operation between the Republic of Hungary
and The Ukraine”) was signed in Kiev in 1991 (then it was ratified by the Ukrain-
ian Parliament in 1992 and by the Hungarian Parliament in 1993). The Treaty de-
clares, among other things, that the parties will promote the cross-border co-opera-
tions 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, they use all
means to promote the expansion of the relationships among their citizens both at
the level of the individuals and the level of the state, social and other organisations.
Similar to the Treaty between the Republic of Hungary and Romania, a number of
special committees have been set up by the agreement, some of which still operate
today.
In addition to the Treaties, several other Hungarian–Ukrainian and Hungarian–
Romanian agreements are in effect, such as the ones on water management and
environmental protection. A closer co-operation at national level is evidently justi-
fied in these fields. The importance of this issue is indicated by the huge floods and
the cyanide pollutions killing an enormous mass of fish in the Tisza River and the
tributaries: all three countries are affected by these issues.
Although it is not a bilateral agreement, we have to mention the Act No. LXII of
2001, commonly known as the Status Act, on Hungarians living in neighbouring
countries, which gives special (health care, travel, employment etc.) allowances to
the Hungarians living outside Hungary. This Act is very important because the
borders drawn in the peace treaty concluding World War (when Hungary shrank to
approximately one-third of its previous size in 1920) did not consider ethnic rela-
tions (either), and so a significant number of Hungarian ethnic minority live on the
other sides of the Hungarian borders (both in the Ukraine and Romania). It is not
surprising that in the relations of Hungary to the neighbouring states, the co-opera-
tions between the Hungarians living in Hungary and those in the respective coun-
tries always played an important role. The Act had a favourable reception in the
Ukraine, whereas it led to fierce debates in Romania, and there are still debated
details after a lengthy reconciliation process.
The cross-border co-operations are considerably affected at national level too by
the changes in the Euro-Atlantic integration processes, as the situation of the three
countries basically differ from each other in this respect. Hungary is in the best po-
sition, as it became a full-right member of the European Union as of 1 May 2004.
Romania, on the other hand, was left out of the first round of enlargement, and the
associate membership status (that Romania gained back in 1993) will remain at
least until 2007. Although significant achievements have been made in Romania

69

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
too in the field of legal harmonisation, the country reports still regularly point out
to the fact that in several fields (e.g. the application of the principle of partnership,
monitoring-and evaluation system, system of regional statistics etc.) not much pro-
gress has been made. The Ukraine is at the very beginning of the Euro-Atlantic
integration process, we cannot talk about the acquisition of the acquis communau-
taire in reality. The objective of the Ukrainian government is to integrate the
Ukraine to the European Union as soon as possible, but this process is still in its
infancy.
Because the Hungarian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian border sec-
tions are also EU external borders now, the conditions of the border crossings have
become much more rigorous. 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.
The Republic of Hungary, in accordance with the expectations of the European
Union, introduced a visa regime against the Ukraine on 1 November 2003, of
which many had been afraid of in Transcarpathia. The fears did not come true, as
the Ukrainian citizens intending to travel to Hungary are eligible for a visa free of
charge, the long waiting time in the beginning (because of the large number of ap-
plications) is over, the main difficulty, as in the case of Romanian citizens, is the
proof of the adequate financial means for the stay in Hungary. The control at the
border crossing points, at the same time, have become much more strict, each vehi-
cle heading for Hungary and each person are checked in details and thoroughly, the
possibility of the smuggling of goods falling under the effect the Inland Revenue
Act has become much weaker. Fuel tourism is still considerable, coming from the
low fuel prices in the Ukraine, the difference being that formerly it was usually the
Ukrainian citizens who “exported” petrol and diesel oil to Hungary, now, after the
introduction of the visa regime it is the Hungarian citizens who visit the Ukraine in
bigger number to fill up their cars (because they only need a valid passport and not
any other document for a travel to the Ukraine).
Another problem is the elimination of the bilateral border crossing stations,
used by the people of the two neighbouring countries, only, as they had to be
closed after the introduction of the Schengen norms. An alleviation might be in the
future that the European Parliament approved of a draft regulation in April 2004
that would make it easier for those living in the direct vicinity of the external bor-
der to cross. The point of the alleviation is the issue of special visas for those living
in the 50-kilometre stripe along the border in both countries, a visa that allows sev-
eral border crossings, is valid for at least one year and allows a stay up to 7–14
days each time. It would be free of charge or at least cheaper than the classic
Schengen visa that costs 35 Euros. Those are eligible for this kind of visa who can
prove that they have to cross the border regularly, because of family or business
relations. In the given case it could even be used without a passport. The proposal

