Discussion Papers 2006. No. 54.
Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
CENTRE FOR REGIONAL STUDIES
OF HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
DISCUSSION PAPERS
No. 54
Hungary – the New Border
of the European Union
edited by
Györgyi BARTA
Series editor
Zoltán GÁL
Pécs
2006
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 54.
Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Case study
ESPON 3.4.1 Wp 8.7
Europe in the World
The Research Team:
Györgyi Barta (economist, CRS HAS, Budapest)
László Dancs (geographer, CRS HAS, Debrecen)
Imre Nagy (geographer, CRS HAS, Békéscsaba)
Alexandra Caraciobanu (political scientist, Bucharest)
Péter Strömpl (economist, Budapest)
Márton Czirfusz (student, Budapest)
ISSN 0238–2008
ISBN-10: 963-9052-72-8
ISBN-13: 978-963-9052-72-7
2006 by Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Technical editor: Ilona Csapó
Printed in Hungary by Sümegi Nyomdaipari, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Ltd., Pécs.
2
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 54.
Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
CONTENTS
1 Preface ............................................................................................................................ 7
2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 8
3 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 10
3.1 Economic potential ............................................................................................... 10
3.2 Employment and unemployment .......................................................................... 11
3.3 Competitiveness.................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Changing the economic structure ......................................................................... 13
3.5 Infrastructural supply............................................................................................ 15
3.6 Social differences.................................................................................................. 17
3.7 Macroeconomic stability ...................................................................................... 18
3.8 Progress in transition ............................................................................................ 19
4 Political, social and economic relations between Romania and Hungary,
Serbia and Hungary prior to Hungary’s accession to the EU ....................................... 20
4.1 Co-operation forms between Hungary and Romania prior to Hungary’s
accession to the EU............................................................................................... 20
4.1.1 Economic Relations.................................................................................... 21
4.1.2 Migration .................................................................................................... 27
4.1.3 Education.................................................................................................... 27
4.1.4 Tourism ...................................................................................................... 28
4.1.5 Cross-border relations................................................................................. 30
4.2 Forms of co-operation between Hungary and Serbia-Montenegro before the
EU accession......................................................................................................... 33
4.2.1 The economic situation of Voivodina......................................................... 33
4.2.2 Cross border co-operation between Hungary and Serbia........................... 34
5 How does Hungary’s EU membership influence its relationship with neighbouring
countries?...................................................................................................................... 43
5.1 Hungarian–Romanian relations ............................................................................ 43
5.1.1 Political developments: leaving behind conflicts of the past, focusing
on future challenges.................................................................................... 44
5.1.2 Migration trends in Hungary and Romania after 1 May 2004 .................... 45
5.1.3 Enlarged regional co-operation within an European framework ................ 47
5.1.4 Economic consequences of Hungary’s accession to the EU for
Romania...................................................................................................... 51
5.2 Hungarian–Serbian relations................................................................................. 54
6 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 55
References .......................................................................................................................... 57
3
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 54.
Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
List of figures
Figure 1
Studied countries............................................................................................... 8
Figure 2
GDP per capita in European countries ............................................................ 11
Figure 3
Regional differences in the GDP per capita of the three countries, 2002........ 12
Figure 4
Competitiveness of European countries .......................................................... 14
Figure 5
Telephone coverage in transition economies in 1989 and 1997...................... 16
Figure 6
The evolution of Hungarian–Romanian foreign trade from 1989 to 2004...... 21
Figure 7
The evolution of Hungarian and Romanian mutual investment from
1998 to 2003 ................................................................................................... 22
Figure 8
Distribution of Hungarian investments in Romanian regions (2000, in
percentage of country total, at NUTS2-level) ................................................. 24
Figure 9
The distribution of Hungarian work permits on nationality criteria
in the first half of 2002.................................................................................... 25
Figure 10 Distribution by counties of the effective number of work permits
released to foreigners (31 December 1999) .................................................... 26
Figure 11 Euroregional co-operations along the Hungarian border ................................ 31
Figure 12 The nature of relations between the inhabitants of the settlements across
the Hungarian–Romanian border (measured by their frequency) ................... 32
Figure 13 Yugoslav enterprises in the settlements of the Southern Great Plain
(number of Yugoslav enterprises/number of local enterprises)....................... 35
Figure 14 The evolution of the residence permits’ number according to citizenship
(2002–2004).................................................................................................... 36
Figure 15 Number (thousands) of the foreign tourists arriving in Hungary from the
neighbouring states ......................................................................................... 41
Figure 16 European transport corridors and the concession made to Romania: how
the IV European corridor intersects Romania ................................................. 49
Figure 17 The Corridor IV (red line) and the Bors–Brasov variant (green line) ............. 50
List of tables
Table 1
GDP per capita ................................................................................................ 10
Table 2
Employment rate, 2001 ................................................................................... 12
Table 3
Unemployment level in 2001 .......................................................................... 13
Table 4
Competitiveness of European countries .......................................................... 14
Table 5
The current situation (2001) and occurring changes in the infrastructural
supply (%) from 1995 to 2001 ........................................................................ 16
Table 6
Infant mortality in 2000 .................................................................................. 17
Table 7
Life expectancy at birth in 2000...................................................................... 17
4
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 54.
Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Table 8
Foreign direct investment (net inflows recorded in the balance of
payments) ........................................................................................................ 18
Table 9
External debt in 2003 ...................................................................................... 19
Table 10
Transition indicator scores, 2004 .................................................................... 20
Table 11
The number of foreign students coming to Hungary from the
neighbouring countries.................................................................................... 28
Table 12
Comparison of some economic indicators of Voivodina and Serbia
Table 13
The evolution of the bilateral trade 2001–2002 .............................................. 39
5
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
1 Preface
Our standpoint is that in addition to implementing the cohesion policy in its devel-
oping regions, the European Union should also seek to adopt a comprehensive
development strategy for the European territory as a whole. The ESPON pro-
gramme (European Spatial Planning Observation Network) is an integrated ap-
proach whose purposes are: to identify the decisive factors relevant for a more
polycentric European territory; to develop territorial typologies and tools in order
to be able to diagnose the main structural difficulties and potentialities; to investi-
gate the territorial impact of sectoral and structural policies.
The ESPON Project 3.4.1 “Europe in the World” (carried out by a large inter-
national research group led by Claude Grasland /RIATE) is considered to be a “di-
agnosis of the principal territorial trends at EU scale, … a cartographic picture of
the major territorial disparities; …a number of territorial indicators and typologies
assisting a setting of European priorities for a balanced and polycentric enlarged
European territory; some integrated tools and appropriate instruments to improve
the spatial co-ordination of sector policies” (ESPON, 2004a). The whole project
was completed in spring 2006.
A few case studies had been designed within the frame of the Project 3.4.1. “in
order to strengthen the capacity of production of qualitative analyses and elabora-
tion of policy recommendations” (ESPON, 2004b). The case studies focused either
on certain geographical areas of interest (e.g. external borders of the EU) or on
specific topics of concern which had not been sufficiently explored by quantitative
means.
The present case study “Hungary – the new borders of the European Union”
deals with the evolution of relationships between Hungary and its two neighbour-
ing countries, Romania and Serbia, after the fall of the communist regime.
Hungary’s early EU accession created a novel situation. Once again, borders
serve to separate Hungary from neighbouring non-EU countries, only temporarily
in the case of Romania, but for a longer time in the case of Serbia. The purpose of
the research is to highlight the old and new elements of the emerging forms of in-
tegration as well as the consequences of Hungary’s membership to the European
Union over its neighbourhood policies for Romania and Serbia. The topic has been
approached through a new research method. In an effort to better grasp the current
state of affairs, experts from both sides of the borders have joined in the project and
shared their views on the “hot” issues and major trends in neighbourhood relations
between Hungary and Romania, Serbia respectively.
7
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
2 Introduction
Hungary has common borders relations with seven countries: Austria, Slovakia and
Slovenia are EU members while Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania joined NATO.
Romania stands good chances of becoming an EU member in 2007. Even though it
is generally assumed that borders should not divide but unite, Hungary shapes up
its present neighbourhood policies in accordance with the realities of a still divided
Europe. Different circumstances obtain at the regional level across soft or hard
borders (depending on whether the neighbouring country belongs to the EU and/or
NATO or not).
The aim of this research is to examine the development of relationships between
Hungary and two neighbouring countries (Romania and Serbia-Montenegro) after
the fall of the communist regime (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Studied countries
Source: Authors’ compilation.
8
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
After 1989, Hungary’s two neighbours evolved in completely different direc-
tions. Impacting on these countries neighbourhood policies are elements such as:
international relations and perceptions, economic growth, the pace of progress
made during the transition, inner social tensions, political, social, economic condi-
tions, etc. Nevertheless, a number of similarities are to be found across the border
regions of the three countries. First of all, large Hungarian minorities live in the
areas close to the borders. Moreover, economic differences across the borders are
less dramatic. These regions in particular as well as countries in general are char-
acterized by a history of multicultural coexistence. The political system change had
special relevance to the borderlands, as isolation could be brought to an end, bor-
ders became transparent and hence they could develop new connections with the
rest of Europe.
Hungary’s early EU accession created a novel situation. Once again, borders
serve to separate Hungary from neighbouring non-EU countries, only temporarily
in the case of Romania, but for a longer time in the case of Serbia-Montenegro.
Bilateral relations between Hungary and Romania form the cornerstone of the
stability in Eastern Europe. The relationship between the two countries suffers
from a painful past, mainly due to the partly unresolved situation of the Hungarian
minority. After 1989 this became a key issue in Hungarian foreign policy and a
highly divisive, politicized and manipulated topic in Hungarian domestic politics.
Right wing parties prefer to portray themselves, rightly or wrongly, as champions
of the cause of Hungarian minorities (e.g. grievance for cultural autonomy for
Hungarian minority in Romania, the so-called Status law, double citizenship, etc.).
On the other hand, the parties constituting the actual liberal-socialist governing
coalition tend to put the emphasis on the improvement of bilateral relations and the
support of Romania’s accession to the EU, thus hoping that the situation of minori-
ties would improve as a consequence of it. This policy line was given special em-
phasis at the meeting of the governments of the two countries, in October 2005 in
Bucharest. Some voices went as far as to compare the importance of this joint ses-
sion to the beginning of French-German reconciliation after World War II.
Relations between Serbia-Montenegro and Hungary were not deeply influenced
by minority conflicts (at least not after World War II). However, the Yugoslav war
put an end to what had been a more or less peaceful relationship. Tensions have
been sparked off in the beginning by the influx of Yugoslav (as well as Hungarian
minority) refugees and later by drastic altering in the social and economic situation
in Voivodina (where Hungarians primarily live). This has been mainly due to the
massive Serbian immigration. As a result, political participation of Hungarian mi-
nority has been much more restricted. The new conflicts cast the shadow on current
Hungarian-Serbian co-operation as well.
We seek in this study to expose economic and social differences among the
three countries both at the national level and in border regions. Consequently, we
9
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
attempt to focus on the old and new elements of the emerging forms of integration,
and the obvious consequences of EU membership of Hungary for its neighbour-
hood policies with Romania and Serbia-Montenegro.
3 Social and economic differences after 1990
3.1 Economic potential
With 22 million inhabitants and a surface of 238,000 km2, Romania is considered
to be a large country both at regional level – compared to its other two neighbours
– and at European level. Hungary and Serbia-Montenegro have similar size:
Hungary counts 10 million inhabitants on 93,000 km2, whereas the 8,3 millions
inhabitants of Serbia-Montenegro live on 91,000 km2. According to their economic
capacity, Hungary finds itself in leading position: in 2003 the Romanian GDP
reached 69% and the Serbian one 25% of Hungary’s value.
Economic development (GDP/capita) in Hungary reached in 2003 less than
55% of the European average (E-15), while in Romania 26 % and in Serbia-Mon-
tenegro 17% of it only (Table 1 and Figure 2),
Hungary’s relationship with the two neighbouring countries has been deeply in-
fluenced by the sharp economic differences existing between them. Despite their
rapid growth (in 2001 and 2002 the growth of Hungarian GDP was 3,8 and 3,3%,
while in Romania 5,3 and 4,9%, and in Serbia-Montenegro 5,5 and 4,0%), these
economic differences remained at the same level.
Differences are less visible in the border region (40–80% in favour of Hungary)
compared with the three times differences of the countries’ average (Figure 3).
Table 1
GDP per capita (Hungary = 100%)
Country
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Romania
40.3
33.3
35.5
35.4
32.5
31.7
Serbia-Montenegro
31.8
43.5
17.9
27.2
29.0
30.1
Source: Transition report 2004.
10
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Figure 2
GDP per capita in European countries
Data source: World Bank, 2005.
3.2 Employment and unemployment
The employment rate significantly decreased after 1989, affecting women in par-
ticular. The socialist inheritance – the high level of employment – has longer per-
sisted in Romania and Serbia-Montenegro (much more than in other Southeast-
European countries such as Italy, Greece or Turkey). At the same time, the em-
ployment rate has been following a downward path (Table 2).
Unemployment could not be analyzed in connection with employment partly
due to the calculation method of unemployment registration and partly because of
the unknown extent of the black economy. The unemployment level is relatively
low particularly in Hungary but also in Romania. On the contrary, not only that the
unemployment level is extremely high in Serbia-Montenegro but it has been con-
tinuously going upwards (Table 3).
