Discussion Papers 2008. No. 66.
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the
Beginning of the Third Millennium
CENTRE FOR REGIONAL STUDIES
OF HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
DISCUSSION PAPERS
No. 66
Changing Village-Typology of Rural
Settlements in Hungary at the
Beginning of the Third Millennium
by
Pál BELUSZKY – Tamás SIKOS T.
Series editor
Gábor LUX
Pécs
2008
Discussion Papers 2008. No. 66.
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the
Beginning of the Third Millennium
ISSN 0238–2008
ISBN 978 963 9899 02 5
© Pál Beluszky, Tamás Sikos T.
© Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
2008 by Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Technical editor: Ilona Csapó.
Printed in Hungary by Sümegi Nyomdaipari, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Ltd., Pécs.
Discussion Papers 2008. No. 66.
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the
Beginning of the Third Millennium
Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5
2 The effects of “the change of regime” on rural settlements .......................................... 7
3 Methods and results in the classification of villages ................................................... 14
3.1 Data of factor analysis ......................................................................................... 14
3.2 Results of the factor analysis ............................................................................... 16
3.3 The content of factor F1, spatial distribution of factorscore values of the
settlements ........................................................................................................... 18
3.4 Factors F2 and F3.................................................................................................. 25
4 Village types................................................................................................................ 28
4.1 Types I–III ........................................................................................................... 28
4.2 Type IV................................................................................................................ 35
4.3 Type V ................................................................................................................. 35
4.4 Types VI and VII................................................................................................ 36
5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 41
5.1 General remarks................................................................................................... 41
5.2 Macro village regions .......................................................................................... 44
Bibliography...................................................................................................................... 53
Discussion Papers 2008. No. 66.
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the
Beginning of the Third Millennium
List of figures
Figure 1 Map of Hungarian public administration ........................................................ 20
Figure 2 Factor values of the villages in the F1 factor................................................... 21
Figure 3 Factor values of the villages in the F2 factor................................................... 27
Figure 4 Factor values of the villages in the F3 factor................................................... 29
Figure 5 Village typology of Hungary .......................................................................... 33
Figure 6 Macro village regions in Hungary....................................................................46
List of tables
Table 1
The status of settlements in the administrative system, 2004............................ 9
Table 2
Number and Rate of Wage Earners in the Main Branches of the National
Economy, 1980–2000 ..................................................................................... 10
Table 3
Occupational structure of incorporated towns and towns, 2001 ..................... 11
Table 4
Migration balance in towns and villages, 2000, 2003..................................... 13
Table 5
Eigenvalue percentages in case of the 8-factor variant ................................... 17
Table 6
The content and name of the factors based on the 1982 and the present
research ........................................................................................................... 18
Table 7
Number of enterprises in settlements and their density in the regions............ 23
Table 8
The distribution of enterprises by the values of F1......................................... 24
Table 9
Number of inhabitants in settlements and the score of their basic
provision in the different categories of the factorscore values in F2 .............. 26
Table 10 Types of rural settlements .............................................................................. 30
Table 11 Selected important data of the types of rural settlements............................... 32
Table 12 Changes in the population of selected villages, 1870–2001 .......................... 39
Table 13 Types of rural settlements by counties............................................................ 45
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
1 Introduction
With the change of regime in Hungary (1989–1990), not only was the autocratic,
state-capitalist “socialist” regime replaced by the political system of the democratic
market economy, but also, fundamental changes have undergone in the processes
forming rural settlements. The rate of agricultural population kept decreasing; the
majority of agricultural factories fell apart or was reorganised, so that private
farming could gain ground. These processes alongside with the changes in the
availability of basic services and in the structure of the labour market shaped the
image of rural settlements, the society and the geographic features they possessed
in the socialist era. This study aims to survey this process by establishing the ty-
pology of rural settlements at the beginning of the 21st century by the method of
factor and cluster analysis.
The system and the network of Hungary’s rural settlements were arranged ac-
cording to traditional – pre-industrialisation – principles even after World War 2.
The majority of wage earners were employed in the agricultural sector (1949:
53.8%), the main part of the population lived in villages with “traditional” func-
tions (primarily agricultural function, overlapping living and workplaces, isolation,
poor infrastructure etc.); according to the data by the 1949 census, the inhabitants
of settlements of this type made up 53% of the total population, while another 11–
12% lived in incorporated towns, i.e. settlements having limited urban functions
with considerable mining or manufacturing industry, or in newly-emerging ag-
glomerations. 17.3% of the population lived in the capital and 19.0% concentrated
in towns (Thirring, 1963).
The “decisive year” (1948, the year when the communists came to power)
brought along sudden, drastic changes that mostly lacked any organic develop-
ment. We must note that right after the end of World War 2, rural settlements ex-
perienced events that fundamentally changed their lives such as land distribution1
and in some parts and some settlements of the country, the forcible relocation2 of
1 In 1945, 35% of the agricultural land in the country, i.e. 3.2 million hectares were redistributed
among 600,000 agricultural labourers, day-labourers and peasants who previously had not owned a
piece of land or owned only a dwarf estate. Each land estate that was bigger than 1,000 kh.
(1,000kh. = approximately 580 Ha), and the part exceeding more than 100kh. of each land property
between 100 and 1,000kh. in size was redistributed. Those gaining redistributed lands got 5.1kh
(2.9 ha.) of land in average. There was a county in the country where 56% of agricultural land was
redistributed (Fejér County).