70

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
would also allow the opening of special bilateral border crossing stations by the
neighbour states, only for those living in the border region. Such stations existed in
the region before, but they should be eliminated after the accession in their old
form. For the time being this is not more than a possibility, as the European Par-
liament only has a right of opinion in this issue.
2 Subnational
level
2.1  Regions (NUTS 2)
In Hungary and Romania, the NUTS regions compatible with the practice of the
European Union have been designated recently. This has not taken place in the
Ukraine yet, which is not surprising, as the Ukraine does not even have an associ-
ate member status. Consequently, we can only talk about connections among
NUTS 2 level regions in the Hungarian–Romanian relation, although we have to
remark that these regions have not been filled with a real administrative content
yet. Because the regions are very young formations in both countries, also, they are
not primarily political formations and do not have real administrative functions,
self-governance content and character, they cannot appear as real factors of public
power in national politics on either side or in the supra-national arena. Conse-
quently, the cross-border relations at this level are still in their infancy, the co-op-
erations are just being established and presently only the relations are taken up.
In the near future, in accordance with the reforms to be implemented in the
European Union, NUTS 1 regions will be created in Hungary too. According to the
preliminary concepts, three such regions will be in Hungary: West Hungary, Mid-
dle Hungary and East Hungary.
2.2  County level relations (NUTS 3)
The  counties (NUTS 3 level) that constitute NUTS 2 level regions have a much
more limited role and independence in Romania and the Ukraine than in Hungary,
coming from the strong central will in the two countries. Still the cross-border co-
operations at county level – as these administrative units have existed for a long
time in all three countries – are much more versatile than the relations among the
young NUTS 3 regions. In Hungary the first twin or partner county relations were
created before the systemic change, while they were created somewhat later in
Romania and the Ukraine, because of their isolation and the more centralised atti-
tudes.

71

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
The present partner county relations cannot be identified with the former twin
county relations in their names, as these new co-operations are not always rein-
forced with official co-operation agreements. At the establishment of the partner
county co-operations the counties tried to establish a wide range of relations not
only with their counterparts in the neighbouring countries but also with overseas
countries. Among the 15 partner counties of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg county e.g.
we find, in addition to the direct neighbour regions in Romania and the Ukraine,
areas from Denmark, Russia, the Netherlands, Germany and even the United States
of America. We can say thus that in most cases it is not the neighbourhood rela-
tions that represent the majority, although there are counter-examples: three of the
six existing partner counties of Békés can be found in Romania.
It is typical of the cross-border relations of the county self-governments that
they are more and more trying to raise the interest in their respective county and
region. Although co-operations of economic character and connections among en-
trepreneurs and businessmen have increased in the partner county relations, it is
still the cultural, educational, training and youth co-operations that are successful.
The further expansion of some partner county relations is blocked by the great
physical distance and the deriving high costs of keeping in touch (Japan, USA and
China). The most active and best functioning co-operations have usually been es-
tablished among neighbouring counties or counties in the vicinity of each other.
In addition to the bilateral co-operations in the region, some counties are also
related as members of the same Euroregions, because the majority of the Eurore-
gions created along the East Hungarian borders consist of counties. In the Hungar-
ian–Romanian border region, there are two large Euroregions with different history
and operational conditions: the Carpathians Euroregion and the Danube–Körös–
Maros–Tisza Euroregion (Figure 2). Of the two Euroregions, the Hungarian–
Ukrainian border region is only part of the Carpathians Euroregion created in 1993
and now involving member regions from five countries (Poland, Hungary, Slova-
kia, Romania and the Ukraine). The establishment of this huge interregional or-
ganisation – as opposed to the Danube–Körös–Maros–Tisza Euroregion created in
1997 – was not an independent, bottom-up initiative; it started its operation within
“top-down” defined frameworks, with higher political objectives. In addition, the
Danube–Körös–Maros–Tisza Euroregion re-connected regions along the southeast
borders of Hungary that used to be situated in the relatively more developed part of
one single country, the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and they have centuries of
common historical past, while the Carpathians Euroregion is an absolutely “multi-
national” formation.
Although both Euroregions have had and still have indisputable role in the rec-
ognition of the advantages of partnership based on mutual benefits, they still have
not been able to fulfil their objectives, for different reasons. These vast Euroregions
have not been able yet to demonstrate significant results in the region in our sur-

