Discussion Papers 2007.
Regionality and/or Locality 194-200. p.
COUNTRY VISIONS IN EAST CENTRAL EUROPE
BÁLINT CSATÁRI
Introduction
A number of recent things have spurred me to write this lecture. One was the arri-
val of a book entitled “Country Visions” at our library, the most recent UK volume
of “rural studies”, edited by Paul Cloke. I found the distance in terms of atti-
tude/perception and the way of thinking between our rural areas in East Central
Europe and the spirit of the studies included in this book much greater than I did
two and a half decades ago, when I published a review of “Key Settlements in Ru-
ral Areas” by the same author in the Geographical Bulletin. The study that I liked
the most examined changes in the perception of the countryside in children’s books
published after World War II. ‘Indeed’, I thought to myself, ‘in a place where 75%
of the population are urbanites, this might be an important issue for the general
social perception of rural development and play an important role in forging the
socio-economic solidarity required for the long-term sustainability of the country-
side’.
The second thing came roughly a week later, when a lady journalist from a
popular Internet-based magazine in Budapest called me. She sounded like someone
who had never been to the Great Plain. Asking about the scattered farms in the area
lying between the Rivers Danube and Tisza, she asked the following question in a
tone that could not have been more natural, ‘And would you mind telling me if
they still lead a life like that described by Zsigmond Móricz in his short story “The
Little Orphan Girl” around 1930?’ Móricz, who was often regarded as a disciple of
Reymont, the Polish Nobel laureate, did, indeed, write quintessentially about the
peasantry and the countryside in the Hungary of the 1930s. But so many things
have happened in East Central Europe since that time. The title of the above UK
book may remind us of the fact that we are not quite familiar with the “country
visions” which the generation that grew up surrounded by the state socialist propa-
ganda extolling villages capable of large-scale agricultural production might have
today, one and a half decades after the start of the transition. Not to mention their
children growing up...
An even more shocking thing than the latter one was the guidelines on rural de-
velopment ‘prescribed’ by Brussels for the new 2007–2013 period, which I
downloaded the other day and compared with the Hungarian Government’s draft
Csatári, Bálint : Country Visions in East Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 194-200. p.
Discussion Papers, Special
COUNTRY VISIONS IN EAST CENTRAL EUROPE
195
documents on rural areas yet to be approved. The distance that I sensed figuratively
was even greater here than in the case of the book.
Thus, there are a great number of professional, scientific and social issues that
arise concerning rural areas and their future in both East Central Europe and Hun-
gary.
Questions
− What is the likely cause of this concrete and figurative sense of distance?
− What are the most important and the general rural problems that are common to East
Central Europe as a whole today?
− Is there a possibility other than religiously following the road that took developed
Europe half a century to go along in order to stabilise its own rural areas?
We should, though, mention at this point that agricultural production will never be as
heavily subsidised here in the rural zones of the recently acceded countries as it was in both
Western and Southern Europe.
− Are there any general and truly adaptable models, or are we simply perform-
ing experiments?
− Are we fully aware of the fact that responses of any merit to global chal-
lenges can only be provided locally?
− Are we also fully aware of the fact that truly useful knowledge should be pro-
vided to the rural societies capable of reviving themselves in order that they
and their local communities can respond to current and future challenges?
The countryside, spheres of the countryside and the trends therein
Many have provided a definition of the rural space (e.g. an index of rurality) in
order to channel, through the definition of these special areas, major activities and
programmes aimed at their development.
However, there has been no truly good definition of ‘rurality’ as a sentiment,
mindset or a way of life in the post-communist countries, even though – as the
Bruntland Report on sustainability points out – a working definition would also be
crucial to the protection of the environment, the production of wholesome and
quality food, water management, clean air, landscape heritage and moral support
for the local population. Here in the large region, the countryside has almost in-
variably remained the symbol of backwardness, a lack of progress and a periphery
that lags behind other areas economically and socially. Curiously enough, this per-
ception lingers even when actual data on the given area do not justify such a per-
ception. Hence, it is worth giving a thought or two to the most common problems
of the post-socialist countryside of today.