2 By the acceptance of the idea of collective guilt, in accordance with the resolutions of the Potsdam
Conference, approximately 240 thousand German speaking citizens were deported from Hungary
between January of 1946 and the end of 1948. This was half of the German speaking population of
Hungary before World War II. 170 thousand of these people were moved to the later Federal
Republic of Germany, 55 thousand to the future German Democratic Republic and 15 thousand to
Austria. In those parts of the country, where the majority of population had been German, such as
5
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
the German (Swabian) ethnic part of the population. The effects of these changes
were manifold and deeply rooted; their results – the shock the traditional society of
the villages had to suffer, the change in their lifestyle – cannot be revealed by sta-
tistical data. It is not enough to register that the rate of wage earners in agriculture
in the country decreased to 38.5% by 1960 and 15.3% by 1990. Between 1960 and
1970, villages suffered a loss of 600,000 people caused by out-migration; while
some settlements doubled or tripled their population in the first few years of the
socialist era, at the same time others shrank to a fifth or tenth of their former size
(for example GyĦrĦfĦ, a small hamlet in Southern Transdanubia with 253 inhabi-
tants in 1949, had been completely depopulated by 1972, becoming a symbolical
“victim” of the migration process). It is also merely statistical data that two-fifth of
the wage earners in villages became commuters, with all of its advantages and
disadvantages.3 The far-reaching effects of collectivisation and the fact that only
4.5–5% of the land was cultivated within a private farm system (private gardens on
community land, backyards, land given by cooperatives to their workers for use,
and some thousand peasant farms). Behind these figures considerable, sometimes
involuntary migration processes can be detected, which might mean either
occupational changes from agricultural to industrial jobs when previously self-
employed farmers become employees, or abandoned their villages and moved into
towns to become urban citizens living in blocks of flats. Further changes in society,
lifestyle and economy (disintegration of village communities, the alteration of roles
in the family, spectacular improvement in the equipment of dwelling places) cannot
be enumerated here. All these happened over the lifetime of no more than one
generation. The extraordinary speed of the changes (the industrial society emerged
in only 20 years, while the same process in the western part of Europe lasted 80–
100 years in most cases) also had a multiplying effect: the development of the
“new” could not keep pace with the destruction of the “old”. Besides the general
processes, the stock of rural settlements was strongly differentiated: in the
neighbourhood of the big cities and prosperous agricultural cooperatives, relatively
wealthy, growing settlements emerged; while in depressed areas, villages started to
decline rapidly and were hit by depopulation, demographic erosion, ageing popu-
lation and the accumulation of socially disadvantaged people (Beluszky – Sikos T.,
1982).
While 1948 was a “decisive” year with the complete dominance of Commu-
nism, the years of 1989–1990 brought a change of regime. Its effect on the stock of
rural settlements was almost as (?) deep and far-reaching as those of the events
in Baranya and Tolna Counties, in Bácska and in some places near the capital some villages
became practically depopulated.
3 In 1980, in 42.2% of the villages, 60% of the wage-earners had a workplace in another settlement
(In comparison, the corresponding proportion in 1960 amounted only to 1.4%). At the same time,
the proportion of villages where the percentage of commuters was under 10% was only 2.8%.
6
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
after 1948.4 We are starting from the assumption that the change of direction after
1990 affected the villages less dramatically, based on the fact that some elements
of rural lifestyle which evolved after 1949 and were already common did not
change considerably after the change of regime (e.g. commuting, industrial work,
family structure, demographic behavior patterns, “modern” lifestyle etc.). On one
hand, these processes were not forced as much as the cases of relocation or collec-
tivisation; on the other handr, becoming unemployed is a forced, involuntary
process.
2 The effects of “the change of regime” on rural settlements
After the establishment of the political, legal and proprietary conditions of the
market economy, villages entered the market of settlements. Even if the possibility
of influencing the local development of settlements by external, governmental
instruments has not been eliminated (a rather high ratio of the means to operate
local governments is distributed and allocated from the national budget, low rate of
local tax revenues, regional development activities), several changes increased the
possibilities for local autonomy. The economy and even the site selection of ser-
vices are ruled by market conditions. The different features of settlements, such as
their geographic and transport position, their natural resources and environmental
conditions, their labour market positions and the condition of the society as well as
their purchasing power all influence their course of development, their economy
and their success or failure. The higher degree of choice increases the importance
and efficiency of personal endowments in the operation of the settlements (the
innovative potentials of local society, their willingness and knowledge to establish
4 After the communist takeover, the Hungarian Working Peoples’ Party urged for so-called voluntary
co-operation at its First Congress in 1948. Later, at their congress held in 1951, they set complete
collectivisation as their aim. They used a wide range of so-called persuasion methods, such as
violence and different actions aimed to paralyse individual, private farming (e.g. the tax on indi-
vidual farming tripled between 1949 and 1955; for smallholders, obligatory contribution in kind
was introduced; prices became state controlled etc.). However, at the end of 1950, only as much as
13% of the land was cultivated by cooperative farms. In the fist wave of collectivisation it was the
landless, the wageworkers and the so-called new farmers who joined cooperative farms, who got
their land during the land reform. During the Revolution and War of Independence in 1956, half of
the cooperative farms were dissolved and obligatory contribution in kind was cancelled; yet, the
new communist state leadership did not give up their efforts to collectivised. Between 1951 and
1961, there were campaigns that resulted in the dissolution of individual farming, and two thirds of
agricultural lands got into the ownership of so-called collective farms. State farms also owned a
significant part of agricultural land: by 1970, 26.1% was managed by state farms, 67.9% by
cooperatives (of which 3.8%, usually 1 kh. per member, was in collective ownership but cultivated
individually for personal purposes), 4.8% by marginal farms and only 1.2% by individual farms.
7
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
businesses, the local elite, the strategy and ability of the leaders of the local
government etc.)
While in the system of governing councils5, the funding of local councils was
regulated by central financing directives and on a subjective basis, today, they re-
ceive normative financial support. These are allocated partly on a per capita basis
partly on the basis of designated tasks (kindergarten capacity, number of students,
people receiving social benefits), independently from their administrative position
(town or incorporated towns). This way the differences among their financial
means have decreased.
The autonomy6 and the local governance character of the incorporated towns
have increased.
The process of granting urban status to incorporated towns speeded up after
1990. During the time of our previous research (1982) the number of towns did not
reach 100, while this number now is 298, so two-thirds of the country’s population
lives in settlements with urban status. A part of them does not perform urban func-
tions. The present (2007) status of the settlements in the administrative system is
described in Table 1.
This partly means that a certain type of rural settlements categorised by the ty-
pology of rural settlements in 1982 – villages with urban functions – has disap-
peared from our present study. In addition to this, some settlements previously
classified as villages were granted urban status, thus they got also out of the scope
of this research. These are not simply small towns belonging to rural areas, but they
are rural settlements themselves.
5 Council: name of the local council and of the institution of local public administration between
1950 and 1990. Their local authority was rather low in fact; primarily they served as local branches
of state control. In the 3,004 Hungarian villages in 1980, there were 1,071 councils, since some of
them had several villages under their authority. At the same time, the number of town councils and
townships was 96.