72

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
vey, they have not been able to penetrate down to the level of the individuals living
in the border regions (for more details of this, see Chapter 4). The establishment of
really intensive multilateral relations is blocked by the excessive size of the Eu-
roregions in the first place, as the Danube–Körös–Maros–Tisza Euroregion covers
a territory of 77,000 km2, that of the Carpathians Euroregion equals to 161,000
km2, and they are home to a population of 6 million and 16 million people, respec-
tively. In addition to their too large territory, co-operation is blocked, especially in
the Carpathians Euroregion, by historical–territorial–ethnic and other problems
inherited from the past. Recognising this problem, the local stakeholders thought of
establishing smaller and thus more effective euroregional organisations. The ideas
were followed by action and now there are three interregional organisations of mi-
cro-regional character operating in the border region (Interregio, Hajdú-Bihar–Bi-
hor Euroregion and the Bihar–Bihor euroregional Organisation).
One of the most important proofs of the development of the county level rela-
tions is the fact that cross-border planning documents going beyond protocol and
cultural co-operations have been made over the recent years. We have to mention
in this place the document finished in 2003, closing a work started in 2001, the
Common Development Concept of the Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Region,
which is not a county level document officially, but since the Hungarian–Ukrainian
border section only involves Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg county and Transcarpathia, it
is actually a county level document in character, especially because the concept
designates these two counties as the target area. The concept (that was made with
the consideration of the planning and programming practice of the EU) is built on
broad social reconciliations with the potential actors of the implementation of the
programme (local governments, micro-regions, micro-regional managers, cham-
bers, non-governmental organisations etc.) and is primarily meant to promote the
socio-economic development and catching up of the border region, improve the
living conditions of the population and exploit as much as possible the possibilities
lying in cross-border co-operation. The concept categorises the implementation of
the concrete goals and measures into five priorities: the development of economic
co-operation; human resources development, cultural and innovation co-operation;
transport and infrastructure development; environment and nature protection; and
non-sector specific tasks.
For the Hungarian–Romanian border region, a development concept and pro-
gramme was made back in September 2000, which was upgraded in 2003. The pri-
orities of this document are similar to the ones in the document made for the Hun-
garian–Ukrainian border region. The document called The Development Concept
and Programme for the Hungarian–Romanian Border Region concerns counties,
like the previous document: Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg, Hajdú-Bihar, Békés and
Csongrád counties from Hungary, Satu Mare, Bihor, Arad and Timis from Roma-
nia are target areas.

73

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
2.3 Micro-regional co-operations (NUTS 4)
The system of the micro-regional relations is rather complicated, because neither in
Romania nor in the Ukraine can we find (unlike in Hungary) official self-organis-
ing micro-regional associations or planning and statistical, micro-regional devel-
opment level. In the Ukraine there are active districts with specified administrative
functions, while the institutional frameworks of the micro-regions and the micro-
regional municipal associations are under construction both in Romania and the
Ukraine. Given such circumstances, the Hungarian micro-regions with co-opera-
tion intentions (whether they self-organising or official CSO micro-regions) have
to find partners at higher (county) or lower (municipal or local governmental) level
in the neighbouring countries. In the majority of the cases it is thus difficult to de-
cide whether the given relationship is of micro-regional, self-governmental or twin
city character.
The Hungarian micro-regions were founded primarily for the representation of
their interest in an organised form and for the co-ordination of regional and eco-
nomic development programmes. These are the motivations of the establishment of
the cross-border relations, too. Because of the above-mentioned reasons, from the
Hungarian side only the micro-regional associations can build relationships and
establish the frameworks of co-operation, in the lack of the “official” territorial
level. The Hungarian micro-regional associations in the border region have versa-
tile socio-economic, cultural, infrastructure development, environment and nature
protection, twin city etc. partner relations in Romania (some two dozens of such
relations exist), while the number of such co-operations is negligible along the
Ukrainian border, even if we consider the different magnitudes of the two border
sections. We have to remark, at the same time, that the Hungarian micro-regional
system is in transition, too: according to the plans, the present 150 planning and
statistical micro-regions will be replaced by such 168 such micro-regions, which
would have administrative functions, too.
2.4 Cross-border co-operations at municipal level
Following the systemic change, more and more settlements in the counties along
the East Hungarian borders realised the possibilities lying in the development of
the “twin city”-like relationships and the development of the cross-border co-op-
erations. Of course the county seats are the settlements that have the largest number
and most versatile co-operations (e.g. Debrecen has fourteen, Nyíregyháza eleven
twin or partner cities, from the neighbouring Nagyvárad and Ungvár to the Israeli
Rishon Le-Zion), but several other municipal governments have twin relations, too.