Csatári, Bálint : Country Visions in East Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 194-200. p.
Discussion Papers, Special
196
BÁLINT CSATÁRI
Without a doubt, rural landscape and rural nature have a high environmental
value. Apparently, hundreds of Dutch and German owners of farms in the Great
Hungarian Plain, who use such farms – these one-time scattered homesteads – as
their second home, are clearly aware of this. The reason for this is that in devel-
oped Europe the rural landscape and rural resources have been gaining in impor-
tance for decades now, which is partly the result of a deliberate rural policy pur-
sued there. In our region, although nature protection overall has nothing to be
ashamed of compared to that in Western Europe, stringent protection measures are
rarely welcomed by the local societies or the farmers affected.
Firstly, because restrictive regulations laid down exclusively on the basis of
landscape protection as a priority do not consider local societies to be part of the
landscape, and ignore the wisdom contained in the saying, “Animals are only part
of the landscape, while man not only constitutes part of it, but also shapes it”.
Secondly, there are no resources, or a determination to tackle the numerous
tasks related to landscape protection in a manner that commands sufficient social
support. What can be read on the relationship of Hungary and the European Land-
scape Convention, available on the website of the relevant ministry, is highly illus-
trative: “Tasks related to the Convention: Hungary has already fulfilled some1 of
the tasks set in the Convention, since the protection of the landscape is regulated by
law, and strategies on the landscape also address the issues of landscape protection,
management and planning. The training of professionals responsible for the
evaluation and operation of landscapes also has long-standing traditions. Both the
population and local stakeholders are involved in decision-making mechanisms
(e.g. public debates for the members of local communities, one-to-one meetings
with members of the public)”. Unfortunately, from this it also follows that the
amount of EU funds for agrarian environment protection granted to assisted areas
is far below what is needed and available in terms of both proportion and territorial
distribution. The NATURA 2000 project, too, has only been promulgated provi-
sionally rather than officially.
Another major issue is the relationship between agriculture and rural develop-
ment. Agrarian activity performed to a high standard and adjusted to the diversity
of rural characteristics is a necessary, but inadequate condition for the future sur-
vival of these areas. Envisaged changes in the European system of agrarian aid in
the near future are likely to severely affect agricultural businesses, which have had
an interest in the concentration of production and which now operate as large es-
tates. Furthermore, a different system will not be conducive either to maintaining
production in rural spaces with fewer advantageous agrarian features. Agrarian aid
and development (the so-called EU CAP Pillar I) prioritising almost exclusively
farms engaged in competitive market production over family farms that bring di-
1Highlighted in bold by the author.
Csatári, Bálint : Country Visions in East Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 194-200. p.
Discussion Papers, Special
COUNTRY VISIONS IN EAST CENTRAL EUROPE
197
versity, sustain the landscape, protect the agrarian environment and are in business
partly for social reasons, are wrong, because – among other things – they do not
take into account the damage done through the decay of the neglected rural envi-
ronment.
In Hungary, the costs of labour lost to days spent on sick leave and those of
medical treatment needed because of the severe allergic diseases caused by rag-
weed (the Hungarian name ‘parlagfő’ [‘parlag’ means ‘fallow’, ‘uncultivated land’]
aptly refers to the fact that it grows in uncultivated fields and orchards)2 are many
times over the budget appropriation that the government earmarks for ragweed
control or for the support of small-size family farms that contribute to the preser-
vation of the landscape. Typically, this problem is the vestige of post-socialist sec-
toral planning rather than area-based planning. Communication is non-existent
between health care, nature protection and agricultural management groups. Rural
areas are unable to act independently, as they were gradually dissuaded from doing
so over the past decades – another after-effect of post-socialism.
Curiously, though, what is today an issue of large-scale versus small-scale pro-
duction ceased to be a problem in the final decades of state socialism. Now it is the
case once again. Small-size, partially self-sufficient family farms, which used to be
household allotments linked to large-scale farming, operated in the 1980s in a
manner that would today be expected from the new generation of production and
sales co-operatives. However, the re-establishment of these new forms of co-op-
eration is much harder than the preservation of the older forms would have been.