6 The Act on Local Authorities passed in 1990 decreased the authority scope of counties; replacing
urban areas, which earlier had replaced districts. Local governments became the major actors of the
municipality system. Each settlement has a right to vote for a local government (local council,
mayor). Since each settlement kept its independence (administrative territory, name, statistical re-
cords etc.) even after the setting up of common councils, in the new administration system even the
smallest village could have its own local government. (In 1990 there were 71 villages with a lower
population than 100, and in 6 villages the number of inhabitants did not reach 25.) Joint
administrative offices were set up; however, smaller villages could use common district notaries for
their conduct of affairs. Depending on their financial state, local governments have the right to set
up and maintain institutions (e.g. kindergarten, basic school, local practitioner etc.) Each local
government is a separate budgetary unit. The major changes in the way of financing local
authorities, and the fact that each settlement (re)gained the right to have an own local government
has brought several changes: settlements now have more equal opportunities, the relations between
settlements have become less hierarchical, and settlements are in a less advantageous or
disadvantageous position due to their legal status.
8
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Table 1
The status of settlements in the administrative system, 2004
The status of settlements in the administrative
Number
% in the total number
system
of settlements
1. Town
274
8.7
2. Incorporated town with an independent
1,254
39.9
notary office
3. Seat of a district notary office*
552
17.5
4. Settlement without a notary office
1,065
33.9
Total
3,145
100.0
* See Note 6.
The first years of the political-social changes passed amidst a severe economic
recession. The number of industrial wage earners decreased by 540,000 between
1988 and 1993 (this is 3% of the number in 1988), while the total number of the
employed decreased by 1.1 million. Economic activity also declined heavily; from
43.6% in 1990 to 36.2% in 2001 (the rate of active wage earners in 1970 was
48.3%). In the meantime occupational restructuring also took place; the number
and rate of agricultural wage earners decreased faster than those of industrial wage
earners, while both the number and rate of wage earners in the tertiary sector in-
creased (Table 2). Declining production led to closing down several mines and
factories (by 2001 the number of wage earners in mining industry decreased to
6.3% of the 1980 number), mainly in Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén, Nógrád and
Komárom-Esztergom counties. Extensive crisis areas (rustbelts) were formed con-
sisting not only of mining and industrial settlements and towns, but their commu-
tation zones as well. Large, continuous crisis areas were formed in North-East
Hungary, along the Ózd–Miskolc axis, in the border zone, covering almost the
whole area of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County, Nógrád County and several mining
areas in the Dunántúli-középhegység (Transdanubian Central Range). Decreasing
production raised a new problem: unemployment. The number of registered unem-
ployed approached 700,000 by the beginning of the 1990s. Their distribution was
uneven in the country; the rate of unemployment grew to 19% in Szatmár-Bereg, to
17% in Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County, but in some micro-regions it reached even
a ratio of 50%. (By the census data in 2001, there was a rural hamlet without a
single wage earner, or everybody of working age declared themselves unem-
ployed.) The rapid reduction in the number of active wage earners, the high rate of
unemployment in certain micro-regions, the formulation of crisis areas resulted in a
rather unfavourable situation of some rural settlements. Economic recovery came
in the second part of the 1990s as the decrease of real incomes stopped and the
number of unemployed decreased. The “reconstruction” of the economy does not
9
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
mean returning to the previous state – spatial distribution, economic and occupa-
tional structure etc. The location of the economy has changed, the competitiveness
of towns has also restructured. This means that the structure of settlements did not
return to the structure before 1990, as a significant restructuring process has taken
place.
Table 2
Number and Rate of Wage Earners in the Main Sectors of the National Economy,
1980–2000
Year
Wage earners in agriculture
Wage earners in industry
Wage earners in the tertiary
sector
number
ratio,
1980 = number
ratio,
1980 = number
ratio,
1980 =
%
100,0%
%
100,0%
%
100,0%
1980
958,369
18.9
100.0 2,124,144 41.9
100,0 1,983,142 39.2
100.0
1990
699,258
15.4
73.0 1,712,839 37.8
80,6 2,112,875 46.8
106.5
2001
203,106
5.5
21.2 1,212,615 32.9
57,8 2,274,548 61.6
114.7
Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, census data.
After 1990, the bonds between agriculture and villages further loosened. This
process manifested in occupational restructuring: at the time of the 2001 census,
only 11% of the wage earners in incorporated villages worked full-time in agri-
culture (Table 3). Obviously, more rural families were bound to the agricultural
sector in one form or another – people who retired or had full time jobs somewhere
else possess farmyards, vineyards or orchards, closed gardens or backyards, breed
animals or lease their land, undertake seasonal or black work, so in forming the life
of villages agriculture has more significant role than it could be revealed by the
statistical figures.
A generation after the end of collectivisation the ownership of land restructured
again, as well as the proprietary system of factories, the relationship between vil-
lages and towns, as well as agrarian and rural development. After the change of re-
gime in 1990, legislation considered it one of its main tasks to reform collectivised
agriculture, enacted laws regulating the transformation and privatisation of agri-
culture and cooperatives as well as compensation. Since ideological, political, and
supremacy questions were closely associated with collectivisation, the laws and
10
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
regulations aiming to alter the previously set situation also included some of these
motives, mainly a certain aversion against cooperatives.7
Table 3
Occupational structure of incorporated towns and towns, 2001
Name
Wage earners in
Wage earners in industry
Wage earners in the
agriculture
tertiary sector
number
ratio, %
number
ratio, %
number
ratio, %
1. incorporated town
126,918
11.1
436,374
38.1
581,344
50.8
2. towns
76,188
3.0
776,241
30.5
1,693,204
66.5
3. total
203,106
5.5
1,212,615
32.9
2,274,548
61.6
Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, census data.
The Act on the Transformation of Agriculture abolished the common property
of cooperatives and entitled their members to withdraw with the amount of the
property they originally contributed. 80% of the land became private property; the
size of cooperatives shrank to a fragment of their previous size. Limited liability
companies or incorporations were founded; the cooperatives which still existed
could operate on leased lands. Compensation did not restrict the size of the parcels
given back, not even the minimum area was stipulated. In such a way many – some
1.6 million – people received compensation. The average size of the parcels was
0.6 hectare. Parcels of land smaller than 3 hectare counted for 96% of the land
distributed. An exceptionally fragmented land structure was created this way. At
the turn of the millennium, 960,000 private farms were registered, 70% of which
did not reach one hectare in size, while 51,000 landowners possessed a farm larger
than 5 Ha, amounting to 5% of all landowners. A group of landowners and users
was formed; about 60% of cultivated land was leased. Because of this unique
ownership structure, the majority of landowners did not or only partly lived on
agricultural farming. Only few people had the opportunity to establish a flourishing
“family-sized economic unit” (at the turn of the millennium, the number of farms
hardly reached 30,000), and this largely hinders the emergence of modern
agriculture; to establish factories with economies of scale takes a long time. The
7 As the agrarian economist Attila Buday-Sántha put it, “…ideology was given preference over
economic rationalism”, and “… the passing of new laws which influenced the future of agriculture,
reflecting political power relations, was guided by an idealized past and by trying to comply with
Western European requirements at the same time. The international competitiveness of the
agricultural sector and complex rural development were completely thrust to the background.”