74

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
The deepening of the municipal relations is not easy in this region, either, because
while the municipal self-governments have broad autonomy in Hungary, their
counterparts have strongly restricted independence in Romania and the Ukraine,
because of the highly centralised administrative systems. In addition, the munici-
palities representing the lowest level of local administrative level in Romania often
involve 5 to 10 settlements, and it is problematic to establish official relations with
a municipality. A very important factor heavily blocking the deepening of the rela-
tions is the general poverty in the settlements in the border region, and the limited
own resources restrict their possibilities for joint tenders, too.
The cross-border co-operations of the municipal governments are very much
similar to the partner county co-operations, as it is cultural relations that prevail
most of the time, too. This is supported by the data of a questionnaire survey done
by the colleagues of the Debrecen Department of the CfRS of the HAS, interview-
ing the mayors of 119 settlements of the Northeast Great Plain (Figure 14). The
questionnaire survey was conducted in 1999 and repeated in 2002. According to
the findings, one-third of the villages and towns in the border region had partner
settlements abroad, most of them with a – usually Hungary-inhabited – settlement
in the neighbouring country, both in 1999 and 2002. No fundamental change oc-
curred in the character of the relations, either, between the two surveys, although
there was some positive change in the field of trade and economic relations and the
different co-operations became more intensive: in the more recent survey, the
number of reported co-operations increased, with the exception of the twin settle-
ment co-operations (Figure 15).
2.5 Other institutional relations
Irrespective of the territorial levels, there is a range of institutions and economic or-
ganisations that have cross-border relations, including the University of Debrecen and
the closely related College of Nyíregyháza that have a wide range of relations in the
Ukraine and Romania (Figure 16). The most typical form of the relations are educa-
tional co-operations, including lecturer-, researcher and student exchange programmes
and joint applications, but e.g. the College of Nyíregyháza provided a substantial sup-
port (financial support, a commuting staff of lecturers etc.) to the start of certain majors
at the Teacher Training College for the Hungarians in Transcarpathia.
Many of the actors of the economic life of the region have cross-border inter-
ests, especially the Hungarian investors have a stronger capital base, so it is nut
surprising that in both the Romanian counties in the border region and in Transcar-
pathia the Hungarian foreign direct investments are among the most significant
ones. Important assistant organisations of the economic relations are the chambers

75

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
When selecting the pairs of settlements, settlements of similar size, in the direct
proximity of the borders and neighbour to each other were designated, in a bal-
anced distribution along the border section. This is how the following pairs of set-
tlements along the Hungarian–Romanian border, from north to south, were se-
lected: Vállaj and Csanálos (Urziceni), where a bilateral railway border crossing
and a temporary (seasonal) road border crossing operate; Létavértes and Székely-
híd (Săcueni), that are neighbour to each other but do not have a border crossing
station at the moment. The next group of settlements was made of Biharkeresztes
and Ártánd in Hungary and Bors on the Romanian side. The reason why two set-
tlements were selected in this case on the Hungarian side is the division of the
functions of the border crossing station of international importance, implementing
rail and road personal and cargo traffic; also, the population of Ártánd directly
neighbour to Bors is far below that of its Romanian counterpart. In the southern
part of the border section, the settlement pairs are Elek and Ottlaka (Grăniceri) with
a temporary border crossing station, and Kiszombor and Nagycsanád (Cenad), re-
cently qualified as international road border crossing station (Figure 17).
Along the Ukrainian border, Záhony and Csap (Csop) were in the sample, for a
long time the only international rail and road border crossing implementing both
personal and cargo traffic; Barabás and Mezőkaszony (Koszini) operating as a bi-
lateral border crossing station; Tiszabecs and Tiszaújlak (Vilok), with an interna-
tional border crossing station. The fourth pair of settlements is made by two pe-
ripheral, isolated villages, Kispalád and Nagypalád (Velika Palagy), where no bor-
der crossing station operates, but the two villages had close relationships before the
designation of the border (Figure 17).
The questionnaire survey took place with the help of interviewers and a random
sample selection in each case. There was no person younger than 18 of age among
those filling out the questionnaires. In the Hungarian–Romanian border region, 600
questionnaires were filled out on each side of the border,4 while in the settlements
along the Hungarian–Ukrainian border there were 509 questionnaires processed
from Hungary and 566 from the Ukrainian side.5


4  On the Hungarian and the Romanian side of the Hungarian–Romanian border, a total of 1200
questionnaires were filled out (600 on both sides). In Hungary, the following settlements with the
following numbers of questionnaires were part of the sample: Ártánd 50, Biharkeresztes, Elek,
Kiszombor and Vállaj 100 each, Létavértes 150 samples. The respective figures on the Romanian
side are as follows: Bors and Székelyhíd (Săcueni) 150 questionnaires each, Csanálos (Urziceni),
Nagycsanád (Cenad) and Ottlaka (Grăniceri) 100 questionnaires each.
5  On the Hungarian side of the Hungarian–Ukrainian border, 509 questionnaires were filled out
(Barabás 109, Kispalád 100, Tiszabecs 100 and Záhony 200), and 566 questionnaires in the
Ukrainian settlements (Csap 192, Mezőkaszony 104, Nagypalád 100 and Tiszaújlak 170).