11
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Figure 3
Regional differences in the GDP per capita of the three countries, 2002
Data source: EUROSTAT, Human Development Report Serbia 2005.
Table 2
Employment rate, 2001
Top countries
%
Studied countries
%
Proportion Bottom countries
%
in Europe
of women %
in Europe
Sweden
78.4
Romania
62.2
46.2
Greece
48.7
Iceland
74.3
Serbia-Montenegro
59.9
42.9
Turkey
48.7
Norway
73.3
Hungary
53.3
44.4
Italy
48.0
Source: Trends in Europe and North America – 2003.
12
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Table 3
Unemployment level in 2001
Top countries
Unemploy-
Studied countries
Unemploy-
Bottom countries
Unemploy-
in Europe
ment rate,
ment rate,
in Europe
ment rate,
%
%
%
Luxemburg
2.0
Hungary
5.7
Bosnia-Herzegovina
39.9
Iceland
2.3
Romania
6.6
Macedonia
30.5
Switzerland
2.6
Serbia-Montenegro
27.9
Serbia-Montenegro
27.9
Netherlands
2.7
Bulgaria
19.4
Slovakia
19.2
Poland
18.2
Source: Trends in Europe and North America – 2003.
3.3 Competitiveness
At the European Union level, the countries’ competitiveness has been measured on
the basis of the employment rate and productivity (Figure 4).
The figure shows that countries from Central and Southeast Europe and the
Baltic area fill in the unfavourable bottom-left corner. The lowest productivity
level is registered in Serbia-Montenegro, Romania, Latvia and Bulgaria while the
lowest employment level can be found in Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia.
Only Czech Republic and Slovenia could catch up with the countries from the
European middle-group.
3.4 Changing the economic structure
A strong correlation can be noticed between economic development and economic
structure. In other words, in the countries where economic development
(GDP/capita) is high, the proportion of the tertiary sector is also significant
whereas that of the agriculture is generally low. There are nonetheless several ex-
ceptions: Malta, Greece and Latvia register high rates of the tertiary sector al-
though their economic development is at a medium level. In Austria, Finland,
Norway, Ireland the proportion of industry in the economic structure is extremely
high. In Iceland agriculture also plays an important role at present. However, our
research countries (Hungary, Romania and Serbia-Montenegro) could not be in-
cluded into this “exception” group (Table 4).
13
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Figure 4
Competitiveness of European countries
Notes: B – Belgium, DK – Denmark, D – Germany, GR – Greece, E – Spain, F – France, IRL –
Ireland, I – Italy, L – Luxemburg, NL – Netherlands, A – Austria, P – Portugal, FIN –
Finland, S – Sweden, GB – Great Britain, CZ – Czech Republic, EST – Estonia, H – Hungary,
LT – Lithuania, LV – Latvia, PL – Poland, RO – Romania, SLO – Slovenia, SK – Slovakia,
CY – Cyprus, M – Malta, BG – Bulgaria, SM – Serbia and Montenegro.
Source: Based on Lengyel, I., 2003, p. 357. (author’s own calculations).
Table 4
GDP and employment by major economic sectors, 1995 and 2001
1995
2001
Agriculture
Industry
Tertiary
Agriculture
Industry
Tertiary
Hungary
6.8 (8)*
30.9 (33)
62.3 (59)
4.3 (6)
31.3 (34)
64.4 (59)
Romania
20.9 (40)
40.3 (31)
38.8 (29)
14.8 (43)
34.0 (26)
51.2 (31)
Serbia-Montenegro
19.3 (6)
37.8 (52)
42.9 (42)
21.1 (6)
32.1 (63)
46.8 (30)
* The employment rates in brackets.
Source: Trends in Europe and North America – 2003, p. 155, 174.
14
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Economic transition had a significant impact on Hungarian agriculture (before
1989 the agriculture gave almost 30% of the GDP, and 20% of the employment
rates). At the same time, industry has preserved its importance. The present em-
ployment structure in Hungary shares some similarities with Austria, Finland, Ire-
land or Norway: a low proportion of the agriculture (1–4%), and a relatively high
proportion of the industry (32–42%).
As of Romania, the slow modernization process is couples with the agricul-
ture’s large share of the national economy. It is however true that the contribution
of the traditional industry (metallurgy, particularly) has significantly decreased. In
Serbia-Montenegro the main tendencies are somehow opposite to those from the
other two countries: the proportion of agriculture amongst GDP indicators as well
as employment in the industry sector have been growing, while the importance of
the tertiary sector has been decreasing. These trends can be explained by the unsta-
ble economy and the extremely high unemployment level.
3.5 Infrastructural supply
The driving sectors of a modern economy are transports, telecommunications and
informatics. We shall analyze these branches in the countries under research.
Under state socialism, even among the COMECON countries, Hungary was
situated on the last place as regards the building of infrastructure (Figure 5).
During transition, Hungary improved its position compared to its neighbours
but it is still lagging behind the EU countries. Following the EU accession, rapid
progress has been made in infrastructure development (motorway building, railway
modernization, infrastructure of telecommunication).
A comparison between the three research countries and the most developed or
the most dynamic European countries has been carried out (Table 5). Therefore, it
can be argued that all three countries are significantly backward. General differ-
ences between them and the chosen developed countries are 2–3 fold. The PC
spreading is alarmingly low: the difference in the number of PCs per 1000 persons
is 6-fold between Sweden and Hungary, and 22-fold between Sweden and Serbia-
Montenegro.
Particularly in regard to the use of PCs and Internet, Hungary enjoys the most
favourable position amongst the three countries. Due to its high-paced infrastruc-
tural development during the socialist era, Serbia-Montenegro could keep up with
relatively good standards concerning telephone supply and the length of motorways
(per 1000 inhabitants).
It can be generally concluded the use of mobile telephony within the three
countries registered the fastest expansion. At the same time, the development of
information technology was relative and very slow.
15
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Figure 5
Telephone coverage in transition economies in 1989 and 1997
40
t
s
n
i
t
a 35
b
a
h 30
i
n
0
0 25
r
1
e
p
t
e 20
r
a
n 15
t
i
o
t
r
a
e 10
n
e
p
5
e
l
i
n
d
0
e
i
a
i
a
r
y
i
a
i
a
i
a
e
i
a
i
a
d
i
a
i
a
f
i
x
n
t
i
a
r
i
a
n
h
l
i
c
a
n
k
i
n
s
n
n
s
n
e
a
a
c
b
g
t
v
a
a
s
o
l
a
s
a
v
r
o
l
g
t
o
e
u
a
s
z
p
n
L
u
v
r
a
r
u
d
o
u
l
o
k
m
C
u
E
C
e
u
l
o
e
P
R
o
S
B
R
H
i
t
h
U
l
o
c
L
S
e
a
R
B
M
1989
1997
Source: World Telecommunications Development Report, ITU; and World Bank.
Table 5
The current situation (2001) and occurring changes in the infrastructural supply
(%) from 1995 to 2001
Hungary 1995– Romania 1995–
Serbia-
1995– Germany Ireland Sweden
2001
2001
2001
2001 Montenegro 2001
%
%
2001
%
in 2001
Telephone*
374
10
183
6
229
3
635
485
739
Mobil*
498
64
172
175
187
187
683
729
790
PC*
85
17
32
19
23
10
336
359
507
Internet*
145
84
36
117
38
111
292
207
456
Cars*
244
–
139
–
161
–
534
361
455
Motorway (m)*
45
–
5
–
45
–
142
31
171
*Pieces (or meter) per 1000 inhabitants.
Source: Own data compiled by using the database of Trends in Europe and North America – 2003.
16
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
3.6 Social differences
Infant mortality is a basic indicator of public health. If one draws a comparison
between our research areas and the most developed European countries, one can
distinguish among highly significant differences, even among the three countries.
(Table 6).
As far as life expectancy is concerned, several similarities are to be noticed
among the three countries – especially their serious lagging behind developed
Europe. In the cases of the Baltic countries, Hungary and Romania, men were
considered as “the club with the least hopes” in 2000 (Table 7).
Table 6
Infant mortality in 2000
Infant mortality rate
Countries
(per 1000 live birth)
< 4
Finland, Spain, Sweden, Iceland, Norway
5 – 10
Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary (9.2), Lithuania,
Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia
10 – 20
Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Latvia, Romania (18.6),
Serbia-Montenegro (13.3), Macedonia
36,6
Turkey
* CEB: Central European and Baltic states, SEE: Southeast-European countries.
Source: Trends in Europe and North America – 2003, p. 191.
Table 7
Life expectancy at birth in 2000
Countries
Woman
Men
Hungary
75.6
67.1
Romania
74.2
67.0
Serbia-Montenegro
75.1
70.3
Sweden
82.1
77.5
Italy
82.9
76.7
France
83.0
75.5
Source: Trends in Europe and North America – 2003, p. 187.
17
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
During the last 10–15 years, tertiary education all over Europe experienced a
dynamic increase in the students’ number. Finland has been at the top of the
European list (52 students per 1000 population) whereas Norway, Ireland, Estonia,
Latvia, Poland and Slovenia are also part of the “top group” (with more than 40
students per 1000 inhabitants). In the case of the above-mentioned countries, it has
been argued that the high enrolment rates in higher education are not stimulated
only by the pace of development at national level but also by certain political
decisions taken in its favour. It is a fact that in Hungary (30 students/1000 capita)
and in Romania (24 students/1000 capita) the number of students tripled from 1990
to 2000. Nevertheless, the gap between these countries and the leading ones is still
significant. Unfortunately, Serbia-Montenegro has not registered any increase
during this decade (16 students/1000 capita).
3.7 Macroeconomic stability
Foreign direct investments (FDI), inflation, current account and external debt have
been chosen as indicators of the macroeconomic situation of the three countries.
The histories of FDI are different in each of the three countries. Hungary
initiated a massive privatization process immediately after the regime change. The
largest supply branches (except for the land and the banking sector) had been
opened up to foreign investors. In the first part of 1990s, Hungary was the leading
host country in Eastern Europe. Between 1998 and 2002, namely right after the end
of the Hungarian privatization, Czech Republic and Poland experienced their
golden years of privatization and infusion of FDI. Nowadays, Slovakia is
considered to be an important host country for FDI. Beginning with 1997, FDI
penetrated Romanian economy and reached its peak in 2004. On the other hand,
foreign investors have not shown any particular interest in the economy of Serbia-
Montenegro so far (Table 8).
Table 8
Foreign direct investment (net inflows recorded in the balance of payments)
Countries
Cumulative FDI inflows
Distribution among
Cumulative FDI inflows
1989–2003
CEB and SEE countries per capita 1989–2003
in million USD
(%)
in million USD
Hungary
33,641
18.8
3,364
Romania
10,536
5.9
486
Serbia-Montenegro
3,112
1.7
374
Source: IMF, central banks, EBRD, Magyar Nemzeti Bank, 2003.
18
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
The transition process has also brought about extraordinarily high rates of infla-
tion in all post-socialist countries. Between 1992 and 1996, in Hungary the infla-
tion rate was of 23–28% (annual average retail/consumer price level). 1993 was the
“top” year in Romania, with 256% inflation rate on record; starting with 1997
(155%), inflation had a continuous, downwards trend. Because of the Yugoslav
war, at the beginning of the 1990s, the economy of Serbia-Montenegro experienced
a worrying hyperinflation. (9237% in 1991); after a period of oscillation, a radical
decrease of inflation could be noticed in 2002. In 2003, the inflation rate was
15,4% in Romania, 11,2% in Serbia-Montenegro while in Hungary it went under
5%.
As far as general government balance is concerned Hungary displayed signs of
instability in 2003 when the budget deficit was 6,1%. Despite strict expectations of
the EU, this level remained high in 2005 too. Romania and Serbia-Montenegro
managed to control the governmental sector more effectively, thus pushing this
indicator under 2% in Romania, and under 4% in Serbia-Montenegro.
Between 2000 and 2003, the external debt stayed the same in Serbia-Montene-
gro, while it increased by 50% in Romania and it doubled in Hungary. If one is to
compare the external debt with the economic capacity, Serbia-Montenegro proves
to be in serious financial crisis; meanwhile, Hungary could more or less finance its
debt through important FDI (Table 9).
Table 9
External debt in 2003
Countries
External debt in USD million
External debt/GDP (%)
Hungary
40,157
62.3
Romania
11,588
34.6
Serbia-Montenegro
10,753
68.9
Source: Transitional Report 2004, p. 137, 165, 173.
3.8 Progress in transition
Since 1994, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development elaborated
some transition indicator scores in order to be able to formulate judgments about
the country-specific progress in transition. The transition indicators are classified
into four main fields: enterprises, markets and trade, financial institutions and
infrastructure. The indicators from 1 to 4+ stand for little or no change from a rigid,
centrally planned economy, whereas 4+ qualifies for standards of an industrialized
market economy. The EBRD report also points at the private sector’s share in the
GDP (Table 10).
19
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
According to the present EBRD report (2005) Hungary is the transition leader
among post-socialist countries. Romania has important debts as regards the
governance and enterprise restructuring, the competition policy and the securities
markets. Serbia-Montenegro could show important progress only in the case of
price liberalization.