During the transformation of agriculture, “…politicians looked on existing agricultural companies
as economic and political remains of socialism, and they fought a relentless ideological and eco-
nomic war against them” (Authors’ translation) (Buday-Sántha, A. 2001).
11
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
method of “restructuring” cooperatives, the land ownership structure created by
compensation, the structure of the factories along with other circumstances – such
as shrinking Eastern markets, decreasing export, declining domestic consumption,
difficulties in selling etc. – agriculture and villages found themselves in a difficult
situation, at least for the “transitional” period, which seemed to last rather long.
In the 1990s, the number of people making their living in agriculture decreased
by 600,000, while gross agricultural production (taking 1990 = 100%, by 2000 the
number was below 70%) accounts for only 4.4, 2% of the country’s GDP today.
Livestock decreased to half of its size, in the 1990s half a million hectares of land
remained uncultivated, the rate of neglected, past bearing plantations is estimated
to reach 30–40%.
During the dissolution process the assets and the tools of the cooperatives be-
came obsolete and useless, the termination of sidelines further decreasing job op-
portunities. The most active integrators, the buyers, processors and sellers of agri-
cultural products were lost for villages and agriculture. Small farms were exposed
to the mercy of engrossers, food industry and commerce.
The relationship of agriculture with “rural settlements” is rather special: many
people work in agricultural production, but very few make a living on it. Nowadays
the tertiary sector provides work for more than half of wage earners in rural
settlements, while 38% are employed full time in industry.
Manufacturing industry has almost completely disappeared form rural areas,
partly after the dissolution of mines and factories, partly because some of the pre-
vious villages were granted urban status (Lábatlan, Nyergesújfalu, Répcelak, Bor-
sodnádasd, BalatonfĦzfĘ, Herend, LĘrinci etc.). So the typology of rural settle-
ments cannot be expected to contain the type of “industrial rural settlements”.
About two-fifth of rural wage earners still work in industry, in town factories as
commuters. The rate of commuters has even increased in rural settlements; how-
ever, they commute to do their job in the tertiary sector. This lifestyle is rather
common, only in 383 settlements is the rate of commuters lower than 40%, while
almost two-fifth of the villages (1095 settlements, 38.1% of the total stock) can be
considered as suburbs and residential settlements with more than 70% of out-
commuters. Today commuting is not considered as a first step towards migration;
on the contrary, in most cases it enables the stabilisation of the villages.
The role of a basic institutional network has changed recently in the settlement
development processes, in the life of the settlements and in the differences among
them. Scientific publications in the 1970 and 1980s, discourses on settlement poli-
cies, and our research published in 1982 all clearly state that the main factors of
rural life are the existence or non-existence of basic supplies and the differences in
their levels. The defects in basic services, the establishment of districts – concen-
12
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
trating basic institutions like elementary schools, general practitioners, local gov-
ernment offices in larger settlements – are responsible for the development of dis-
advantaged settlements. Subsequently we must emphasise that all this was true
under the conditions of full employment. Today, when economic activity is de-
creasing, the rate of unemployment, the number of dependents and pensioners is
increasing, only a small part of agricultural companies are profitable, labour-
market conditions, ways for making supplementary income and income conditions
got into the centre of rural life while the conditions of basic services automatically
dropped in the order of importance. Possibilities for using them have also changed.
On the one hand, the number of institutions providing basic services has increased
– mainly due to the spread of sole retailers such as shopkeepers, service providers
and craftsmen, – and some local government institutions (schools, kindergartens,
notary offices) have also returned to the villages. The new circumstances of com-
munication and transportation have fundamentally changed the accessibility of
these institutions.
Radical changes took place in migration. More people outmigrated from the
towns to the villages than from the villages to the towns (Table 4). This can be
partly explained by stronger suburbanisation processes, partly by the number of
people moving to villages in anticipation of a cheaper “rural life”. Between 2000
and 2005, the number of inhabitants increased by 40,000 people (1.1%), while the
population of towns decreased with 2.4%.
Our research was aimed at revealing the types of villages established by these
processes and their position.
Table 4
Migration balance in towns and villages, 2000, 2003
Year
Migration balance
permanent migration
temporary migration
Budapest
towns
villages
Budapest
towns
villages
2000
–17,835
–5,762
23,597
–541
–977
1,518
2003
–19,738
–6,708
18,446
1,459
1,637
–3,096
Source: Hungarian Statistical Yearbook, 2003, Budapest, 2004.
13
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
3 Methods and results in the classification of villages
Society and its spatio-economic processes are getting more and more complex and
complicated. The complexity of the phenomena examined by settlement morpho-
logical research can only be identified by the help of a great number of data and
indicators.
The possible reduction of the index system is questioned by the fact that the in-
dividual variables can not be mutually replaced by each other (in a settlement the
lack of drinking water cannot be neutralised by the existence of a well-operating
community house), while “weighing” the indicators carries the danger of subjec-
tivity. The application of these methods (the importance of individual indicators in
the representation of the researched phenomenon, their weight, their replacability,
the multicollinearity) were hindered by the relationship between the multi-variable
data systems handled with traditional “tools” and the reality they map, and the
uncertainties concerning interrelated indicators. If we do not want to give up the
advantages of the multi-variant approach, we have to use mathematical-statistical
methods which enable us to treat the extraordinarily large number of variables and
reveal the inner relationships within the system of indicators.
Factor analysis meets all these requirements; this multivariant-based mathe-
matical-statistical technique is capable at condensing the information used into
hypothetical, fictious variables (factors) with the least possible loss, while it reveals
the rules of the system of indicators and the phenomena reflected by them. Thus,
factor and cluster analysis provide a solution for the problem of grouping.