79

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Among the associations, the proportion of responses in the mentality and cul-
ture category has an important position. They were divided into two groups in the
evaluation (positive and negative). On the basis of the associations, the attitudes
towards Hungary and the people living there can be seen as positive: although their
proportion is not very high (6.6%), still it is almost four times higher than the pro-
portion of the negative responses. On the other hand, the associations concerning
Romania are definitely negative, according to the responses: the category called
negative mentality and culture has the third position with a 9.7% proportion in the
order of the associations, surpassing the positive assessments more then twice.
On both sides, personal relationships are relatively important (friends, ac-
quaintances, relatives), but the memories of the common historical past are also
present in the mind of the people. The importance of the latter and the significant
number of Hungarian ethnic group living in Romania are indicated by the fact that
among the associations relating to Hungary, the category called home, Hungarian
nationality, mother tongue had the third position. On the Hungarian side, the re-
spondents did not completely forget about the Hungarians living in Romania, ei-
ther, as 4.8% of the associations concerning the neighbour country are connected to
them. Also, there were respondents, in largely the same proportion in both coun-
tries, who could not associate any notion to the neighbour country.
According to the findings of the survey conducted in the settlements in the
Hungarian–Ukrainian border region, the associations of the population concerning
the neighbour country are different than the experiences in the Hungarian–Roma-
nian border region. The associations related to the Ukraine reflect the hard eco-
nomic situation of the country and the general tendencies typical of the Hungarian–
Ukrainian border region (subsistence trade, refugees), also the historical past. Most
of the respondents ranked the characteristic landscape features (hills, Tisza River
etc.) and concrete areas. Within this category, the names of the ex-Hungarian
towns were mentioned in the first place (Ungvár, Munkács, Beregszász), but the
association to the Ukraine also means Transcarpathia for 9.1% of the Hungarian
respondents. Transcarpathia made a separate category in the survey (Table 18).
The second position is occupied by negative mentality and culture, generally as-
sociated to the Russians and the Ukrainians, to which the behaviour of the Ukrain-
ian citizens at the border crossing stations definitely contribute (they do not stand
in the queue, they are elbowing, they litter). In the recent years, the wave of refu-
gees coming from the Ukraine has increased. The refugees, who arrive almost ex-
clusively from Asia (e.g. Afghanistan and China) try to get to Hungary without
official documents, with the help of smugglers. This process is experienced each
day by the people living along the border, so it is not surprising that they associate
the Ukraine to the refugees.

83

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Table 18
Associations of ideas in Hungary related to Ukraine, 2002
Categories Cumulative
Rates according to settlement (%)
rates
(%)
Barabás Kispalád Tiszabecs Záhony
Landscape, spectaculars, character-
16.9 15.3 20.1 22.0 13.7
istics, concrete places
Negative mentality, culture
16.1 15.0 16.7  9.0 20.0
Refugees
14.1 18.6 18.1 15.3  9.0
Poverty, desolateness, underdevel-
12.8 17.4 10.7 10.0 12.7
opment
Trans-Carpathia
9.1 10.1 9.0 7.7 9.2
Border, border traffic
7.9  8.3 10.4 15.7  2.8
Military power, army
7.7 0.3 2.0 4.7 16.0
Subsistence (fuel)
3.3 7.6 2.3 3.3 1.5
History (the Soviet Union)
1.4 3.1 0.7 2.0 0.5
Personal connections
1.0 0.9 0.3 1.7 1.0
Hungarian identity, Hungarians live
there
0.9 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.5
Other
8.8 3.1 9.4 7.9 12.1
Total
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Questionnaire survey, 2002.
As a consequence of the difficult economic situation, many think of the Ukraine
as an impoverished, underdeveloped country. In addition, the decades of socialism
are very much alive in the memory of the people, at least this is what the associa-
tions relating to military force (in some cases nuclear weapons) and the former So-
viet Union indicate. It is surprising, on the other hand, how few people associated
the Ukraine to the Hungarian ethnic group living there. This probably comes from
the fact that Hungarian ethnic group living in the Ukraine is practically concen-
trated in Transcarpathia, and in Hungary they are usually referred to as the Tran-
scarpathian Hungarians.
The  Ukrainian associations relating to Hungary are different from those seen
along the Romanian border, too. Because of the bad economic situation in the
Ukraine (delayed wages, high unemployment rate), Hungary for most of the Tran-
scarpathian respondents means (besides the features of the landscape) cross-border
trade and the source of employment and living. Knowing this it is not surprising
that Hungary is associated with richness and welfare. In the Transcarpathian set-
tlements involved in the sample, the proportion of Hungarian ethic population is
quite high (Mezőkaszony and Nagypalád are practically totally Hungarian-inhab-
ited villages), many see Hungary as their homeland and mother nation (Table 19).