The reason for this is that it would entail finding a solution to at least some of the
related community, welfare and social problems (e.g. elderly care, financial support
for schools and, at least partial, development of rural infrastructure). What was
called the agricultural co-operatives movement found solutions to such problems
on, one could say, a daily basis. The relatively strong solidarity and community of
the Hungarian rural societies were both reflected in what was called the Hungarian
model of socialist large-scale farming, which was, undoubtedly, tailored to their
specific circumstances. When the model was no longer used, these functions either
became fragmented or weakened.3 Thus, farms engaged in large-scale production
based solely on a market basis and entrepreneurs4 do not support the countryside or
the locality, or only do so in exceptional circumstances.
What is completely unprecedented in the history of the countryside and what is
an important factor in terms of local awareness/consciousness is that farmers in
2Approximately 2.5 million persons suffer from allergies in Hungary, the primary cause of which is
ragweed. Ragweed is one of the most common types of weed in Hungary, covering an area of
approximately 5 million hectares, with 700,000 hectares heavily infected.
3Paul Cloke pointed this out in a report on his journey in rural Hungary at the time of the political
changeover.
4Not infrequently, they are referred to as ‘green barons’.
Csatári, Bálint : Country Visions in East Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 194-200. p.
Discussion Papers, Special
198
BÁLINT CSATÁRI
outer areas of villages often do not seem to know who owns the adjoining culti-
vated land. They used to: it belonged to them, a fellow farmer in the village or the
landlord. Today it may easily belong to the grandchild of a farmer who fled the
village in 1949 and now lives in the capital city, has not been seen ever since by his
fellow farmers who stayed on, and it is often the case that the grandchild leases out
the land under a share-cropping agreement to an agricultural business registered
two villages further off. It is safe to say that, in addition to the spatial separation of
land ownership from land cultivation, the frequent comparing, for political reasons,
of farms engaged in competitive market production with family farms that are in
business for social reasons gives rise to the most severe of conflicts.
A third set of major problems associated with the town and the country relation-
ship and, partly, as a result of such a relationship, is in area and rural policy. The
new system of borough councils that evolved in the rural regions of East Central
Europe after the political changeover, in the era of transition provided perhaps too
much legal leeway for some areas without being able to give anything in return for
the state socialist town and country relationships that quickly fell apart. It is not
only the scarcity of funds that lies at the heart of the problems, but also the ‘help-
lessness’ of rural societies, ageing, long-term unemployment, a dysfunctional sys-
tem of institutions that are increasingly difficult to operate and poor accessibility
due to poor transport infrastructure. These social conflicts were further aggravated
by those who fled the town for the country; since – be they the nouveau riche or
town-dwellers who lost their jobs – they added to income differences and the re-
sultant tension.
Basically, the conditions, in terms of public administration, area management,
the efficient operation of area supply systems as well as the planning and organisa-
tional foundations of area and rural development, for implementing the new EU
recommendations that stress the town and country relationship are missing in East
Central Europe. It is no wonder, then, that often even senior officials in rural areas
are at a loss as to how to interpret these recommendations. They do not know what
to make of the ‘synergy’ between regional, social and rural policies or the ‘com-
plex and integrated’ territorial interaction between such policies when such policies
do not function themselves. Be it the ‘synergy’ or the ‘complex and integrated’
approach, it is no different from what used to be called ‘common sense’. Only such
sense is no longer common.5
5The translator’s note: ‘józan paraszti ész’ (‘good common sense’ or ‘horse sense’ in English)
contains a derivative of the word ‘peasant’. The author here made a pun in his final sentence. This
pun is, unfortunately, almost untranslatable. I found the way I rendered it in English to be the closest
approximation of the author’s original intention.
Csatári, Bálint : Country Visions in East Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 194-200. p.