3.1 Data of factor analysis
Correct basic data, their suitability for measuring the researched phenomenon de-
fines whether the applied models are reliable and suitable for evaluation. This
explains why we have to discuss the basic indicators of factor analysis. When
compiling the database, we aimed to make it suitable to determine comprehensive
phenomena, to select and separate indicators that do not contain relevant informa-
tion due to their homogenous distribution. The usefulness of the individual indi-
cators was evaluated on the basis of their occurrences in correlations, the situation
of communalities and their grouping into factors. Our experiences show that the 27
indicators applied are sufficient to describe settlement morphological processes.
Further additions to the group of indicators are naturally possible but the informa-
tion gained would not compensate for the efforts necessary to devise the indicators.
14
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
A part of our indicators included in the study also comprise several data (e.g.
the indicator of institutions of basic service comprises the existence of 17 basic
institutions). In factor analysis, of course, only numerical information can be used.
Therefore, “derived” indicators are applied to measure the standards of basic ser-
vices.
In our analysis, the following viewpoints or variables numerifying the view-
points were regarded (average values and standard deviation data appear after the
indicators):
A) Land use, natural resources
1. The value calculated on the basis of page “The valuation of soil by
settlements” in Hungary’s National Atlas (37.9 score; 11.3 score)
B) The position of villages in the settlement system
2. Population of the village in 2001 (1241 people; 1342 people)
3. Ratio of the population living in the outskirt zone, 2001 (3.3%; 8.2%)8
4. Ratio of settlements with population >999 (43.8%; 28.6%)
C) Economic role of villages
5. Ratio of wage earners in industry and construction, 2001 (42.5%;
11.1%)
6. Ratio of wage earners in agriculture, 2001 (7.6%; 7.6%)
7. Number of business partnerships per 10,000 inhabitants, 2001 (12.9;
11.9)
8. Number of enterprises per 1,000 inhabitants, 2001 (31.1; 16.4)
9. Number of registered unemployed, 2001 (5%; 3.4%)
10. Number of out-commuters (from wage earners living on site), 2001
(61.7%; 17.3%)
11. Number of visitor nights per 1,000 inhabitants at all public accommoda-
tion establishments, 2001 (415 people; 2537 people)
12. Number of visitor nights per 1,000 inhabitants at paying guest
accommodations, village tourism and private accommodations, 2001
(192 people; 1246 people)
13. Number of in-commuters, 2001 (68.3 people; 162.7 people)
D) Transport position of villages
14. Time-distance of larger towns (county seats + medium size towns), 2001
(32.9 min.; 187.7 min.)
8 On the territory of Hungarian settlements, different areas are determined: continuously built-up
areas (inner settlement), and areas outside the inner settlement (outskirts), with some isolated
buildings or scattered settlements. In some areas of the country a significant proportion of the
population lives in outer areas, on “tanya” or scattered farmsteads.
15
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
E) Basic public services
15. The quality of basic public services, 2001 (11.5 point; 7.6 point)9
16. Number of enterprises in the field of commerce and services per 1,000
inhabitants, 2001 (9.1; 6.5)
F) Demographic and social position of villages and income-wealth relations
17. Ratio of the age group 60-x, 2001 (23.5%; 7%)
18. Ratio of people possessing at least a high school diploma from the age
group 18-x, 2001 (18.9%; 8.1%)
19. Natural increase and decrease, 1991–2001 (-6%; 3.4%)
20. Ratio of inactive wage earners (pensioner, child care allowance), 2001
(38.4%; 7.7%)
21. Ratio of active wage earners in the total population, 2001 (29.1%; 8.6%)
22. Ratio of white collar workers compared to the total number of wage
earners, 2001 (22.9%; 8.5%)
23. Number of cars per 1,000 people, 2001 (167.9; 5.1)
24. Ratio of dwellings with 4 or more rooms in the dwelling, 2001 (15.3%;
10.1%)
G) Pace and direction of settlement development
25. Migration, 1990–2001 (80.1%; 231.1%)
26. Changes in the number of the inhabitants in settlements, 1990–2001
(98.3%; 13.8%)
27. Changes in the number of the inhabitants in settlements, 1949–2001
(77.7%; 58.5%)
3.2 Results of the factor analysis
The basis of our database was a 2875 (number of settlements) x 27 (number of
indicators) data matrix. When selecting the most suitable method from the several
possibilities, we regarded the following three points as the most important:
1. information loss should be minimised
2. the factors should be homogenous, and have appropriate regional validity
9 We worked with 17 institutions, and with their weighted value. These were the following (the
numbers in the brackets are the weighted values of each): 1. Seat of notary, district notary (3), 2.
Post office (1), 3. Marketplace (2), 4. Clothes shop (1), 5. Hardware store (1), 6. Pharmacy (2), Seat
of local practitioner (2), 8. Kindergarten (2), 9. Primary school (with up to 8th grade classes) (3), 10.
Primary school (with up to only 4th grade classes) (2), 11. Filling station (1), 12. Dentistry (1), 13.
Old people’s home (1), 14. Restaurants, confectioneries (1), 15. Hotel, guesthouse (2), 16. Existing
collective farm (2), 17. Parish, rectory (1).
16
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
3. there should be relatively few factors with high information content in order
to facilitate the application on cluster analysis
Finally, we considered the 8-factor variant that we received by using the prin-
ciple component analysis the most appropriate method for typifying the settle-
ments. This variant retained 70.19% of the total information content in case of a
varimax rotation (Table 5).
Table 5
Eigenvalue percentages in case of the 8-factor variant
Factor
Unrotated factors
Rotated factors
Eigenvalue
Standard
Cumulative,
Factor
Standard
Cumulative,
deviation, %
%
deviation, %
%
1
6.79
25.15
25.15
4.46
16.50
16.50
2
3.15
11.67
36.82
3.06
11.35
27.85
3
2.56
9.48
46.30
3.00
11.13
38.98
4
1.74
6.45
52.75
2.02
7.48
46.46
5
1.56
5.77
58.52
1.98
7.35
53.81
6
1.11
4.10
62.62
1.70
6.29
60.10
7
1.07
3.96
66.58
1.68
6.21
66.31
8
0.97
3.61
70.19
1.05
3.88
70.19
Source: Authors’ calculation.
The values of communalities reflect the loss of information that the original in-
dicators suffered during the calculation process. h 2j values show that the 13-factor
variant in 1982 and the 8-factor variant in 2006 to what percentage defined the
total value of standard deviation. The 13-factor analysis in 1982 retained 78.11%
of the information, but if we consider the same number of factors (8) only, this
number is reduced to 62.82%. At the same time, with the method of principal
component analysis in 2006 we were able to keep 70.19% of the information,
which should be considered favourable in social sciences.