Table 10
Transition indicator scores, 2004
Indicators
Hungary
Romania
Serbia-
Montenegro
Large-scale privatisation
4
4–
2+
Small-scale privatisation
4+
4–
3+
Governance and enterprise restructuring
3+
2
2
Price liberalisation
4+
4+
4
Trade and foreign exchange system
4+
4+
3+
Competition policy
3
2+
1
Banking reform and interest rate liberalisation
4
3
2+
Securities markets
4–
2
2
Infrastructure reform
4–
3+
2
Total
34
28
21
Private sector share of GDP (%)
80
70
50
Source: Transition report 2004.
4 Political, social and economic relations between Romania
and Hungary, Serbia and Hungary prior to Hungary’s
accession to the EU
4.1 Co-operation forms between Hungary and Romania prior to
Hungary’s accession to the EU
Following the signing of the Trianon treaty at the end of the First World War, bor-
ders between Hungary and Romania had been redesigned and bilateral relations
had been rather frozen throughout several decades. Only after the overthrow of the
Ceausescu regime in 1989 did hopes for a normalization of relations flourish again.
The difficulties arising from the transition to a market economy as well as the sig-
nificant economic differences posed additional burden on the initiation of co-
operation forms. The unfolding of cross-border co-operation has been hindered by
the fact that the Hungarian regions in the vicinity of Romania are economically
20
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
underdeveloped and have been particularly affected by the transitional changes.
The social tensions foregrounding minority-related problems and nationalism
intensified. However, strained relations between the two countries have
progressively been left behind and bilateral relations at national, regional and local
levels were enhanced in the last one and a half decades.
4.1.1 Economic Relations
Foreign trade between the two countries still registered a low turnover in the first
period of the 1990s. Although the exchange of goods went upwards in the last dec-
ade, genuine prosperity could be felt only after 2000. In the years following 2000,
imports and export figures steeply rose (Figure 6) so that the import-export turn-
over was three times higher by the end of 2004. Hungarian foreign trade has al-
ways had positive figures in relation to Romania. Hungarian exports primarily con-
sist of electrical machines, vehicles, mineral fuel, medicaments and meat products.
The accession to the EU had a negative impact on the exports of agricultural prod-
ucts to Romania, i.e. the export of cereals had been reduced with 70%. Aluminium
and its derivatives, atomic reactors, boilers, machines and mechanical equipment,
electric machines and accessories, clothing items form the bulk of imports of Ro-
manian products.
Figure 6
The evolution of Hungarian–Romanian foreign trade from 1989 to 2004
Million USD
Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office.
21
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Mutual direct capital investments evolved unequally. After the regime change,
Romania continued to be a preferred destination for Hungarian capital. Already in
1998, Hungarian capital investment in Romania overtook 61 million EUR. Even
though capital export has been continuously increasing ever since, a real jump of
more than 45% was made in 2001, while in 2003 growth registered a rise of almost
59%. Within 6 years the value of Hungarian investment in Romania became three
times higher and in 2003 it rose above 165 million EUR. If other elements of
corporate investment are also taken into account – credits, assets, securities and the
capital market operations – only in the first half of 2005 the real value of Hungarian
capital in Romania was more than 700 million EUR (Figure 7).
Figure 7
The evolution of Hungarian and Romanian mutual investment from
1998 to 2003
Million EUR
180
165,9
151,6
160
140
120
95,4
100
80
61,2
64,6
65,7
60
40
20
0,1
4,2
5,4
7
12,2
6,9
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Romanian investments in Hungary
Hungarian investments in Romania
Source: Figure compiled on the basis of the data provided by the Hungarian National Bank.
22
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Hungary is ranked only 9th (from data provided by the Romanian Agency for
Foreign Investments, ARIS) among the countries carrying out investments in Ro-
mania. However, in respect to the number of joint ventures created, Hungary fills
in the 5th position. On the other hand, even though the value of Romanian invest-
ments in Hungary also continues to go upwards, Romania does not count as a sig-
nificant investor in its neighbouring country (in 2003 the value of investment was
12,2 million EUR, meaning less than one tenth from the value of Hungarian in-
vestments in Romania). Industrial sectors (chemical industry/engineering) as well
as the banking sector are mostly attractive for Hungarian investors. 30% of Hun-
garian companies have investments in the Romanian heavy industry, whereas 16%
of them flourish in the retail industry, 24% in the industrial sector and 14% in the
services branch.
Contrary to investments from other countries, Hungarian capital is primarily
placed in the Romanian regions inhabited by Hungarians, namely in the four coun-
ties along the Romanian-Hungarian border and in the inner counties of Transylva-
nia. In addition, prominent Hungarian investments are directed towards the other-
wise geographically isolated Bucharest (Figure 8). The presence of Hungarian
investors is explained by the fact that Transylvania is among the more developed
Romanian regions, by the use of a common language and by prior investments
made there. Investment in the farther regions is impeded by several factors such as:
low capacity of absorption, unqualified labour force and backward infrastructure.
However, one has to note that Hungarian entrepreneurs investing in the areas near
the border generally bring less capital value: the average size of their investment
barely counts as a quarter of the non-Hungarian investments. These entrepreneurs
are predominantly micro and small enterprises. Nevertheless, the major Hungarian
businesses (OTP, MOL, TriGránit and Richter Gyógyszergyár, etc.) have also in-
vested – mainly in Bucharest and in the larger towns from Transylvania (MOL Rt.
is largely present in Bucharest and operates petrol stations in the Székely county).
Romanian export of capital to Hungary has been mainly directed to Budapest.
This trend can be mostly explained by the fact that the Eastern part of Hungary is
economically underdeveloped and that there is not a significant Romanian minority
over the border (namely it did not settle there because of the language difficulties).
In addition, Romanian companies take Hungarian capital for a safe stepping stone
in the direction of the EU or they choose to invest in the Western part of the coun-
try. Several assistance schemes have been designed under Hungarian – Romanian
cross-border economic co-operation programs with the purpose of remedying the
unfavourable status of the border region (Euroregions, agencies of regional devel-
opment, chambers, business development endowments, etc). With the exception of
the PETROM investment started up in 1999, these attempts have had little success
in the Southern Great Plain so far.
23
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Figure 8
Distribution of Hungarian investments in Romanian regions
(2000, in percentage of country total, at NUTS2-level)
Data source: Sej, G. L. 2004, p. 58.
Guest working. The proportion of guest workers and immigrants is the highest
in Hungary (about 60% of all). They are concentrated not along the border, but
much more in Budapest and in its region. As earnings in Romania are significantly
lower and living standards poorer than in Hungary, it is not surprising that the
number of Hungarian citizens in possession of a Romanian work permit is not rep-
resentative. On the contrary, the number of Romanian citizens working legally and
illegally in Hungary is highly representative. On the basis of the number of work
permits distributed to foreigners of different nationalities in the first half of 2002 it
can be argued that most of the workers come from Romania, Ukraine and Slovakia
(these ratios are still sound). The majority of comers originating from the
neighbouring countries are of Hungarian nationality, therefore not facing integra-
tion difficulties in the guest country (Figure 9).
24
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Figure 9
The distribution of Hungarian work permits on nationality criteria
in the first half of 2002
Countries out of Europe
Other European
8%
countries
3%
EU-members total
6%
Polish
2%
Serbian and Montenegrin
2%
Slovakian
Romanian
6%
60%
Ukrainian
13%
Source: Figure compiled by Balcsók, I. on the basis of the data provided by the Labour Office.
The number of foreigners officially in possession of work permits – thus not
even the large number of Romanians – does not influence the dynamics of the la-
bour market. If one takes into account both the figures of those officially unem-
ployed and of those filling in vacancies their number is at an acceptable level.
Greater problems arise from the fact that the period of time spent for performing
seasonal work shows an upward trend, however not in those areas where seasonal
work would be needed indeed.
In a retrospective analysis, the great majority of foreign labour force has been
seeking jobs in Budapest and Pest county, while only a fraction of the comers have
found incentives to settle in the counties along the border with Romania (Figure
10). At the same time, the proportion of foreigners with work permits in the South-
ern and Western regions went upwards. In other words, this means that due to the
lower wages on the Hungarian market, the high rate of unemployment and the
scarce work opportunities, the Eastern region of Hungary will not be able to attract
foreign workers in the future either.
Romanian citizens working on the Hungarian black labour market essentially
get seasonal jobs in agriculture and constructions. There are no accurate data in
connection with their status but it can be argued that a great deal of them work in
compliance with the legal provisions. In many cases, illegal/black work is just a
25
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
statutory concept. Sometimes the only way to respond quickly to the demands of
entrepreneurs in exchange of modest rewards is to hire Romanian citizens ready to
come to the small Hungarian settlements along the Romanian–Hungarian border. It
often happens that it is more advantageous to transport the group of illegal workers
over the border in the required area for only half of the usually charged daily-work
fee. This is explained by the fact that the accommodation cost for several days is
still cheaper than hiring the services of Hungarian employees. In addition, guest
workers on the black market are not interested in meeting all formal requirements
in order to get a legal work permit. It is time and money consuming. To sum up,
even though the black market already seriously affects the regional labour market
along the border with Romania, the rate of unemployment is still high in these ar-
eas. It could be therefore concluded that this phenomenon does not exert a signifi-
cant influence so far.
Figure 10
Distribution by counties of the effective number of work permits released to
foreigners (31 December 1999)
Source: compiled on the basis of the data provided by the Labour Office.
26
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
4.1.2 Migration
It can be argued that migration tendencies are similar to the work patterns. That is
to say that the number of Hungarian citizens settling in Romania is not at all repre-
sentative, whereas for Romanian citizens Hungary is one of the cherished destina-
tions. For years, the proportion of Romanian citizens in possession of residence
permit has been the highest in comparison to other nationalities settling in Hun-
gary. From 2002 to 2004 their number doubled, while their ratio systematically
exceeds 60%. Accordingly, at the end of 2004 Romanian citizens were in posses-
sion of 55723 immigration permits (58.9% from the total number released to for-
eign immigrants) and of 11865 residence permits (68,4% from the total number of
residence permits attributed to foreigners). Romanian citizens settling in Hungary
are predominantly of Hungary nationality. Their migration is not merely justified
by ethnic reasons but also by the encouraging economic prospects that re-settling
entails. It is not easy to identify accurate data/trends from the distribution of Ro-
manian immigrants in the Hungarian regions. However, on the basis of the distri-
bution of work permits it can be argued that most of Romanians choose to settle
primarily in Budapest and Pest county and in Western Hungary. Only a few prefer
to reside in the regions along the Romanian border, nevertheless they still consti-
tute more than half of those settling close to the border.
4.1.3 Education
The number of Romanian citizens coming to study in Hungary is also significant.
They are solely Hungarian nationals from abroad and mainly graduating from
higher education institutes. Unsurprisingly, as Hungarian is the language of in-
struction, they are not confronted with language problems. Many years of experi-
ence have shown that a great deal of these students do not go back to Romania,
trying instead to settle themselves in Hungary.
In the past years, out of the total number of Hungarian students from Romania
who enrolled in basic training only less than 10% pursued their studies in Hungary
(the ratio of Hungarians from Ukraine approached 50%). From the perspective of
Hungarian nationals outside the borders, training pursued in their country of origin
is still very important, since certain special training programs are made available
there in Hungarian and at an adequate level. At the same time, among 12913 for-
eign students enrolled in Hungarian institutes in the academic year 2003–2004,
almost a quarter of them (3105 persons) came from Romania. The majority of Ro-
manian students – similarly to students from other neighbouring countries – benefit
from college and university training. Besides, the number of students from Roma-
nia enrolled in Hungarian PhD and DLA programs is more than half from the total
number of foreigners (Table 11).
27
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Table 11
The number of foreign students coming to Hungary from the neighbouring
countries
Country
Higher
College
University Further spe-
PhD,
Total
education
level
level
cialization
DLA
Number of students receiving training
Austria
1
14
8
5
4
32
Croatia
3
32
168
13
9
225
Romania
13
1,647
1,001
122
281
3,064
Serbia and Montenegro
–
601
469
8
17
1,095
Slovakia
5
1,223
1,115
37
67
2,447
Slovenia
–
14
18
1
2
35
Ukraine
5
662
437
10
58
1,172
Total no. of foreigners 28
5,016
7,049
240
580
12,913
Source: Oktatási Minisztérium, 2005.
4.1.4 Tourism
Tourism between Romania and Hungary became an important sector. Most of the
foreigners visiting Hungary are from Romania. In 2004, a fifth (6922 thousand
people) from the total number of foreigners came from Romania, thus overtaking
the visitors from Slovakia, Austria, Serbia and Montenegro, Germany, Ukraine and
Croatia. Close to 80% from the total figure of tourists visiting Hungary in 2004
came from these six countries and Romania. From the number of Romanian visi-
tors in Hungary, 71,5% came here only for one-day visit, 19% spent from one to
three nights here, whereas 9,4% four or more nights. Altogether 8,7% from the
amount of one-day visitors travelled for touristic purposes (leisure tourism1 – 385
thousand persons, business tourism2 – 48 thousand persons). The rest of visitors
only passed through Hungary or they came to do shopping here. From the number
of tourists spending more days in Hungary almost half came for tourism, however,
the number of visitors in transit is still high.
By examining the distribution of Romanian tourists visiting Hungary for several
days according to touristic regions, it can be concluded that Budapest has been the
1 Leisure tourism: holiday; round trip; sightseeing; hiking; visiting relatives, friends, acquaintances;
medical treatment; wellness treatment; taking part to cultural and sport events; hunting; religious
purposes.