84

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
own settlements. After the opening up of the borders and the worsening of the con-
ditions of living, the location in the vicinity of the border became an advantage, the
proximity of Hungary is a source of living for the Ukrainian people struggling with
subsistence problems. However, while this situation is presently advantageous on
the Ukrainian side of the border, living in the border region is often seen as a dis-
advantage on the Hungarian side now, for several reasons (increased traffic, num-
ber of marketers, bad accessibility, lack of an adequate number of investors with a
strong financial base etc.).
The advantages of the border region location are very similar on the two sides
of the Hungarian–Romanian border. On both sides, those respondents had the
highest the proportion who did not sense any advantage of this situation (this figure
was 16.5% higher on the Hungarian side). As regards the assessment of the advan-
tages, however, there are differences between those living on the two sides of the
border. On the Hungarian side, the better living (primarily because of the lower
fuel prices in Romania) is more frequently mentioned, while in Romania the re-
spondents more often talked about the easier keeping in touch with the neighbour
country (i.e. with the mother country in the case of Hungarian ethnic citizens).
Also, the number of respondents mentioning shopping is significant in both coun-
tries. It is interesting that the possibility of cross-border employment was more of-
ten seen as an advantage on the Hungarian side (Figure 18).
On the Hungarian side of the Hungarian–Ukrainian border, the proportion of re-
sponses not identifying the border region location as a living space with any ad-
vantage was the highest (62%). The mentioning of the possibilities of visiting rela-
tives and friends (12.5%) and of tourism (6.2%) was much less frequent, as were
the mentions of the easy touch with the neighbour country (3.8%) and the better
living (3.3%). In the Transcarpathian settlements, however, the most often indi-
cated association was the easy keeping in touch with the neighbour country (the
mother country in most of the cases), followed by those who did not associate any
advantage to living in the border region. The third category on the Ukrainian side
in the order of the mentions was better living, in a proportion much higher than in
the case of the responses given in Hungary, in excess of 15% (Figure 19).
The opinions about the disadvantages of the border region location are divided
in the Hungarian–Romanian border region. On the Hungarian side, almost two-
thirds of the responses fall into the “no disadvantage” category, while this propor-
tion reaches 73.5% in the Romanian settlements. In the Hungarian settlements the
other most frequently given responses were backward position and underdevelop-
ment and the rise of crime, while the Romanian respondents mentioned increased
traffic, the existence of the borderline and the difficult border crossing (in the case
of Székelyhíd, the lack of a border crossing station) most often (Figure 20).

86

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
spectively). The findings reveal that in the Romanian settlements along the border,
the proportion of those with contacts in Hungary is closely related to the ethnic
composition of the settlements. Accordingly, both in Nagycsanád and Ottlaka,
where the proportion of the Hungarian ethnic population is the lowest, the respec-
tive figures of those with contacts in Hungary are 37%.
As regards the proportion of those with contacts in the neighbour country, there
are significant differences between the two sides of the Ukrainian–Hungarian bor-
der region. While not more than 22.8% of the Hungarian respondents have any
contact with the neighbour country, this proportion is 71.2% among the Ukrainian
respondents. On the Hungarian side, the proportions of those with Ukrainian con-
tacts in some settlements are as follows: 35% in Záhony, 19% in Tiszabecs, 17% in
Kispalád and only 9.2% in Barabás. Among the Transcarpathian settlements, most
people have Hungarian relations in Mezőkaszony and Nagypalád (97.1% and 90%,
respectively), while this proportion is 70.8% in Csap and only 44.7% in Tiszaújlak.
The case of Csap–Záhony and Tiszaújlak–Tiszabecs is interesting: of these settle-
ment pairs, the Hungarian counterparts have the highest and the Transcarpathian
ones the lowest proportion of contacts to the neighbour country.
3.3.1 The development of the relations in time
During the decades of socialism, the closed borders were a great obstacle blocking
the crossing of the borders and the establishment and deepening of the cross-border
relations. This statement was also true for the eastern border regions of Hungary,
although the circumstances of border crossing were different in the Hungarian,
Romanian and the Ukrainian (then Soviet) side of the border. On the whole, the
Hungarian citizens could cross the border relatively more easily, unlike in the case
of the Austrian–Hungarian border where it was the Austrian citizens who could
travel more freely. Following the political transformation of Central Europe, the
situation changed from 1989, the borders became more open, new border crossing
stations were established, the visa regime ceased to exist, in fact, bilateral border
crossing became possible. Within the new circumstances, Romanian and Ukrainian
citizens could travel abroad easier, too.
On the Hungarian side of the Hungarian–Romanian border, almost two-thirds of
the relations had been established before 1989, only Ártánd is an exception from
this: the majority of its contacts to Romania have been established since 1989. On
the Romanian side too, most of the relations of the inhabitants to Hungary had been
born before 1989, and the proportions measured in the respective settlements are
not very far from the average. The only exception is Nagycsanád (there had not
been a border crossing station here, then the temporary border crossing station cre-