The usefulness of factor analysis is defined by the extent individual factors can
be identified with the state of villages, the ongoing processes. If the structure of
factors can explain the differences among settlements, settlement development
processes and which elements define the lives and types of villages to what extent,
it can be considered useful. The results of the factor analysis in our present re-
search resulted in factors which are easy to identify, their structure is clear and the
information loss is small.
In the order and weight of the factors differentiating the settlements, fundamen-
tal changes have taken place since the end of 1980s. These changes can be seen in
the content and the structure of factors even at first glance.
17
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
In our research in the final decade of the socialist era, processes influenced by
the size of the settlements and the standard of basic services played the main role in
differentiating the villages. They were followed by the occupational structure
(labour market situation) and migration. Nowadays, labour market situation and
factors (indicators) associated with it have the leading role in typifying the settle-
ments. The most recent processes that formulate the settlements and their weight
are identified in the structure of factors (see Table 6) which was set up after identi-
fying the individual factors.
Table 6
The content and name of the factors based on the 1982 and the present research
Factor
(13-factor variant) 1982
(8-factor variant) 2006
F1
Settlement structure – basic services – transport
Labour market condition – “develop-
position
ment”
F2
Occupational structure–commuting
Settlement structure – basic services
F3
Pace and direction of settlement development
Demographic conditions
F4
Type of natural environment
Dynamics of change in the population
F5
Rate of outskirt population
Occupational structure–commuting
F6
Pace of occupational restructuring
Touristic conditions
F7
Transport position
Rate of outskirt population
F8
Tourism, level of settlement development
Agricultural conditions
F9
Population
–
F10
Pace of change in the population
–
F11
Rate of wage-earners in the tertiary sector
–
F12
Utility supply – actual population change
–
F13
Rate of inactive wage-earners
–
Source: Own calculation.
3.3 The content of factor F1, spatial distribution of factorscore values
of the settlements
During the six decades following World War 2, at the beginning of 1990s the third
period started when the reason for differences among settlements could be ex-
plained by different causes. During the 1950s and 1960s, major differences were
caused by the different economic roles of the settlements and the ratio of migration.
These were also reflected in the occupational structure. Due to the changes in the
1960s, the rate of development, the general appearance of the villages, the lifestyle
of inhabitants, the demographic processes were all less and less influenced by the
economic character of the villages. In the 1970 and 1980s, several factors
18
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
arising from the size of the settlements, their location, the possibility of their con-
nection to a dynamically developing region, and the standard of supply defined the
character of a settlement, its development and the reaction of its inhabitants. Thus,
the above elements formulated the demographic process – migration, the age
structure of the inhabitants, their education and qualification – as well as the state
of their environment etc.
In our present study, factor F1 with its factorscore value of 4.46 contributed to
the explanation of the standard deviation with 16.5% (this is the extent to which it
formulates the settlements).
Factor F1 is formulated by the following indicators
– indicator 2.
Ratio of active wage earners
factor weight: –0.8064
– indicator 23. Number of automobiles per 1,000 people in 2001
factor weight: –0.7957
– indicator 8. Number of private enterprises per 1,000 people in 2001 factor weight: –0.7419
– indicator 18. Ratio of people possessing a high school certificate of
factor weight: –0.7263
the population aged 18– in 2001
– indicator 9.
Ratio of registered unemployed in 2001
factor weight: –0.6137
– indicator 24. Ratio of dwellings with 4 or more rooms of all dwell-
factor weight: –0.5912
ings in 2001
– indicator 16 Number of businesses in commerce and services per
factor weight: –0.5761
1,000 people in 2001
– indicator 7
Number of business partnerships per 10,000 inhabitants factor weight: –0.5265
– indicator 1
Travel time to bigger towns (county seats and medium-
factor weight: –0.4252
size towns) in 2001
Factor F1 reflects the labour market situation (including the density of enter-
prises) and (in connection to that) the financial situation of the inhabitants.
The values of the indicators of factor F1 – the so-called factorscore values –
show remarkable differences according to their location. The majority of settle-
ments belonging to the highest category – with a factorscore value above 0.7 – and
to the second highest category we established – with factorscore value between 0.3
and 0.7 – are located to the west of the Nagykanizsa–Fonyód–Siófok–Gárdony–
Százhalombatta–Budapest axis. Settlements located in the north-east part of the
agglomeration of Budapest, in the Vác–Aszód–Budapest triangle also belong to
this block (for an administrative overview map, see Figure 1; for F1 values, see
Figure 2).
This region can be characterised by a great number of settlements with high
values of F1. This high factorscore value also indicates that the labour market situa-
tion and the conditions of starting and operating enterprises are outstanding in this
region. In GyĘr-Moson-Sopron County 85% of the settlements have F1 factorscore-
values in the top two categories, while in Komárom-Esztergom, Vas and Zala
counties 705 of the settlements belong to them. In this block, only along the
Celldömölk–Zalaszentgrót axis can we identify a larger inner periphery, while
19
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Figure 1
Map of Hungarian public administration
Source: Authors’ construction.
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Figure 2
Factor values of the villages in the F1 factor
Source: Authors’ construction.
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
in the centre of Zala County, and in Veszprém County, along the Pápa–Zirc line are
there settlements with lower F1 values. We must notice that in this region, even
small villages and villages with unfavourable transport position show rather high
F1 factorscore values. We must also note that while on the basis of the location of
economic organisations, specialists concentrate only on the Budapest – Tatabánya
– GyĘr and a GyĘr – Mosonmagyaróvár axis, the area where the labour market
situation is favourable – at least according to F1 factorscore-values – stretches out
to the north-west of lake Balaton, covering that part of the country.
In Southern Transdanubia, only at the shore of lake Balaton and around bigger
towns – along the Kaposvár – Dombóvár axis, in the agglomeration of Pécs, near
Mohács, Bonyhád and Szekszárd – are there settlements with higher factorscore values.
The region of Northern Hungary and its neighbourhood used to be abundant in
workplaces until recently; however, today most settlements in this area belong to
the lowest category considering their factorscore values and only the micro-region
of Hatvan–Gyöngyös–Eger can boast of more favourable labour market conditions.