2 Business tourism: conference, congress; business trip; exhibition; market.
28
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
most preferred destination. Nevertheless, the South and Northern Great plain re-
gions at the border with Romania receive a significant proportion of visitors. On
the other hand, the per capita daily expenditures of Romanian one and several-days
visitors are quite low. In 2004, the below 20 € expenditures were significantly be-
hind the average of the 35 € of the other foreign visitors in Hungary.
Romania is a preferred destination for Hungarian citizens, too. According to the
figures, in 2004, on the second place after Austria, Romania received the highest
number of Hungarian tourists. Nonetheless, this figure is less than half from the
total number of Romanians coming to Hungary. The proportion of one-day visitors
is 72,1%, out of which the majority certainly travelled to Romania for shopping
and “petrol” tourism. Unfortunately, the Hungarian Central Statistical Office does
not provide detailed data on the motivations of travellers, but from experience it
can be concluded that Hungarian tourists go to Romania for several-days visits for
leisure tourism. First of all, they visit areas populated by ethnic Hungarians, espe-
cially places of interests and holiday resorts in Transylvania and the Székely re-
gion.
In addition to the above, Hungarian–Romanian relationships entail several other
aspects, from cultural relations and twinning settlements to environmental co-
operation. A series of treaties regulated the cross-border co-operation between the
two countries. Besides border control and patrolling agreements, a series of state
treaties with direct impact on cross-border co-operation had been signed between
Romania and Hungary. Among these, the Hungarian–Romanian Comprehensive
Agreement (1997 yearly code XLIV.) is the most important, as it enforces the co-
operation framework. The intergovernmental expert committees (i.e. the Commit-
tee concerning co-operation among minorities, the Committee concerning eco-
nomic, trade and tourism – related co-operation, the Cross-border co-operation
Committee respectively that for co-operation among local governments, the Com-
mittee for infrastructure, traffic, water and environmental management co-
operation, etc.) set up in terms of the treaty the most important tasks. In other
words, who is to work out and to monitor the co-operation between Hungary and
Romania in “joint affairs”.
Numerous bilateral comprehensive co-operation agreements have been and are
enforced at the social economic level (i.e. the convention on multimodal forward-
ing of goods, the Hungarian–Romanian agreement on the protection of invest-
ments, diplomas issued by accredited research institutes, diplomas, official certifi-
cates and bilaterally recognized academic degrees, the Hungarian–Romanian co-
operation agreement on privatization, etc). Among these, due to geographic condi-
tions, the agreements on water management and environment protection receive
special attention.
29
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
4.1.5 Cross-border relations
The fundamental framework has been defined on the grounds provided by the
Hungarian – Romanian Border Rivers Convention signed in 1986 and by the
Treaty on “Co-operation in regard to environmental protection” in effect from
2000. In addition, several agreements on water conservation have been enforced
(i.e. the Agreement on the Flood Control, the Agreement regarding drainage, the
Rule on the Exchange of Information, etc). In fact, the need for closer co-operation
has arisen from the fact that the borderline cuts in two the natural ecosystem
(among which a great deal of ecological corridors) and that the two areas are
connected through a network of surface – underground water systems (with
numerous water flows across the border). Moreover, enhanced co-operation is
justified by the existence of common surface and underground water supplies in the
area, by the fact that the industry in the border region – especially on the Romanian
side – is outdated and makes use of environmental-polluting technology. This
entails high environmental risks, as for instance in the case of Tisza and its related
tributaries which are regularly contaminated with cyanide and heavy metal
residuals.
The establishment of Euroregions in the 1990s as well as of new and smaller-
sized euro-regional organizations and agencies significantly contributed to the in-
tensification of the cross-border relations. The Hungarian and Romanian counties
along the border line share two large-scale, very diverse Euroregions given their
development and operational patterns: the Carpathians Euroregion and the Duna-
Körös–Maros–Tisza Euroregion (Figure 11). The western part of the border line
incorporates the Carpathians Euroregion – facing the Duna–Körös–Maros–Tisza
Euroregion, in place from 1997 on. This has not been the result of a self-develop-
ing, “bottom-up” initiative but its framework has been enforced in connection with
greater political objectives, in a “top-down manner”. The Carpathians Euroregion
has a “multinational” character. Oversized historical-territorial-ethnical and other
sort of problems prevent the large organizations from working efficiently there.
Once this has been acknowledged by local actors, they came to realize that smaller-
sized and hereby more efficient Euroregional organizations should be created. Two
organizations at county level are already in place: the Interregio, formed at the
border between Romania–Ukraine and Hungary and the Hajdú-Bihar-Bihor Eu-
roregion respectively. Moreover, the Bihar–Bihor Euroregional Organization has
come into being on the two sides of the border, as merger of the associations cre-
ated by the inhabitants of the Hungarian Bihar and Romanian Bihor regions.
30
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Figure 11
Euroregional co-operations along the Hungarian border
Source: Enyedi–Horváth, 2002, p. 449.
In addition, the agreements between settlements have a significant importance
for cross-border relations. Among these, the most efficient framework for daily,
operational agreements is the twinning of cities (i.e. Nyíregyháza – Szatmárnémeti,
Debrecen – Nagyvárad, Békéscsaba – Arad, Szeged – Temesvár). Many Hungarian
settlements have a Romanian twin town. It can be nevertheless argued that these
relations could essentially come into being due to the existence of Hungarian-Hun-
garian relationships. In other words, amongst Romanian settlements, the majority
of partners are Hungarian. Consequently, we could distinguish among the cross-
border relations on one hand those that render co-operation more operational and
on the other hand most of the cultural relations existing between twin towns. Many
31
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Hungarian settlements are involved in such relations, whereas most of the Roma-
nian towns participating in twinning projects are from the Székely region.
Frequent and diverse relations develop between the inhabitants of the very bor-
der region in particular. With regard to the nature of cross – border relations with
the neighbouring country, Romanian and Hungarian respondents have equally
placed personal relations (visits of relatives, friends, and acquaintances) as the
most frequent motivation. Furthermore, both parties have emphasized the fre-
quency of resting and leisure – related as well as of shopping- driven motivations
(Figure 12).
A development concept and programme, with particular relevance to the
Hungarian–Romanian cross border relations, was designed in September 2000. Its
priorities were revisited in 2003. According to the main document entitled The
Development Concept and Program for the Hungarian–Romanian Cross-Border
Region, its objectives are formulated at the county level.
Figure 12
The nature of relations between the inhabitants of the settlements across the
Hungarian–Romanian border (measured by their frequency)
other
education
smuggling (?)
work
business relations
shopping
recreation
visiting friends and relatives
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Romanian average
Hungarian average
Source: Data collected from a questionnaire-based survey, administered by Debrecen Institute of
MTA RKK ATI.
32
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
4.2 Forms of co-operation between Hungary and Serbia-Montenegro
before the EU accession
The social and economic differences between Hungary and Serbia after 1990 are
due to different paths that systemic changes undertook. While Yugoslavia has been
involved in a civil war (although a multi-party system has also been established
there, the power was practically in the hands of the post-communist nationalists),
Hungary started and – as the most relevant indicators show – completed the transi-
tion period to a market economy.
As argued in the previous chapter, Serbia-Montenegro and Voivodina have been
completely ruined by the war. The economy continued to be in a shattered state
after 2000 and development is still very slow. Transition is an ongoing process; the
country’s social, economic situation is not stabilized yet. Unemployment level
stayed high, inflationary effect is strong, and corruption is overwhelming whilst
politics and cohabitation of nationalities are poisoned by nationalism. In spite of
their pre-war dynamism, the state of affairs in the border area with Hungary and
Voivodina resembles this picture.
4.2.1 The economic situation of Voivodina
Similarly to the general state of affairs in Serbia, Voivodina is characterized by
slow economic growth rate (in 2002 it was 2%), high unemployment, outdated
technology, low competitiveness level, non-transparent legal regulation system and
stagnating industrial production. In 2001–2002, Voivodina’s economy was deeply
confronted with stagnation in almost every economic sector. Import rates were
higher than export ones and in 2002 industrial production was less than half of the
1990 level. At the same time, territorial indicators are in many respects better than
the indicators of Central-Serbia or the whole republic (Table 12).
Table 12
Comparison of some economic indicators of Voivodina and Serbia
Voivodina
Serbia
Central-Serbia*
2001–2002 industrial production growth (%)
2.1
1.7
1.6
2001–2002 wholesale trade turnover growth (%)
9.5
3.1
1.7
2002 per capita average real income (Dinars)
10,480
8,742
9,208
* Without Voivodina and Kosovo Autonomous Regions
Source: Socio-Economic Trends, 2002, 9.
33
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
27% of the active population is unemployed in Voivodina. Since 2001 onwards,
the unemployment level has been growing with 10% (there are 500 thousand
employed and 270 thousand unemployed persons). Factory bankruptcies are also
frequent nowadays. In many cases (according to the estimations in the case of 200
thousand employees) employment equals a formal or a minimum wage. The post-
civil-war influx of Serbian refugees exacerbated economic stagnation, generating
further unemployment (in 1996 the unemployment level was below 20%). In this
respect, the situation is even worse here than in the case of Central-Serbia or of the
whole country. While in Voivodina there are 123 unemployed persons to 1000
inhabitants, in Serbia there are 101 and in Central-Serbia 93.3
4.2.2 Cross border co-operation between Hungary and Serbia
Even though Voivodina is considered to be one of the most developed regions in
Serbia, it is still quite backward in comparison to the areas close to the Hungarian
border. This area bears the ruinous consequences and aftermath of the civil war
whereas in the southern Hungarian border area “only” signs of backwardness and
slow development are to be noticed.
Some words on the civil war period
During the civil war in the 1990s, fleeing ethnic Hungarians from Serbia, Serbs
and other Yugoslav ethnic groups transferred significant wealth over the border, in
Hungary. The number of Serbian enterprises has risen in the southern border re-
gion, strong migration processes have started, trade and other relations have been
enhanced. Szeged became the central settlement of entrepreneurial capital invest-
ment. The refugees located their new enterprises near the border, thus indicating
their wish to return to the origin country. However, only 15% of the capital invest-
ments were real, 85% of them consisted of fictive family enterprises with insignifi-
cantly subscribed capital.
At the end of the ‘80s, wealth has been transferred to the banks in Szeged.
Many people bought flats, which led to a significant rise in flat prices in this town;
others invested their capital in enterprises. With a view to Hungary‘s territory, the
Szeged–Kecskemét–Budapest axis became especially attractive for investors (Fig-
ure 13).
3 31 December 2001 data.
34
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Figure 13
Yugoslav enterprises in the settlements of the Southern Great Plain
(number of Yugoslav enterprises/number of local enterprises)
Source: Szónoky, Miklósné 1999.
After the war
At present, Hungarian entrepreneurs are highly reluctant to invest in Voivodina
or in other Serbian territories. Since 2001, some 140–150 investments have been
registered in Voivodina. Hungarian SMEs opened branches there mostly by estab-
lishing joint ventures with local partners. Hungarian firms often seek work partners
there who could use the significantly cheaper Serbian labour force. The presence of
Hungarians in Voivodina is favourable to Hungarian investors as they also carry
cultural and information capital; their language skills and local knowledge encour-
age Hungarian capital to enter the Voivodina market. Hungarian firms can count on
the local governments’ political support in the communities led by Hungarian local
governments. Moreover, by cooperating with local Hungarian entrepreneurs, they
enjoy certain economic benefits, too. 70 per cent of Serbian firms in Hungary are
located in the border counties. The number of these firms grew slightly between
1996 and 1999.
35
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Migration
Political tensions, fleeing away from the capital and family unifications4
significantly contributed to the migration processes. These processes have mainly
featured the first half of the ‘90s, although they are still ongoing. Figure 14
illustrates migration processes in the first years of the new millennium, on the basis
work permits, settlement permissions and the naturalization processes. The current
share of immigrants from Serbia-Montenegro is significantly lower than in the
‘90s, yet there is a slightly growing tendency.
Figure 14
The evolution of the residence permits’ number according to citizenship
(2002–2004)
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Romanian
Ukrainian
Serbian and Montenegrian
Chinese
Vietnamese
Russian
American
Other
Source: Office of Immigration and Nationality, 2004.
Economic relations with Hungary
Before 1990 Yugoslav–Hungarian and cross-border economic relations had
been very lively before the system change. During this period, the reclusive policy
of the socialist countries was mitigated by the so-called “small border traffic”,5
4 The male family members abroad aimed at family reunification.
5 The border area population’s freer traveling, border crossing were made possible by an interstate
agreement.
36
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
very prolific at the beginning of the ‘80s. In the trade sector, the department store
co-operations6 were in favour of a higher export-import rate, and their primary aim
was to diversify the product offer and decrease the shortage of goods.
Under the co-operation framework of the food processing industry, Hungarian
sugar beet and soybean productions were also processed in Voivodina. In the ‘70s
and ‘80s, co-operations were set up in the milk industry, meat industry, plant im-
provement and in the field of seed grain production. Moreover, contacts between
agricultural experts made possible experience exchanges at the higher education
level and in the seed grain producing institutions. Seed grain production and re-
search carried out in the Agricultural Faculty of Novi Sad University were opened
to Hungarian producers until the mid-‘80s.
In other words, until the beginning of the ‘90s, the division of labour preserved
its dynamism. On the other hand, inter-institutional and interpersonal relations
developed extensively. At that time, Yugoslav firms engaged in better relations on
the global market as technology and product development had been in place in
Voivodina earlier than in Hungary. There was a significant rate of “shopping”
tourism but also of real tourism. Although in a quite formal way, the process of
twinning settlements has also been initiated at the time as well as contacts between
economic organizations.