93

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
ated in the 1990s was reconstructed and opened for the international traffic in
2002) where more than two-thirds of the relations were established after 1989.
Unlike along the Hungarian–Romanian border, there are significant differences
between the two sides of the Hungarian–Ukrainian border. On the Hungarian side,
67% of the relations go back to before 1989 (i.e. the Soviet era), while 62.8% of
the Ukrainian relations have been established since 1989. There is one exception
from this rule on both sides: in Barabás, 60% of the contacts have been established
since 1989 (the year when the bilateral border crossing station was opened), while
in the Transcarpathian Nagypalád, still lacking a border crossing station, 51.1% of
the relations go back to the years before 1989.
3.3.2 Character of the cross-border citizen relations
As regards the character of the cross-border relations to the neighbour counties, relations
of personal type (visits to relatives, friends and acquaintances) were most frequently
mentioned among the respondents in all three countries, Hungary, Romania and the
Ukraine. On all sides of the borders, the categories of recreation and holidaymaking and
also of shopping appear quite frequently (Figure 24).
Since the opening up of the borders, the proportion of business relations has still
not become significant, only the Hungarian respondents living in the vicinity of the
Ukrainian border indicated this category in a higher proportion (but this only
means 24 persons, due to the low number of Hungarian citizens with Ukrainian
contacts). The economic hardships and the problems of subsistence typical in Tran-
scarpathia are indicated by the fact that all three categories connected to subsis-
tence (sopping, subsistence trade and employment) are dominated by the Ukrainian
respondents.
3.4 The issues of the EU accession as seen by the population living in
the border region
The cross-border relations and the everyday life of those living along the eastern
borders of Hungary will certainly be influenced to a great extent by the EU acces-
sion of Hungary and the neighbouring countries. The level of the preparation for
the EU accession is rather different in the two neighbouring eastern countries: Ro-
mania is already an associate member and has a chance to be involved in the next
round of enlargement, while the Ukraine does not have a chance to become an EU
member in the near future. Consequently, the Ukrainian–Hungarian border section
will probably remain an external EU border guarded by the strict Schengen norms.

94

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
same (14.1% and 13.8%, respectively). One-fifth of the respondents expect better
conditions of life and the expansion of job opportunities.
Both on the Hungarian and the Romanian side there are people who expect
negative consequences after Hungary’s accession to the European Union (4.5% and
6.8%, respectively). In Romania, the biggest concern is the introduction of the visa
regime, in Hungary it is the “bankruptcy” of agriculture and the rising prices.
On the Hungarian side of the Ukrainian–Hungarian border, the proportion of re-
sponses expecting more jobs and better living conditions prevail (68.6%), many
expect the conditions for a cleaner environment (9.2%), the decrease of the wave of
refugees coming from the Ukraine (8.4%) and the development of the economy
and the catching up of the region (5.1%) after the Hungarian EU accession. Those
not indicating any expectation make only 4%, and even less expect easier border
crossing and the intensifying of the economic and trade relations (3.8% and 0.9%,
respectively).
On the Ukrainian side, like along the Romanian border, in most cases there are
no specific expectations (44.8%), but the second most frequently mentioned cate-
gory is the expectation that the visa regime will not be introduced despite the
Schengen norms (28%). As the majority of the settlements in the Ukrainian sample
are Hungarian-inhabited, it is not surprising that 13.5% of the respondents expect a
more effective support of the Hungarians living in Transcarpathia (13.5%). The
proportion of those indicating the expectation of the intensifying of the economic
relations is low in this case, too (5.2%).
It is visible that the expectations of the EU accession are different along the re-
spective sections of the border region in our survey. On the other hand, the major-
ity approved of Hungary’s accession on all sides of the borders. On both sides of
the Hungarian–Romanian border, those in favour of the accession are in excess of
80%, without significant differences across the individual settlements. It is inter-
esting, though, that the support of the accession is higher on the Romanian side
than in the Hungarian settlements. On the Ukrainian side of the Ukrainian–Hun-
garian border, on the other hand, the number of those approving of the accession is
much lower and that of those who are uncertain is higher, as less than half of the
respondents said that they approved of Hungary’s accession to the European Union
(Figure 25). The Ukrainian border region is a source of living for many, so it is
understandable that people are afraid of the introduction of the strict EU norms of
border crossing (especially the visa regime).
We also asked the population on the Ukrainian and the Romanian side of the
borders whether their personal living conditions were influenced by Hungary’s EU
accession. Among the Romanian respondents, 36.2% said yes, this figure was
28.4% among the Ukrainian respondents. Among the favourable effects, mostly
better living conditions (27.4%), employment opportunities (12.8%) and some al-
lowances connected to the Hungarians living in Romania (10.7%) were mentioned