The western part of the Southern Great Plains region and the scattered farmsteads
around the Szeged–Kiskunfélegyháza–Izsák–Kiskunhalas area and Baja show a
surprisingly good factorscore value. It is probably intensive agricultural production
that increases the number of active wage-earners and provides opportunities for
agricultural enterprises. The Northern Great Plains and eastern half of the Southern
Great Plains (together comprising the geographic unit Tiszántúl, or East Hungarian
Plain), show a rather disadvantageous picture based on their F1 factorscore values,
reflecting the area’s labour market situation. Out of the 211 settlements located in
the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain (Alföld) only 15 (7% of the
settlements) belong to the first two categories, while in Hajdú-Bihar County there
are none (Figure 2).
Otherwise 703 out of the 2875 incorporated villages (24.5% of the total) belong
to the top two categories based on their factroscore values. It is easy to notice that
the density of enterprises and the ratio of active wage-earners are high there. The
density of enterprises is the highest in west-Transdanubia, which is reflected by the
factorscore values (Table 7).
It is also clear that factorscore values of factor F1 are highly influenced by the
density of enterprises (Table 8).
In settlements with a 0.3–0.7 factorscore value (in 14% of the settlements) the
density of enterprises shows only a slight difference from the values of the previ-
ous category and is above the national average, while the values of partnerships
show higher standard deviation.
22
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Table 7
Number of enterprises in settlements and their density in the regions
Region
Number of
Number of
Number of
Number of
Number of
Number of operat-
operating private
operating
operating enter- private enterprises partnerships per ing enterprises in
enterprises
partnerships,
prises in the field
per 1,000
1,000 inhabitants the field of com-
total
of commerce and
inhabitants
merce and services
services
per 1,000 inhabi-
tants
Central Hungary
(Közép-Magyar-
20,880
16,004
3,987
40.5
31.0
16.5
ország)
Central Transdanubia
18,926
8,093
1,721
39.7
17.0
11.8
(Közép-Dunántúl)
Western Transdanubia
17,340
6,460
1,491
40.2
15.0
11.3
(Nyugat-Dunántúl)
Southern Transdanubia
14,857
6,014
1,421
34.1
13.8
10.9
(Dél-Dunántúl)
Northern Hungary
(Észak-Magyar-
17,966
6,886
1,496
28.6
10.9
8.9
ország)
Northern Great Hun-
garian Plain
14,691
5,129
1,655
26.0
9.1
9.5
(Észak-Alföld)
Southern Great Hun-
garian Plain
14,540
5,335
1,641
33.1
12.2
11.6
(Dél-Alföld)
National
119,200
39,809
13,412
34.1
15.4
11.4
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Table 8
The distribution of enterprises by the values of F1
Factorscore-value-
Number of
Number of
Number of
Number of private
Number of
Number of oper-
category
operating private
operating
operating enter-
enterprises per
partnerships per ating enterprises
enterprises
partnerships
prises in the field 1,000 inhabitants 1,000 inhabitants
in the field of
of commerce and
commerce and
services
services per
1,000 inhabitants
–0.7 – –4.8
33,570
15,824
1,081
35.8
16.9
10.7
–0.3 – –0.7
14,448
5,521
3,960
28.1
10.7
7.7
–0.3 – –0.3
20,038
7,793
6,024
21.4
8.3
6.4
–0.7 – –0.3
9,427
3,407
2,875
20.6
7.5
6.3
–3.7 – –0.7
12,067
4,830
3,443
19.1
7.7
5.5
Settlements total
89,550
37,375
26,383
31.1
12.9
9.1
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
37.7% of villages in the country (1084 settlements) show either lower than av-
erage F1 factorscore values (–0.3 – 0.7) or belong to the group of settlements lag-
ging behind (factorscore values under –0.7). Their location marks the underde-
veloped regions of the country rather precisely.
3.4 Factors F2 and F3
With its eigenvalue level of 3.06, factor F2 condenses 11.35% of the total informa-
tion. It is based on the following indicators:
– indicator 2.
Population of the village, 2001
factor weight: 0.8257
– indicator 15.
The quality of basic public supply
factor weight: 0.8253
– indicator 4.
Ratio of settlements with population >999
factor weight: 0.6993
– indicator 13. Number of in-commuters
factor weight: 0.5769
Thus, factor F2 reflects the structure of the settlement (settlement size) and basic
services. The number of in-commuters shows a close reciprocity with the size of
the settlements: the diverse economy of larger towns attracts a larger number of in-
commuters than that of the small villages providing a limited number of work-
places. In our research of 1982, the indicators determining this factor (alongside
with some other ones) used to belong to the “dominant” factors, representing a
more than 21% weight in establishing the types of rural settlements. Compared to
the 1970s and '80s, the role of the indicators comprising F2 has decreased in the life
of villages. However, the number of inhabitants of the settlements and basic
services are still closely related (the correlation between the two indicators is
0.6966), as Table 9 clearly demonstrates.
Considering the close relationship between the size of settlements and F2, it is
easy to see that the factorscore values in F2 reflect the peculiarities of the country’s
settlement structure. The “spatial structure” formed by factorscore values are char-
acterised by sharp regional differences, the different parts of the country and the
central regions can be clearly separated. In the Great Hungarian Plain (Alföld) –
except for Szatmár-Bereg Plain which has a different settlement structure – there
are no settlements with low factorscore values, and even hardly any of them have
medium values (Figure 3).
Factor F3 explains 11.13% of the total amount of the information. The factor is
comprised of the following indicators:
– indicator 17.
Ratio of the age group 60–x, 2001
factor weight: –0.8978
– indicator 19.
Natural increase and decrease, 1990–2001
factor weight: –0.8136
– indicator 20.
Ratio of inactive wage-earners of all inhabitants, 2001 factor weight: –0.7838
– indicator 26.
Changes in the number of inhabitants in settlements,
factor weight: –0.5968
1990–2001
25
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Table 9
Number of inhabitants in settlements and the score of their basic provision in the different categories
of the factorscore values in F2
Factor F2
Population under 500
Population of 500–1,000
Population of 1,000 – 3,000
Population over 3,000
number of settlements, their ratio, and the score of basic institutional provision
settle-
ratio in
score
settle-
ratio in
score
settle-
ratio in
score
settle-
ratio in
score
ment
the cate-
ment
the cate-
ment
the cate-
ment
the cate-
gory,
gory,
gory,
gory,
%
%
%
%
–1,1 – –7,7
0
0
0
7
1.8
17.0
174
45.8
20.7
199
52.4
22.0
–0,5 – –1,1
10
2.2
9.3
43
9.8
15.1
357
81.6
18.5
28
6.4
19.6
–0,5 – –0,5
210
19.5
6.1
481
44.7
12.6
380
35.4
16.4
4
0.4
18.0
–0,9 – –0,5
316
71.0
3.5
108
24.3
9.0
21
4.7
12.9
0
0
0
–2,7 – –0,9
484
90.4
2.0
45
8.4
5.2
7
1.2
10.2
0
0
0
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Figure 3
Factor values of the villages in the F2 factor
Source: Authors’ construction.