The dynamic relations in place before the political change (1990) have been dis-
rupted by the civil war when Yugoslavia disintegrated. After the end of the war,
since 15 August 1996, ambassadorial relations were launched again between Hun-
gary and Serbia-Montenegro. There is an embassy and trade agency in Beograd
and a foreign economy attaché in Subotica/Szabadka.
Several important bilateral agreements have been signed between the two
countries:
− Total visa exemption agreement (1967);
− The most favoured nation status ensuring economic and trade agreement
(1996);
− Agreement aiming the avoidance of the double taxing; Investment protection
agreement (2001);
− Bilateral free trade agreement (2002)7.
Although bilateral trade relations were enhanced since 2000, no significant re-
sults could be registered so far. Moreover, the implementation of the free trade
agreement and of the so-called ‘six points economic package’8 is quite slow.
6 It was not an accepted socialist solution; the corporations generally were not authorized to directly
cooperate.
7 Business2Hungary.yu, Hungarian Investment and Trade Development Agency Our bilateral
economic relations, http//www.business2hungary.hu/.
37
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Co-operation forms between enterprise development foundations, firms, com-
merce and industry chambers, and by different exhibitions, fairs, business people
meetings9 organized by the county and local governments contributed to the
strengthening of cross-border economic relations. Despite differences between the
Hungarian and the Serbian Chambers, they however enjoy the capacity to assist
with the development of direct corporate relations, with the mutual participation to
exhibitions and fairs, with the organization of cross border business meetings and
the exchange of information.
The target areas of co-operation are commerce, wood industry, food processing
industry, confection industry, furniture industry, and business consulting. As a
result of it, it is worth mentioning the setting up of the Cross Border Coordination
Working Committee; it coordinates the work of regular chamber meetings, the
mutual participation to fairs and business meetings.
The relations show an upward tendency only since 2000 onwards. But opportu-
nities are open in the region. The “relations/connections” capital could be immedi-
ately activated under favourable circumstances.
Hungarian direct investment
Co-operation possibilities and expectations are much higher than the actual in-
volvement of Hungarian capital in the Serbian economy. In fact, the Serbian party
suggested that the Hungarian government should send experts to the Serbian Min-
istry for Economy and Privatization in order to promote participation to privatiza-
tion programs.10 An agreement has been signed by the General Consul of Subotica
and the Economic Chamber of Sombor district, aiming to a higher participation of
Hungarian investors to the privatizations in Voivodina. Consequently, the Sombor
economic chamber will provide on-line information regarding the district’s eco-
nomic possibilities and the firms to be privatized.11
Commerce
The free trade agreement between Hungary and Yugoslavia came into force on
1 July 2002. According to this agreement, Hungary contributes to the temporary
insurance of some one-side advantages in connection with the elimination of cus-
toms; this is the first agreement of this kind, by which Hungary assumes a certain
8 Free trade agreement, energy systems’ co-operation, SMEs credit guarantee based support,
Building of the Budapest-Beograd motorway, participation in the reconstruction, tourism co-
operation.
9 East-West Expo, Farmer Expo International Agricultural and Food Processing Industry
Professional Exhibition, Csaba-Expo.
10 Meetings on the Hungarian enterprises’ participation in the Serbian privatization Magyar Szó
(Hungarian Word) 7 December 2002.
11 Visa requirement and economic relations Magyar Szó (Hungarian Word) 7 December 2002.
38
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
asymmetry in the benefit of the other party. In respect to Yugoslavia, this is the
first free trade agreement concluded in line with the norms of the World Trade
Organization (WTO). The evolution12 of bilateral trade in the last two years is illus-
trated by Table 13.
Table 13
The evolution of the bilateral trade 2001–2002
Year
Trade
Hungarian export
Increase of the
Hungarian import
Increase of the
turnover
into Yugoslavia
Hungarian export from Yugoslavia Hungarian import
(million
(million USD)
(The same period
(million USD)
(The same period
USD)
of the previous
of the previous year
year = 100)
= 100)
2001
258.6
194.0
109.5
63.0
106.9
2002
350.0
224.5
115.0
66.8
120.6
Source: KSH, 2003. 12. 5/b. Foreign trade turnover concerning the relatively important countries.
In 2001, Hungary filled in the eighth place in respect to Yugoslav exports. As
far as imports are concerned, it was on the fifth position, with significant Hungar-
ian bilateral foreign trade surplus.13 As for Hungarian export, the share of proc-
essed products is the largest, but food, beverages and tobacco are significant Hun-
garian export items too; Serbia-Montenegro mainly exports products processed in
Hungary. Following the free trade agreement, the barter turnover between the two
countries increased, thus reaching the pre-war level. It is difficult to objectively
judge the role of the free trade agreement in the upswing of the foreign trade. This
is due to the fact that normalization of bilateral relations encouraged the develop-
ment of trade independently from it. Contrary to the desired pace of bilateral rela-
tions, several unpleasant circumstances prevented potential Hungarian partners
from initiating contacts.
The Yugoslav cautiousness towards Hungarian entrepreneurs is justified be-
cause of their financial attitudes, backed by the current state of the economy and
the events of the previous years. The economy is characterized by mutual indebt-
edness of enterprises. No remedy has been found so far whereas it is only made
more difficult by the restrictive financial policy. Cash or ready-made transactions
dominate the foreign trade. Open transportation, delayed payment, application for
product credit without bank deposits are not offered. The indebtedness, the lack of
12 Concerning the relations with Hungary, the trade between the Voivodina and Hungary grew 18%
between 2001 and 2002 due to the effect of the free trade agreement.
13 IMF, 78–79.
39
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
financial assets makes highly risky the collection of non-paid accounts, products
and services.
In case of a product bought in Serbia, it is mandatory to avoid advance payment
because of the “product elimination” risk. The collection of the expired claims via
legal means is quite uncertain too. Due to the uncontrollable character of corporate
transformations and financial channels, the debt payment is questionable in the
implementation phase as well. Transportation and technology discipline are
insecure and unreliable, the custom procedure is slow and complicated and there
are problems with the property registry (even though this latter is significantly
better in Voivodina than in Central Serbia).14
Education
During the 90s, but mainly since 1993, in the hope of a more secure education,
high school pupils and university students went to study to Budapest, Szeged or
other centres where it was possible to get specialized education (wood processing
high school, horticultural high school, actor training high school). The education-
driven migration reached its peak between 1992 and 1995, and another important
period was around 1999, during the Yugoslavia NATO attacks. Due to the eco-
nomic and politic difficulties, this process is still ongoing.
From Yugoslavia’s point of view, the unprecedented higher education relations
have been established during the most difficult times of embargo.
There are a few hopeful examples for the new co-operation in education: al-
though there is a symbolic and formal-like co-operation between Szeged University
(Hungary) and the Natural Science Faculty of the Novi Sad University
(Voivodina), the Zenta-based distance education centre at the Horticultural Engi-
neering Faculty of Saint Stephen University (Hungary) is much more valuable for
practical reasons. Through this connection, 80 horticultural engineers from North-
Bácska (Voivodina) got degrees and remained in Voivodina! The local branch of
the Technical College from Gábor Áron University (Hungary) similarly operates in
Subotica and recently a SZÁMALK local branch opened in Topolya (Voivodina).
Starting with the summer of 2000, due to co-operation forms at the higher edu-
cation level, it is worth mentioning that students from Hungary-based university
and colleges could organize their summer training in Voivodina.
Tourism
The former Hungarian inbound tourism from Serbia (arrival en masse of people
from Voivodina to the Hungarian spas, the Lake Balaton, Budapest) completely
collapsed between 1992–93. Following the system change and the transition to a
market economy, prices went up and Serbian economy found itself in decline. Only
14 Interview with András Pallos.
40
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
“shopping” tourism continued to flourish after the Serbian change in 2000. It can
be however noticed a slight upwards tendency in other tourism branches as well.
Transit tourism stayed alive during the ‘90s and education tourism is also signifi-
cant. Particularities of the “visiting” phenomenon also underline these trends. In
the first part of 2005 the share of one-day stay (transit tourism) was 81% while the
share of stays over 2–3 days was minimal. The number of nights that visitors spent
(in the first half of 2005) was 47000, indicating a 13% increase in comparison with
the same period of the previous year (Figure 15).
There is a continuous health care migration from the Voivodina region inhab-
ited by Hungarians, i.e. the Voivodina people travel to Szeged to get specialized
private treatment.
Figure 15
Number (thousands) of the foreign tourists arriving in Hungary from the
neighbouring states
Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office: KSH, 2005.
Regional, settlement co-operation
During the years after the change of political system in Hungary, the Yugoslav–
Hungarian cross border co-operation has been exclusively handled in the form of
relations between settlements. This has been due to the absence of a proper “middle
level” in the Yugoslav public administration. However, the local governments of
41
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Bács-Kiskun and Csongrád counties maintained relations with the Sombor and
Subotica municipal governments. Although these relations were restricted during
the ‘90s, they became more vivid in the context of regional co-operation carried out
between Subotica–Szeged and the Sombor–Baja regions. The Hungarian villages
on the Serbian side (Ada, Becse, Bácstopolya, Magyarkanizsa, Zenta and newly
Törökkanizsa) set up significant contacts as well. The twin-town relations between
smaller settlements are more or less restricted to cultural and sports activities.
Water management relations, re-opened in 1955 brought their contribution to
the development of co-operation forms. The number of water management organi-
zations engaged in co-operation programs significantly rose. In fact, it is indispen-
sable to ensure continuous co-operation in view of fulfilling the professional re-
quirements (the effective flood control and catastrophe protection presumes co-
operation).
In the field of environmental protection, the Kiskunság National Park Director-
ate and the (Serbian) Voivodina Nature Protection Institute attempt to establish
cross-border co-operation, with particular emphasis on concerted management of
Subotica forests and the Körös Landscape Protection Area.
The Voivodina Autonomous Region (VAR) is a member of the Danube–Körös–
Maros–Tisza Euroregion since 1997. Its greatest achievement was to assure full
membership status for Subotica city in this organization.
In line with the Euroregion development strategy, closer co-operation of the re-
gion’s counties is enhanced. However, this co-operation could be made more effec-
tive through developing communication strategies (border crossing points, public
roads, regional information technology) and through European economic develop-
ment methods (incubator houses, innovation centres, industrial parks). The re-
opening of the former Szeged–Temesvár–Kikinda railway as well as the assurance
of the navigability on Béga and Temes Rivers are taken into account. In the context
of the cross border regional development co-operation, in 2003 an initiative was
launched for the establishment of the Kunbaja–Bajmok Industrial Park and Logisti-
cal Centre.
The readiness for co-operation is well proven by the existence of the border-
related regional development concepts and strategies. Among the Hungarian
documents there are direct references to this aspect e.g. in the South Great Hun-
garian Plain Regional Development Strategy, Csongrád County Regional Devel-
opment Strategy15 as well as from the Serbian side in the Serbian Land Use Plan16
and the Voivodina Economic Development Concept17. The Upper-Bácska and
North-Voivodina Co-operation Program as well as the DKMT Euro region Devel-
15 MTA RKK ATI (Great Plain Research Institute of the Center of Regional Studies of the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences) Békéscsaba Group, 2000.
16 Prostorni Plan Srbije, 1996.
17 GTZ, 2003.
42
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
opment Strategy18 are made possible with the participation of both states’ experts.
All documents underline the importance of co-operation, emphasizing the signifi-
cance of traditional economic sectors’ (food processing industry, seed grain pro-
duction and trade) and the new EU forms and opportunities for co-operation
(industrial parks, establishment of incubator houses).
The success of co-operation is also acknowledged in the 80 PHARE CBC –
where participants with small projects signed in. There were nearly 450 applicants
for the 2005 Neighbourhood Program applications (INTERREG III A – CARDS19).
In spite of the relatively small amount (2 million EURO) available, the great re-
sponsiveness of applicants proves the viability of these renewed connections (eco-
nomic, chamber, self government, and research institutes related fields).
5 How does Hungary’s EU membership influence its
relationship with neighbouring countries?
5.1 Hungarian–Romanian relations
From 1 May 2004, Hungary became member of the European Union and thus the
only neighbour of Romania with communitarian status. This chapter discusses how
Hungary’s accession to the EU affects relations between the two countries.
Bilateral relations have always evolved against the backdrop of disputes con-
cerning the situation of the large Hungarian minority in Romania. However, Hun-
gary’s recent EU membership sets the traditional topics of this debate in a broader
European context and raises new challenges. This study argues that Hungary’s
accession in the EU did impact the relationships between the two countries. Since 1
May 2004, the two post-communist countries addressed mutual problems not only
from a strict neighbourhood perspective but mostly in the light of Hungary’s al-
ready EU membership and Romania’s candidacy respectively.
Our main argument is that the status differentiation (EU member vs. EU candi-
date) had a maturing effect on bilateral relations, in the sense that issues of com-
mon interest were approached with a higher degree of responsibility and European
awareness. This status differentiation contributed at leaving behind past tensions
and opening up new channels of dialogue and co-operation. At the same time, Ro-
mania could indirectly experience the immediate effects of the EU accession and
acknowledge various changes that European integration brings about.