Discussion Papers, Special
COUNTRY VISIONS IN EAST CENTRAL EUROPE
199
Possible visions for the countryside
In conclusion, the way the rather intricate, diffuse and diverse rural conflicts out-
lined in this paper can be resolved in the future is quite a challenging issue. To
begin with, is it possible to project various scenarios for the develop-
ment/transformation of these regions at all? Can one really propose any ‘visions’?
One vision is obvious enough. Changes in the rural landscape in East Central
Europe occur with a lag of several decades after their counterparts in Western
Europe. In essence, there will be three types of rural space: (1) a suburban rural
area under strong urban influence, undergoing agglomeration; (2) a rural area under
a more moderate urban influence, producing marketable agricultural products and
capable of revival; and (3) a peripheral, ageing rural area that lags behind other
areas and faces depopulation, hardly capable of revival. (In the third case, the
situation may be further aggravated by diverse ethnic problems.)
The delay in following trends poses two serious threats, especially to space
types (1) and (2). Under the market economy conditions that have evolved recently,
changes in the rural space and the manner it is utilised in, often without any re-
strictions, occupy the rural space more intensely than is desirable; they ‘devour’ it,
destroy the landscape and mercilessly exploit the environment.
Another major vision is about the shared future of agriculture and the country-
side. That is, at one end of the spectrum (A) there is a competitive, high tech-based,
heavily subsidised agricultural sector, which plays an increasingly minor part in
providing a living for the economically active rural population; at the other end (B)
there is the “low tech”-type, extensive or intensive bio-farming with landscape
preservation and agrarian environment protection as its priority. The question is
how they correlate in space and time and in terms of active employment and in
their ability to provide a living. Quite recently, a third possibility (C) has also
arisen, which envisages the countryside as an alternative energy supplier (energy
grass, bio-diesel, bio-ethanol, bio-mass), but alas the ability of such a rural area to
provide a living is hardly likely to be any stronger than that for type (A) agricul-
ture.
Finally, in order that the visions offered by the third major scenario can be
turned into reality, the resources and the natural and cultural heritage of the rural
areas need to rise in prestige. Version (I) envisages the sustainable revival of areas
having a fundamentally rural nature, with long-standing traditions of tourism,
where the preservation of the post-material heritage of the countryside will come to
take centre stage. Version (II) is based on ‘authentic’ rural tourism offering new
local values; one that does not consider the local population to be some unwanted
distraction in a sanctuary; rather, it asserts that it is a social group preserv-
ing/salvaging heritage, which serves the public good and which, by their very ex-
istence in such places, creates irreplaceable values. In this respect, Version (III)
Csatári, Bálint : Country Visions in East Central Europe.
In: Regionality and/or Locality. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2007. 194-200. p.
Discussion Papers, Special
200
BÁLINT CSATÁRI
could be a diversification of the economic activities pursued in the areas suitable
for such activities. This could mean mobile places of work and, in some cases, the
development of local services with sophisticated methods, which could also
strengthen hierarchically structured civil communities.
And if, – based on the possible and necessary spatial variations of the basic ver-
sions of the above-mentioned visions of development – the environmental, eco-
nomic, social and settlement rehabilitation of the rural spaces in East Central
Europe takes place, relying on new local ‘in situ’ knowledge and being capable of
creating new harmonies, we will then also be able to write essays on what “Coun-
try Visions” is actually about.
We could, for instance, write essays on ‘rurality and animality’, ‘psycho-
geographies of rural space’, or ‘spiritual embodiment and sacred rural landscape’.
Or are they the very topics that we ought to be studying now?
References
Cloke, P. (ed.) 2003: Country visions. Pearson. Harlow. p. 343.
Csatári, B. 2005: Spatial conflicts in rural areas of Hungary In.: T. Komornicki and K. Czapiewski,
ed. Central and Eastern Europe: Changing spatial patterns of human activity. Warsaw pp. 33–39.
Banski, J. 1999: Problem areas in Polish agriculture, Prace Geograficzne Nr. 172. Wroclaw. pp.124–
128.