96

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
The Hungarian respondents in the border region in our survey had to answer
whether their personal living conditions would be influenced by the potential
European Union membership of the Eastern European countries. It comes from the
very much different preparation levels of Romania and the Ukraine and the great
differences in the progress of the accession process that this answer was yes at
52.1% of the Hungarian respondents along the Romanian border and only 20.2% in
the settlements neighbour to the Ukraine. Among the positive factors, the expan-
sion of the job opportunities was most frequently mentioned in the territories
neighbouring the Ukraine (46.6%), together with the better living and the higher
wages (44.7%), but easier border crossing (3.4%) and the birth of the conditions of
a cleaner environment (2.8%) are also worth mentioning. The population on the
settlements neighbour to Romania considers the better income conditions and the
rising living standards as the most useful consequence of Hungary’s EU integration
(56.3%), followed by the expanding job opportunities (19.9%), easier border
crossing (6.7%) and the economic prosperity of the region (8.7%).
As regards the expected negative effects, those living in the vicinity of the
Ukrainian border mostly mentioned the high number of guest workers and foreign-
ers (31.7%), the rising consumer prices (40%) and the potential unfavourable eco-
nomic and agricultural tendencies coming from the competition (24.4%). In the
settlements neighbour to Romania, it is the worsening of the economic and agri-
cultural tendencies again that prevails among the responses (30.5%), followed by
the rising prices (20.0%) and the more rigorous border crossing (17.9%); also,
8.4% of the respondents believe that the Hungarian peripheries will receive less
support after the accession.
3.5 The role of Euroregions along the East Hungarian borders
In the 1990s, the first euroregional organisations were founded along the eastern
borders of Hungary, following Western European patterns. Their most important
objective was the promotion of the cross-border relations and the catching up of the
border regions. Of the Euroregions involving border regions from several coun-
tries, two can be found in the area in our survey: the Carpathians Euroregion cre-
ated in 1993 and the Danube–Körös–Maros–Tisza Euroregion (DKMT) founded in
1997. During the questionnaire survey we tried to assess the level of the presence
of these Euroregions in the everyday lives of the population in the border regions.
In the Ukrainian–Hungarian border region and the northern part of the Hungarian–
Romanian border, the counties are members in the Carpathians Euroregion, while
Békés and Csongrád in Hungary, and also Arad and Temes counties in Romania
are participants in the DKMT co-operation. Accordingly, in the case of the

98

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula :
Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Ukrainian Cross-Border Co-operation.
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. 68-101. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Kiszombor–Nagycsanád and the Elek–Ottlaka settlement pairs we asked the citi-
zens about how much they knew about the DKMT Euroregion, while we tried to
map the level of information on the Carpathians Euroregion in the other settle-
ments.
The findings revealed that in the examined settlements along the Hungarian–
Romanian border, usually less than half of the respondents had heard about the Eu-
roregion working in the area. On the Romanian side, more respondents had already
heard of a euroregional organisation competent in their region, this proportion re-
mained below 50% in Bors, only. On the other hand, the Euroregions are less
known on the Hungarian side, the proportion of positive answers exceeded 60% in
only one settlement, Biharkeresztes.
Among the Hungarian respondents in the Ukrainian–Hungarian border region,
the proportion of positive answers was similar (45.8%), while only 28.4% of the
Ukrainian respondents had heard of the Carpathians Euroregion before. At
settlement level, the citizens of Csap knew in the highest proportion (two-thirds of
them) of the Carpathians Euroregion, while this figure was the lowest in Nagypalád
(20%).
In the Romanian–Hungarian border region, the population of only a few settle-
ments thinks that their county is part of the respective interregional organisation,
the proportion of those who are uncertain is much higher. In this case too, the pro-
portion of positive answers was higher in the Romanian settlements; in Ottlaka,
Nagycsanád and Csanálos the “yes” answers exceeded half of all responses. On the
Hungarian side of the Ukrainian–Hungarian border, 33.4% of the respondents think
that their county participates in the work of Carpathians Euroregion; this figure is
27.3% in Transcarpathia. Most people are uncertain here too, i.e. they do not know
whether or not their counties are members of the organisation. The proportion of
“yes” answers is the lowest in Kispalád on the Hungarian side (20%) and the high-
est is in Záhony (46%). In the Ukrainian part, only the citizens of Tiszaújlak be-
lieve in a lower proportion (17.1%) that Transcarpathia is part of the Euroregion.
Knowing all this it is not surprising that the proportion of those informed about
the objectives and mission of the Euroregions is very low, more than 60% of those
living in the Hungarian–Romanian border region are not aware of them at all (only
in Nagycsanád remained the proportion of those without any information on the
objectives under 60%). With the exception of Létavértes, there was no Hungarian
settlement in the sample where there was one respondent completely competent on
the mission of the Euroregions (Figure 26).
In the Hungarian settlements along the Ukrainian–Hungarian border, the knowl-
edge on the mission of the Carpathians Euroregion is similar to that along the Ro-
manian border (Figure 27). Exactly two-thirds of the respondents did not know the
objectives of the organisation at all, 15.3% had some information, 12.8% had more
information and only 2.9% knew well and another 2.9% perfectly the goals of

99