18 MTA RKK ATI Békéscsaba Group, 2005.
19 CARDS-program – Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilization – It
is related to Albania and the Yugoslav successor states.
43
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
5.1.1 Political developments: leaving behind conflicts of the past, focusing
on future challenges
Even though Romania and Hungary have both engaged in efforts towards Euro-
pean integration in the past 15 years, the different perceptions of the status of the
Hungarian minority living in the north-west part of Romania (Transylvania) gener-
ated sometimes critical moments in the bilateral relations.
Soon after 1 May 2004, relations between the two countries witnessed a critical
moment: Hungarian officials proposed that regional autonomy for Hungarians in
Transylvania should become a pre-condition for Romania’s accession to the EU.
Without having any direct impact on the rapports of Romania with the EU, the
statement made a few eyebrows raise in Bucharest. Regional autonomy counts as
the highest grievance of the Democratic Union of Hungarians from Romania
(DUHR). Even though enlarged minority rights have been conceded in the last 15
years, successor Romanian governments failed to confer regional autonomy proper
to Hungarians in Transylvania. In the light of this state of affairs, Romanian politi-
cal class qualified Hungary’s usage of authority derived from the EU membership
as a tactless interference in the internal affairs of an EU-candidate with a large
Hungarian minority. Moreover, the declaration did not match the external policy
line promoted by the European Union itself. As the Commissioner for Enlargement
Olli Rehn repeatedly stated, to confer or not regional autonomy is a matter of do-
mestic politics, to be solved internally by each member or candidate country
(www.divers.ro, no. 40 (186) 4 November 2004, 26 (218)/7 July 2005; http://www.
hatc.hu/editorspicks.php, www.bbc.co.uk/romanian ).
Further burden has been put on bilateral relations in autumn 2004, when a refer-
endum was called in Hungary on dual citizenship for Hungarians outside Hun-
gary’s borders. The referendum held in December and soon after the Romanian
general elections, provided ground for heated discussions both in Hungary and in
Romania. The referendum was declared invalid due to low turnout. It nevertheless
revealed a complicated anatomy of relationship between the two countries, in con-
nection with the grievances and envisaged migration trends of Hungarians from
Transylvania. As its representative, DUHR officially voiced the will of the Hun-
garian minority to enjoy double citizenship, thus having unrestricted access to the
space and market of the European Union. On the other hand, as a major actor of
Romanian domestic politics, DUHR is nevertheless aware that by supporting the
dual citizenship it may jeopardize its own interests in the long run: if dual citizen-
ship is enforced, a high number of Hungarians from Transylvania could relocate to
Hungary/EU, therefore the electoral basin of DUHR could be seriously affected
and the political stakes of the European Union endangered.
While it still remains an open question, there is however reason to hope that de-
spite these temporary setbacks, with the change of prime minister in Hungary and a
44
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
newly elected government in Romania relations will by and large continue to
evolve in a positive, friendly manner. In early 2005, the recently appointed Hun-
garian prime minister stated in the course of bilateral talks held in Budapest that
Romanian internal issues such as “regional autonomy” are to be exclusively ad-
dressed by DUHR, the official representative of Hungarian rights in Romania. In
the course of several bilateral meetings held in 2005, both Hungarian and Roma-
nian prime ministers called for European “compromise solutions” to matters of
mutual interest and stated that both countries should primarily focus on a common
future and leave the cumbersome legacy of the past behind.
5.1.2 Migration trends in Hungary and Romania after 1 May 2004
As its living standards have been approaching the Western ones, Hungary became
an attractive target for work and residence. Moreover, the country is considered to
be a “tampon zone”, an interface between the rich West and poor East. The Hun-
garian minority from Transylvania is the main pole of migrants from Romania to
Hungary.
In this regard, Endre Sik, director of the International Centre for Research on
Migration and Refugees argues that “with the exception of ethnic Hungarians from
neighbouring countries, almost no one else speaks Hungarian and this is a sort of
natural system of defence against economic migration” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/
romanian/news/story/2005/05/050530_trailer_arena_dunare.shtml). The presence
of Hungarian minority in general and the Hungarian minority from Romania in
particular, in the overall migration towards Hungary is quite obvious if we consider
the data disclosed by the Office of Immigration and Nationality of the Hungarian
Ministry of Interior in respect to 2003. The number of foreigners having immigra-
tion permit to Hungary by 31 December 2003 was nearly 100 000. Nearly 60% of
these permits (exactly 57 847) was issued to Romanian citizens (Király, András).
Mr. Zoltán Egyed, director of the Immigration Office of the Ministry for Domestic
Affairs argues that 48 000 applications for residence visas were handed in only in
2004. Three quarters of these applications were also in connection to getting a
work permit (BBC Romanian, http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/news/ story/
2005/05/-050530_trailer_arena_dunare.shtml).
As EU member, Hungary became in 2004 gateways to the world’s largest eco-
nomic market and the rise in illegal migration on its eastern border was inevitable.
For this reason, the European Union had thought reasonable to introduce careful
and strict regimes for entering its territory to filter out ‘unwanted guests’ already
from November 2003. Thus, as a preliminary step towards its integration in the EU
in May 2004, Hungary adopted the Schengen border regulations in regard to Ro-
manian citizens. Before this date, Romanian citizens could renew every month
45
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
their staying in Hungary, fact which led to an exodus of Romanians seeking work
and residence abroad, often through illegal means. Since November 2003, Roma-
nian citizens are allowed to spend without a visa 90 days in 6 months on the terri-
tory of Hungary.
Given the large Hungarian minority from Romania, the adoption of the EU bor-
der regulations created new challenges to be met. How could Hungary comply with
the strict EU regulations concerning access to the EU territory and simultaneously
follow its own priorities regarding the flux of Hungarians in and out of Hungary?
(Király, András) Hungarian minorities from abroad regard Hungary as their kin-
state and are in favour of enjoying more subsequent privileges. On the other hand,
as an EU member, Hungary has to enforce strict border regulations against illegal
migration, which can often conflict with its identity-preserving policies towards
Hungarians abroad.
The effects of enforcing the EU border regulations could be experienced with-
out delay. The provisions mainly aimed at cutting down the number of illegal im-
migrants to Hungary and other EU countries by initiating more thorough control of
passengers at the border, closer examination of the valid visas, a better tracking
down system at the Romanian–Hungarian border control points. In fact, once Ro-
mania would reach full EU membership, it will become itself a “tampon zone”
between the farther east and the west of the continent and will have to deal with the
same frontier issues as Hungary at present (Juhász, 2003). On the other hand,
these regulations made it harder for Hungarians outside Hungary to keep
contacts with relatives and friends inside Hungary, as the number and dura-
tion of visits became more limited. In the long run, the newly enforced
measures could entail some psychological effects of those ethnic Hungarians
who feel that the door of access is being closed in their face.
Consequently, Hungary made attempts to further shape its migration policy
along the lines of EU requirements as an international obligation but at the same
time not to destroy the network of manifold relations with Hungarians living out-
side its borders. For instance, in order to counterbalance the failure of the referen-
dum on double citizenship, the Hungarian state introduced, effective from March
2005, “national visas” for citizens from neighbouring countries, i.e. multiple entry
visas for a period of 5 years. These visas are intended to help preserve the identity
of ethnic Hungarians beyond the borders without however, automatically conced-
ing to them the right to work in Hungary (BBC Romanian, 06 January, 2005 –
Published 16:46 GMT).
46
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
5.1.3 Enlarged regional co-operation within an European framework
Intensified programs of regional co-operation and border management have been
already envisaged by Hungary and Romania in accordance with general European
policies. As previously argued, Hungary acts as a “buffer country” between the EU
space and the non-EU countries. Its border with Romania became external frontier
of the European Union and serves as a filter to prevent illegal immigration into the
EU.
Romania’s own capacity to ensure efficient border management is a key area of
concern for the European Union, as the country aims at full membership in the bloc
on 1 January 2007. When Romania joins the EU it will manage more than 1500 km
of the enlarged Union’s external border and Brussels has interest in making sure
that Romania could fulfil this role. “It should be able to prevent the illegal trade in
goods and people, without erecting a new iron curtain between the EU and the
countries which will be left outside the enlarged Union”, explains Jonathan
Scheele, the European Commission’s chief negotiator in Bucharest (Story from
BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/4110754.stm, Pub-
lished: 2005/06/21, 15:35:19 GMT).
In addition to being able to act as a filter against illegal migrants and products
from countries such as Moldova and Ukraine towards the EU, Romania has also
the duty to make sure that its own citizens do not abuse the right to free circulation
within the Schengen space. In 2004, the border police managed to stop more than
1.5 million Romanians from travelling to the EU, but the filter is not perfect. One
of the reasons is corruption among some border police, who is ready to accept
money in return for turning a blind eye to irregularities in the travel papers of
fellow Romanians.
The Romanian border police chief argues that this is a “particular concern” on
Romania’s western border with Hungary, now EU member. Such an incident
caused by corruption and mere incompetence took place in March 2005, when
several coaches with more than 200 Romanian citizens on board were refused entry
to Spain, motivated by lack of valid travel documents. The Arad Border Police was
found guilty, as it failed to check that passengers have valid passports, hotel book-
ings, return tickets and enough money for their journey. “Everybody is allowed to
make a mistake once”, said European Commission’s chief negotiator in Bucharest.
“But it shouldn’t happen again, because it would undermine confidence in Roma-
nia’s ability to control its border with Hungary, hence with the EU”. Should Ro-
mania not register considerable progress at the chapter of frontier security, its EU
entry could be delayed with one year till 2008.
However, progress has gradually been made and common strategies of border
management as well as various projects of cross-border co-operation between Hun-
gary and Romania have been launched. According to the Trans-Border Co-
47
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
operation Program 2004, signed on 8 April 2005, the CBC program Romania-
Hungary has a budget amounting to some 5 million EUR from PHARE funds and
some 1.58 million EUR from Romania’s budget. The CBC programs incorporate
Romania’s western and Hungary’s eastern parts. The funds are mainly being
allocated for projects of infrastructure development between Romania and
Hungary, promotion of tourism and environmental protection.
Co-operation with Hungary in the environment field is now very efficient, and
the bilateral relations are developing at a fast pace, Hungary's Minister of Envi-
ronment and Water Miklos Persanyi said. “Environment protection has no bounda-
ries. No country can have a clean environment, unless its neighbour is concerned
with the same aspect. We depend on each other,” the Minister added (Mediafax,
http://www.roinfocentre.be/media_news_358.asp). Moreover, according to Mag-
dolna Kalapati, Head of the South Great plain Regional Office of the National
Agency for Regional Development in Hungary, 18 economic development and
infrastructure projects will be financed within the framework of the PHARE CBC
program (Bucharest Daily News, http://www.roinfocentre.be/ media_ news_
224.asp) in the near future.
Broader forms of future co-operation between the two countries are directly fa-
cilitated by the infrastructure projects carried out in the western part of Romania.
Building at least one motorway that could link Romania to the major European
traffic corridors is first priority for the country, given its speculated accession date
to the EU in 2007. However, it has been a much disputed and politicized topic as to
which route the motorway should cover and how should its building be financed.
In the late ‘90s, on the occasion of the European Conference for setting the Pan-
European transport corridors, Romania took the responsibility to build up the
fourth Pan-European corridor, cutting its way from Romania’s western to the east-
ern border: Arad – Timisoara – Sibiu – Rimnicu-Vilcea – Pitesti – Bucuresti –
Constanta (Figure 16–17). The project is to be financed from European structural
funds, disposed through the European Investment Bank. Its works have actually
started and some financing channels have been already activated. However, the
Nastase government (2000–2004) decided to initiate works for a new motorway,
cutting through the middle of Transylvania, from Brasov to Bors, at the expense of
continuing works for the “IV Pan-European corridor”.
This other motorway has a much better coverage of the region inhabited by
Hungarians, hence its emphasis on the political agenda of the Democratic Union of
Hungarians from Romania (DUHR). The motorway construction works were
commissioned to the American company “Bechtel”. Two main objections were
voiced in connection with this contract: apparently the project was commissioned
to Bechtel in the absence of a public tender, and at odds with the interest of some
European bidders; secondly, all construction costs are deducted from the state
budget, which poses additional burdens on the Romanian tax-payers.
48
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Figure 16
European transport corridors and the concession made to Romania:
how the IV European corridor intersects Romania
Source: http://www.mt.ro/traceca/romana/rom_proiecte_propuse_romania.htm.
49
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Figure 17
The Corridor IV (red line) and the Bors–Brasov variant (green line)
Base map: http://www.aboutromania.com/maps88.html.
The “Bechtel highway” was a constant topic of dispute in the electoral campaign of
2004. After the new government PNL-PD came into power, works have been
stopped in the first months of 2005 and only 213 million EUR (instead of 500
million EUR) construction costs have been allocated from the state budget for 2005
(http://stiri.acasa.ro, 30 May 2005, 09:59 am, “Doua variante pentru legatura cu
Occidentul”).
The incumbent government has clear-set objectives: “If Romania wants to pose
in a serious country and the current government in a credible institution, then we
need to respect certain European engagements” stated prime-minister Tariceanu
(http://www.expres.ro, 11 July 2005, “Autostrada se muta de la Cluj la Sibiu”). At
present, the works at the “IV European corridor” are given priority but the building
up of the Bechtel highway will also continue, even though at a slower pace.
50
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
To choose the routing of the motorway linking Romania to Europe is in fact a
political decision. The topic stirred some debates within the current governing coa-
lition. DUHR is unmistakably in favour of the “Bechtel” project, as developing the
road system in the middle part of Transylvania, where most Hungarians live, is a
necessity. Such a motorway would directly link Hungarian communities from there
to Hungary and to EU further. Regional advantages are significant: it would be a
clear incentive for Hungarian investors to start up new trades, relocate and inten-
sify already existing businesses in the western part of Romania, inhabited by their
co-ethnics.
On the other hand, building up the motorway along the “IV European corridor”
has its own advantages. The connection with European traffic corridors and inter-
national economic exchanges is anyway made through Hungary. Additionally, it
seems that Hungary itself has plans to build a motorway up to Szeged – Nadlac,
giving priority to the European corridor as well (www.cotidianul.ro, 29 May 2005).
It follows from here that this route would connect not only the west of Romania
with Hungary/EU but also the country’s south-eastern regions. It therefore provides
stronger incentives for a larger category of European investors, interested in setting
the foot in Romania, anywhere from Transylvania to the Black Sea. In other words,
building the motorway in accordance with the IV corridor would enhance the eco-
nomic attractiveness of Romanian regions both at a regional and wider European
scale.
5.1.4 Economic consequences of Hungary’s accession to the EU for Romania
Hungary’s integration in the EU created important economic opportunities and
incentives for attracting FDI but also highlighted certain difficulties and threats
having mainly to do with the implementation of common European market poli-
cies.
Overall, it can be argued that Hungary’s accession to the EU and Romania’s
prospects to membership from 2007 respectively had a positive impact on eco-
nomic relations. Although spectacular results cannot be visible in two years, Hun-
garian investments became slightly more dynamic and more diverse. The already
existing investments underwent a process of consolidation while new investments
have been more oriented towards sectors such as: banking, telecoms and IT. In
addition, Romanian companies showed increased interest to receive information,
experience and expertise from their Hungarian counterparts, already familiar with
the EU market.
An analysis regarding the regional distribution of foreign investments in Roma-
nia in the last 14 years shows that Hungarian investments had mainly been focused
in the north-west and central part of the country, inhabited by Hungarians. The
51
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
Hungarian company MOL has been reported as the biggest investor in the area,
with some 104 million dollars invested in the purchase of the petrol distribution
company in Cluj/Kolozsvár (http://webzter.ro/resurse_investitii_straine_ prezen-
tare_zonala.php). At the end of November 2004, the export of Hungarian capital to
Romania summed to 345, 08 million dollars (the real value of investments
amounted to 720–740 million dollars) through some 4.948 Hungarian functional
companies. At the same time, it is worth mentioning the presence of Romanian
capital in Hungary, summing up 50–55 million dollars through some 6 010 compa-
nies with Romanian capital. The largest Romanian investor is SN Petrom, with a
social capital of 17 million dollars (www.cotidianul.ro, 23 January 2005).
After 2004, when Hungary entered the EU, an increasing number of European
companies which used to have their production plants in Hungary started thinking
about ‘délocalisation’, that is shifting factories and jobs to the lower-wage econo-
mies of the non-EU members, such as Romania (“European Union Enlargement”,
April 28th 2005/ From “The Economist” print edition). Another reason for which
Western companies invest eastwards is the access to the local market. “Romania
with its 23 million inhabitants and with wage costs under 1 dollar per hour is a very
attractive target. Moreover, unlike its neighbours, such as Ukraine, the implement-
ing of the pre-accession strategy to the EU considerably reduced the political
risks”, it is argued in the study.
The increasing presence of FDI (Hungarian investments, too) in Romania is di-
rectly related to the low wage costs in the country. The Economist Intelligence Unit
shows in a study that wages in Romania are the lowest in the region (BBC Roma-
nian, 30 November 2004, published 16:37 GMT). For instance, in the course of
2004, Romanian companies spent on average 0,95 dollars for one hour of work of
an employee whereas 7,71 dollars were spent in Slovenia and 4,37 dollars in Hun-
gary. Even though this affects the purchasing power of Romanians, it can also
bring economic advantages to the country, the study shows.
Hungarian companies such as OTP, MOL and Gideon Richter had massively
invested in Romania. For instance, OTP, Hungary’s flagship bank was rated in
2004 as the 6th largest investor in Romania (with a social capital of 48 million
EUR) following the purchase of the bank RoBank. In autumn 2005, , OTP has filed
its bid for buying Romanian savings bank CEC, which could be of key importance
for fulfilling its goals in Romania. MOL is now the owner of Shell (a carburant
distribution network operating mainly in Bucharest and in Central-Western Roma-
nia), whereas Gideon Richter invested in a large research and development center
in Tirgu Mures, in Transylvania. “Broader urban investments amounting to 1.2
billion USD are expected to be achieved through the construction of urban and
commercial centres in the areas around Bucharest and Cluj in the next few years, as
well as the enlargement of the RoBank network and investments in telecommuni-
52
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
cations”, stated János Halasz, director of the Romanian-Hungarian section of the
trade development agency ITDH, (www.cotidianul.ro, 23 January 2005).
Romania’s upcoming EU entry is a sound explanation why an increasing num-
ber of Hungarian businesses expand to Romania. The number of inquiries to the
ITDH regarding investment opportunities in Romania went up by 80% last year
(Világgazdaság, pp.1&2; Hungary Around the Clock, http://www.hatc.hu/ editor-
spicks.php, 14 July 2005). Hungary is rated as the seventh largest investor in
Romania, with over 5,100 companies in the country, of which 674 were registered
last year alone. Hungarian businesses are most active in food processing, software
development and auto spare parts. (http://www.hatc.hu/editorspicks.php). Hungar-
ian companies are setting foot in the Romanian market by acquisitions and/or by
setting up new subsidiaries in a bid to expand regionally, Halasz explained. This
signals that many SMEs are financially sound enough to make the jump, he noted.
Moreover, as already benefiting from EU development programs and financing
schemes, a series of Hungarian SMEs have been involved in expertise and training
programs for their Romanian homologues, in order to facilitate their integration in
the European market (http://www.hatc.hu/ editorspicks.php).
After 1 May 2004, the price of basic products, especially sugar and oil, doubled
in Hungary in line with the provisions of the common European market. This led to
a massive import of sugar from the western part of Romania to Hungary. The im-
ports determined Hungarian sugar producers to file complaints to the Hungarian
Finance minister in Budapest asking for a solution to be worked out against this
market disequilibrium (BBC Romanian, 14 July 2004 – Published 11:02 GMT).
In exchange, following the same provisions of the common market, the wheat
overproduction registered in 2004 in the new member countries of the EU (Hun-
gary, Czech Republic, Poland) could pose a serious threat to the Romanian existing
stock, considered to be the most expensive in Europe – the president of the Roma-
nian National Association of Flour Milling and Baking Industries argues that while
a tonne of wheat produced in the EU costs around 100 EUR, Romanian wheat is
sold with 20–30 EUR more per tonne (http://www.expres.ro/afaceri/?news_id=
182664, 29 March 2005). In order to avoid a market collapse, the EU had to inter-
vene by purchasing and transporting large quantities of cereals resulted from the
wheat overproduction registered in Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic in 2004.
It is said that at the beginning of 2005 the European Union had the largest
stocks of cereals in the last ten years (http://www.expres.ro/afaceri/?news_id=
182664,29 March 2005). Unlike in the EU countries where mechanisms of inter-
vention in cases of overproduction are enforced and made use of, the non-EU
countries face a high risk of massive imports of cereals at a very low price.
There is reason to believe that although Romania signed an agreement with the
EU based on which only 124.000 tonnes of wheat could be imported without cus-
toms tax in 2005, the actual imports could be even higher, due to cheaper, tax-in-
53
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
clusive prices (http://www.expres.ro/afaceri/?news_id=182664, 29 March 2005).
At any rate, starting with 2007 – the envisaged date for Romania’s accession to the
EU- Romanian producers will not enjoy any state support or subsidies in connec-
tion with the cereal production. Thus, they will have to enter in direct competition
with other cereal producers from the EU member countries.
However, the effects of Hungary’s accession to the EU were visible at the daily
level too. Lower prices in Romania provided an incentive for Hungarian citizens to
cross the border on a weekly basis seeking cheaper food, clothing and household
products. As a result, so-called “border supermarkets” have mushroomed after
Hungary’s accession. It was reported that the number of Hungarian citizens cross-
ing the eastern border with Romania doubled since 1 May 2004 (www.capital.ro, 7
April 2005).
5.2 Hungarian–Serbian relations
Hungary’s new status – as an EU member – exerts particular influence on
Voivodina region (inhabited by Hungarian minority), but impacts less on Central-
Serbia. The unsuccessful referendum on dual citizenship for Hungarian minorities
posed additional burden on bilateral relations. Relations with the home country
became colder and a certain lethargy from minority’s side could be felt.
The obligatory visa –system introduced in 2004 (after Hungary’s accession to
the EU) inhibited mobility. On the other hand, the Hungarian Embassy in Beograd
or in Subotica grants for free one-year visas to Hungarians willing to travel to the
home country. CMH Offices (Concordia Minoratis Hungaricae) make available the
so-called “Hungarian identity card” for the members of the Hungarian minority,
with the purpose of facilitating the visa procedures.
After 2004, mobility trends have not significantly changed. The nature and in-
tensity of legal and illegal migration from Voivodina stayed the same as before.
Nevertheless, one could notice a slight increase in the transit-commuting activities
from Austria to Serbia via Hungary.
During the last years there have not been visible signs of enhanced economic
co-operation. This is mainly due to the fact that Hungarian entrepreneurs have no
motivation to invest in Central-Serbia or Voivodina.
Despite these negative tendencies, the emigration or guest working from Ser-
bia/Voivodina to Hungary has not radically increased either. Some experts argue
that a few emigrants who flew the country in the course of social changes in the
’90s consider coming back to Voivodina.
Finally, stagnation and tense atmosphere characterizes the Hungarian-Serbian
relationship, and there is no real hope to improve it in the near future.
54
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
6 Conclusion
Hungary’s accession to the European Union created a novel situation. Hungary’s
borders currently stand for EU’s external borders. Indeed, a “thicker line” has been
drawn between Hungary and its non-EU neighbours. This state of affairs affects
Romania only temporarily but it will impact on Serbia-Montenegro for a longer
period of time.
This research aims to highlight older and recent aspects that the EU integration
process entails at national and regional levels. Such an approach provides us with
the opportunity to reflect upon the manner in which Hungary’s EU membership
altered its neighbourhood policy towards Romania and Serbia-Montenegro. In our
attempt to present the multi-facetted integration process in the most possible ob-
jective way, we sought to adopt a genuine research method: experts living on both
sides of the borders have permanently shared their knowledge and have exchanged
their views in respect to the integration matters under scrutiny.
The study consists of three main parts:
− the economic and social differences among the three countries both at the na-
tional level and within border regions after 1990;
− political, social and economic relations prior to Hungary’s accession to the
EU;
− the influence of Hungary’s EU membership on the relationship with
neighbouring countries after 2004.
Bilateral relations between Hungary and Romania form the cornerstone of sta-
bility in Eastern Europe. The relationship between the two countries suffers from a
painful past, mainly due to the partly unresolved situation of the Hungarian minor-
ity. The difficulties arising from the transition to a market economy as well as the
significant economic differences posed additional burden on the initiation of co-
operation forms. The unfolding of cross-border co-operation has been hindered by
the fact that the Hungarian regions in the vicinity of Romania are economically less
developed and have been particularly affected by the transitional changes. Ac-
cording to our researches the Romanian–Hungarian economic relations became
more enhanced, although disparity still remains a main feature.
Relations between Serbia-Montenegro and Hungary were not deeply influenced
by minority conflicts (at least not after World War II). However, the Yugoslav war
put an end to what had been a more or less peaceful relationship. Tensions have
been sparked off in the beginning by the influx of Yugoslav (as well as Hungarian
minority) refugees and later by drastic altering in the social and economic situation
in Voivodina (where Hungarians primarily live). This has been mainly due to the
massive Serbian immigration. The new conflicts cast the shadow on current Hun-
garian-Serbian co-operation as well. In order to visibly improve its relationship
55
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
with Hungary (and any other neighbour), Serbia-Montenegro must first undergo a
deep, long-run consolidation process both at the political and economical levels.
The main conclusion of our study is that as a member of the EU, Hungary
brings about new challenges in the region. Most importantly, it has the capacity to
strengthen neighbourhood relations as well as to open up new channels of regional
co-operation and development. Hungary enjoys nowadays the status of being a full
EU member, with all its subsidiary duties, rights and responsibilities. On the other
hand, it brings about a clear political division (EU vs. non-EU states) that can af-
fect bilateral relations and make old tensions rise again.
Through Hungary, the EU became the watchdog in the region, formulating clear
recommendations in regard to the security of the EU external borders, illegal mi-
gration, economic policies, environmental protection, etc.
Given its envisaged accession to the EU in 2007, it can be argued that Romania
needs to cope with these exigencies in a more dramatic, ultimate-like way in com-
parison with Serbia-Montenegro. Once the Romanian Eastern border will become
the EU external border, Hungary’s solutions to the problems of “national minorities
beyond EU borders” could serve as example to Romania when similar issues will
arise in regard to Romanians from the Republic of Moldova.
Hungary currently stands for a country with a dynamic market economy, being
itself an attractive potential investor in the neighbouring countries. It has become a
country in possession of the status, the experience and the practical knowledge
necessary to expand its investments regionally. The existence of large Hungarian
minorities in the border regions of both Romania and Serbia presents a clear incen-
tive for Hungarian investors to set up or relocate business there. There is hope that
a higher infusion of Hungarian investments could constitute a basic ingredient of
the “development recipe” prescribed by the EU. In exchange, it is likely that the
presence of Hungarian capital in these Hungarian-inhabited areas would contribute
to inhibiting nationalistic sensitivities, stirred up by the political “EU-non EU
member” divisions.
Researchers’ recommendations to the European Union:
− The enlarged EU borders should not affect the former bilateral connections.
− The EU has to pay particularly more attention to the national minorities liv-
ing near the “new” borders. General and more specific (even case- to- case)
policies in respect to cross-border forms of living and co-operation would be
welcome.
− It is perfectly reasonable that the EU enforces advantageous relations with
the countries benefiting from the next accession wave (Romania, Bulgaria).
At the same time, the EU may show a bit more concern with the dramatic
problems hampering Serbia-Montenegro, as in return, its collapse would by
and large threaten the European Union.
56
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
References
BALCSÓK, ISTVÁN 2003: A diplomásoktól a napszámosokig – külföldiek a „keleti végek”
munkaerıpiacán. In: SÜLI-ZAKAR, ISTVÁN (ed.): Határok és határmentiség az átalakuló
Közép-Európában [Borders in the transforming Central Europe]. Nemzetközi
tudományos konferencia, 2002. szeptember 30. – október 1. Debrecen, DE Kossuth
Kiadó. 160–167. p.
ENYEDI, GYÖRGY – HORVÁTH, GYULA (ed.) 2002: Táj, település, régió [Land, settlement,
region]. Budapest, MTA Társadalomkutató Központ – Kossuth Kiadó. (Magyar
Tudománytár 2).
ESPON (2004a): Terms of Reference, Project 3.4.1. Europe in the World. Version 29 July
2004.
ESPON (2004b): Answer to the Tender ESPON 3.4.1. Draft version 2.6. 12 September
2004.
ITU:
World
Telecommunications
Development
Report.
http://www.itu.int/ITU-
D/ict/publications/
JUHÁSZ,
JUDIT
2003:
Hungary:
Transit
Country
Between
East
and
West
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?id=181
KIRÁLY, ANDRÁS: Migration problems and minority rights in Europe. Government Office
for
Hungarian
Minorities
Abroad
http://www.goethe.de/ms/buk/archiv/-
material/Migration/KiralyTheHungarianapproachFinal.doc).
KSH 2003: Külkereskedelmi termékforgalom, 2002 (Foreign trade, 2002). Budapest.
http://www.ksh.hu
KSH 2005: A nemzetközi idegenforgalom és a turisztikai kereslet jellemzıi 2004 (Tourism
statistics]. KSH Szolgáltatásstatisztikai fıosztály Közlekedés- és Idegenforgalom-
statisztika osztálya, Budapest. 29 p. http://www.ksh.hu.
LENGYEL, IMRE (2003): Verseny és területi fejlıdés [Competition and regional
development]. JATEPress, Szeged.
Magyar Nemzeti Bank (2003): Foreign Direct Investment Hungary, 1995–2003. 100 p.
www.mnb.hu
Oktatási Minisztérium (2005): Statisztikai tájékoztató – Felsıoktatás 2003/2004. Budapest.
311 p. www.om.hu
Republic Statistical Office of Serbia (2002): Socio-Economic Trends. Belgrade.
http://webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu
SEJ, GÁBOR LEÓ 2004: A magyar tıkebefektetések regionális egyenlıtlenségei Romániában
[Regional inequalities of the Hungarian capital investments in Romania]. In: Regionális
Értékelı és Kvantitatív Analízisek 2. Budapest, ELTE Regionális Földrajzi Tanszék,
Budapest. 41–77. p.
Transition report 2004. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, London, UK.
Trends in Europe and North America – 2003, UN Economic Commission for Europe
UNDP (2005): Human Development Report Serbia 2005. The Strength of Diversity.
Belgrade.
World Bank 2005: World Development Indicators 2005. http://devdata.worldbank.org/data-
query/
57
Barta, Györgyi : Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2006. 58. p.
Discussion Papers, No. 54.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/4110754.stm
http://stiri.acasa.ro
http://webzter.ro/resurse_investitii_straine_prezentare_zonala.php
http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/news/story/2005/05/050530_trailer_arena_dunare.shtml
http://www.capital.ro
http://www.cotidianul.ro
http://www.divers.ro
http://www.expres.ro
http://www.hatc.hu/editorspicks.php
http://www.mt.ro/traceca/romana/rom_proiecte_propuse_romania.htm
http://www.roinfocentre.be
58
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 54.
Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
The Discussion Papers series of the Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences was launched in 1986 to publish summaries of research findings on
regional and urban development.
The series has 5 or 6 issues a year. It will be of interest to geographers, economists, so-
ciologists, experts of law and political sciences, historians and everybody else who is, in
one way or another, engaged in the research of spatial aspects of socio-economic develop-
ment and planning.
The series is published by the Centre for Regional Studies.
Individual copies are available on request at the Centre.
Postal address
Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
P.O. Box 199, 7601 PÉCS, HUNGARY
Phone: (36–72) 523 800
Fax: (36–72) 523 803
www.dti.rkk.hu
www.rkk.hu
Director general
Gyula HORVÁTH
Editor
Zoltán GÁL
galz@.rkk.hu
59
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 54.
Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
Papers published in the Discussion Papers series
Discussion Papers /Specials
BENKİNÉ LODNER, Dorottya (ed.) (1988): Environmental Control and Policy: Pro-
ceedings of the Hungarian–Polish Seminar in the Theoretical Problems of Envi-
ronmental Control and Policy
OROSZ, Éva (ed.) (1988): Spatial Organisation and Regional Development Papers of the
6th Polish–Hungarian geographical Seminar
DURÓ, Annamária (ed.) (1993): Spatial Research and the Social–Political Changes: Papers
of the 7th Polish–Hungarian Seminar
DURÓ, Annamária (ed.) (1999): Spatial Research in Support of the European Integration.
Proceedings of the 11th Polish–Hungarian Geographical Seminar (Mátraháza,
Hungary 17–22 September, 1998)
GÁL, Zoltán (ed.) (2001): Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union
HORVÁTH, Gyula (ed.) (2002): Regional Challenges of the Transition in Bulgaria and
Hungary
KOVÁCS, András Donát (ed.) (2004): New Aspects of Regional Transformation and the
Urban-Rural Relationship
BARANYI, Béla (ed.) (2005): Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian border
regions as areas of co-operation along the external borders of Europe
Discussion Papers
No. 1
OROSZ, Éva (1986): Critical Issues in the Development of Hungarian Public
Health with Special Regard to Spatial Differences
No. 2
ENYEDI, György – ZENTAI, Viola (1986): Environmental Policy in Hungary
No. 3
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1987): Administrative Division and Administrative Geography
in Hungary
No. 4
SIKOS T., Tamás (1987): Investigations of Social Infrastructure in Rural Settle-
ments of Borsod County
No. 5
HORVÁTH, Gyula (1987): Development of the Regional Management of the
Economy in East-Central Europe
No. 6
PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, Ilona (1988): Chance of Local Independence in Hungary
No. 7
FARAGÓ, László – HRUBI, László (1988): Development Possibilities of Back-
ward Areas in Hungary
No. 8
SZÖRÉNYINÉ KUKORELLI, Irén (1990): Role of the Accessibility in De-
velopment and Functioning of Settlements
No. 9
ENYEDI, György (1990): New Basis for Regional and Urban Policies in East-
Central Europe
60
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 54.
Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
No. 10
RECHNITZER, János (1990): Regional Spread of Computer Technology in
Hungary
No. 11
SIKOS T., Tamás (1992): Types of Social Infrastructure in Hungary (to be not
published)
No. 12
HORVÁTH, Gyula – HRUBI, László (1992): Restructuring and Regional Policy
in Hungary
No. 13
ERDİSI, Ferenc (1992): Transportation Effects on Spatial Structure of Hungary
No. 14
PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, Ilona (1992): The Basic Political and Structural Problems in
the Workings of Local Governments in Hungary
No. 15
PFEIL, Edit (1992): Local Governments and System Change. The Case of a Re-
gional Centre
No. 16
HORVÁTH, Gyula (1992): Culture and Urban Development (The Case of Pécs)
No. 17
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1993): Settlement Network Development Policy in Hungary in
the Period of State Socialism (1949–1985)
No. 18
KOVÁCS, Teréz (1993): Borderland Situation as It Is Seen by a Sociologist
No. 19
HRUBI, L. – KRAFTNÉ SOMOGYI, Gabriella (eds.) (1994): Small and me-
dium-sized firms and the role of private industry in Hungary
No. 20
BENKİNÉ Lodner, Dorottya (1995): The Legal-Administrative Questions of
Environmental Protection in the Republic of Hungary
No. 21
ENYEDI, György (1998): Transformation in Central European Postsocialist Cit-
ies
No. 22
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1998): Changes in the Politico-Geographical Position of Hun-
gary in the 20th Century
No. 23
HORVÁTH, Gyula (1998): Regional and Cohesion Policy in Hungary
No. 24
BUDAY-SÁNTHA, Attila (1998): Sustainable Agricultural Development in the
Region of the Lake Balaton
No. 25
LADOS, Mihály (1998): Future Perspective for Local Government Finance in
Hungary
No. 26
NAGY, Erika (1999): Fall and Revival of City Centre Retailing: Planning an
Urban Function in Leicester, Britain
No. 27
BELUSZKY, Pál (1999): The Hungarian Urban Network at the End of the Sec-
ond Millennium
No. 28
RÁCZ, Lajos (1999): Climate History of Hungary Since the 16th Century: Past,
Present and Future
No. 29
RAVE, Simone (1999): Regional Development in Hungary and Its Preparation
for the Structural Funds
No. 30
BARTA, Györgyi (1999): Industrial Restructuring in the Budapest Agglomera-
tion
No. 31
BARANYI, Béla–BALCSÓK, István–DANCS, László–MEZİ, Barna (1999):
Borderland Situation and Peripherality in the North-Eastern Part of the Great
Hungarian Plain
No. 32
RECHNITZER, János (2000): The Features of the Transition of Hungary’s Re-
gional System
61
Discussion Papers 2006. No. 54.
Hungary – the New Border of the European Union
No. 33
MURÁNYI, István–PÉTER, Judit–SZARVÁK, Tibor–SZOBOSZLAI, Zsolt
(2000): Civil Organisations and Regional Identity in the South Hungarian Great
Plain
No. 34
KOVÁCS, Teréz (2001): Rural Development in Hungary
No. 35
PÁLNÉ, Kovács Ilona (2001): Regional Development and Governance in Hun-
gary
No. 36
NAGY, Imre (2001): Cross-Border Co-operation in the Border Region of the
Southern Great Plain of Hungary
No. 37
BELUSZKY, Pál (2002): The Spatial Differences of Modernisation in Hungary
at the Beginning of the 20th Century
No. 38
BARANYI, Béla (2002): Before Schengen – Ready for Schengen. Euroregional
Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hun-
gary
No. 39
KERESZTÉLY, Krisztina (2002): The Role of the State in the Urban Develop-
ment of Budapest
No. 40
HORVÁTH, Gyula (2002): Report on the Research Results of the Centre for
Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
No. 41
SZIRMAI, Viktoria – A. GERGELY, András – BARÁTH, Gabriella–
MOLNÁR, Balázs – SZÉPVÖLGYI, Ákos (2003): The City and its Environ-
ment: Competition and/or Co-operation? (A Hungarian Case Study)
No. 42
CSATÁRI, Bálint–KANALAS, Imre–NAGY, Gábor –SZARVÁK, Tibor
(2004): Regions in Information Society – a Hungarian Case-Study
No. 43
FARAGÓ, László (2004): The General Theory of Public (Spatial) Planning (The
Social Technique for Creating the Future)
No. 44
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (2004): Carpathian Basin and the Development of the Hungarian
Landscape Theory Until 1948
No. 45
GÁL, Zoltán (2004): Spatial Development and the Expanding European Integra-
tion of the Hungarian Banking System
No. 46
BELUSZKY, Pál – GYİRI, Róbert (2005): The Hungarian Urban Network in
the Beginning of the 20th Century
No. 47
G. FEKETE, Éva (2005): Long-term Unemployment and Its Alleviation in Rural
Areas
No. 48
SOMLYÓDYNÉ PFEIL, Edit (2006): Changes in The Organisational
Framework of Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary
No. 49
MEZEI, István (2006): Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations
No. 50
RECHNITZER, János – SMAHÓ, Melinda (2006): Regional Characteristics of
Human Resources in Hungary During the Transition
No. 51
BARTA, Györgyi – BELUSZKY, Pál – CZIRFUSZ, Márton – GYİRI, Róbert –
KUKELY, György (2006): Rehabilitating the Brownfield Zones of Budapest
No. 52
GROSZ, András (2006): Clusterisation Processes in the Hungarian Automotive
Industry
No. 53
FEKETE, G. Éva – HARGITAI, Judit – JÁSZ, Krisztina – SZARVÁK, Tibor –
SZOBOSZLAI, Zsolt: Idealistic Vision or Reality? Life-long learning among
Romany ethnic groups
62