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
F3 is the factor of short-term demographic changes and the factor of demo-
graphic conditions (Figure 4).
Table 10 shows the different types of rural settlements established in our re-
search and some significant data of them. Due to its large size, only contracted
types are introduced here while Table 11 shows some characteristics of the differ-
ent types (also see Figure 5).
4 Village types
4.1 Types I–III
The first three main types include about 800 settlements taking a favourable posi-
tion in the ranking of the advancement level of suburbanisation-agglomeration
process, out of which some 110–112 settlements have made significant advance-
ment in the process and belong now to the core area of an agglomeration (highly
growing population even after 1990, favourable demographic and social structure,
urban occupational pattern, high incomes etc.). Settlements belonging to sub-type
I.1 have tripled their population since World War 2; after 1990, their number of
inhabitants increased by one-third, two-fifth of the wage-earners are white-collar
workers, the rate of active workers is the highest among all types, and two-third of
them are commuters. (However, the rate of out-commuters is not the highest in this
type, but in the disadvantaged micro-villages – showing that this type developed
remarkable “own” economy, the conditions for enterprises are favourable, and the
specific values of enterprises relatively high.) Only 34 settlements were ranked as
“elite” suburbia or clearly agglomerated settlements in 2001.
We must note that many of the settlements formerly belonging to the agglom-
eration zone were granted urban status in the near past, while many of them were
annexed to towns after World War 2 – this is how Great-Budapest, Great-Miskolc
or Great-Pécs were formed. To sub-type I.2 belong settlements rather similar to
sub-type I.1 but with smaller number of inhabitants, the processes and conditions in
them are more modest.
The only definite difference between the two sub-types is in the changes in the
number of inhabitants between 1949 and 2001. Settlements belonging to this type
(type I) form a continuous, extended ring only around Budapest. Among larger
provincial towns, Pécs is surrounded by several villages of smaller population
which belong to type I. Veszprém, Dunaújváros and Miskolc have a few villages in
their agglomeration, while surprisingly GyĘr, Szombathely, Kaposvár, Tatabánya
and Salgótarján all lack an agglomeration area.
28
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Figure 4
Factor values of the villages in the F3 factor
Source: Authors’ construction.
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Table 10
Types of rural settlements
Type
Subtype
Name of type
Cluster number
Number of
settlements
Type I.
Settlements in the inner zone of an agglomeration
I. 1.
Developed settlements with a large number of inhabitants and of high prestige, Cluster 1, 17 and 12
34
with favourable demographic structure
I. 2.
Agglomeration villages with rapidly increasing, medium-size population,
Cluster 19
68
with favourable position
Type II.
Villages in the outer zone of an agglomeration
–
(settlements with increasing large population, with high rate of industrial wage- Cluster 4
218
earners, with social structure which is more favourable than the average)
Type III.
Villages with smaller and stagnating-moderately increasing population, with
residential and mixed functions
III. 1.
Villages with good labour market conditions, stagnating population, high
Cluster 22
273
ratio of out-commuters
III. 2.
Villages with average labour market conditions, decreasing population and
Cluster 14
209
mixed functions
Type IV.
–
Villages with touristic function, spas
Cluster 6, 7, 9 and 24
38
Type V.
Medium-size villages with unfavourable labour market conditions, in some
cases with remarkable agrarian functions and outskirt population
V. 1.
Stagnating, medium-size villages with bad labour market conditions, high
Cluster 15
379
ratio of out-commuters
V. 2.
Villages with high ratio of outskirt population and remarkable agrarian
Cluster 16
70
function, mainly in the Great Plain (scattered farm villages)
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Count. Table 10
Type
Subtype
Name of type
Cluster number
Number of
settlements
Type VI.
Villages with good labour market conditions, stable social structure, with
residential and touristic function
VI. 1.
Villages with good labour market conditions, stable social structure, with
Cluster 8 and 25
631
residential function
VI. 2.
Villages with less favourable demographic conditions, but remarkable
Cluster 11, 18 and 20
44
touristic function
Type VII.
Small, disadvantaged villages with bad labor market conditions, decreasing
population, with distorted demographic structure
VII. 1.
Disadvantaged dwarf villages with rapidly decreasing population, unfavorable Cluster 2, 5
432
demographic structure and commuting inhabitants
VII. 2.
Disadvantaged small villages with decreasing population, and with remarkable Cluster 23
105
agrarian function
VII. 3.
Poor, small villages with very bad labor market conditions but with increasing Cluster 13 and 21
191
population and favorable demographic indicators
VII. 4.
Dwarf villages with rapidly decreasing population and bad labor market
Cluster 3 and 10
183
conditions
Source: Authors’ classification.
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Table 11
Selected important data of the types of rural settlements
Type
Averages of different indicators
population
change in the
rate of
active out-com- industrial
white
number number of rate of
rate of
(number)
population
people
wage-
muters,
wage-
collar
of basic motorcars dwelling agricul-
aged
earners,
%
earners,
workers, institu- per 1,000 with 4 or
tural
60–x
%
%
%
tions
more
wage-
rooms, % earners,
%
1949–
1990–
2001
2001
I.1.
7181
296,7
136,3
16,7
38,7
65,6
33,0
39,0
20,1
236,8
23,3
2,1
I.2.
1987
191,2
130,7
16,7
38,5
72,7
33,6
38,8
15,1
230,0
29,0
2,4
II.
3180
109,9
105,6
20,2
34,8
59,2
44,2
25,4
20,3
176,2
15,7
4,6
III.1.
1255
85,8
98,0
22,5
34,9
62,3
41,4
28,4
15,8
205,9
23,5
5,0
III.2.
1744
64,9
94,8
24,2
29,2
46,8
39,8
22,7
18,0
162,4
15,8
11,7
IV.
1063
116,2
97,5
24,2
34,7
49,6
28,4
33,0
14,4
257,6
30,2
5,0
V.1.
1755
81,5
98,8
20,9
23,1
49,4
40,0
25,7
16,9
132,7
12,4
5,8
V.2.
1940
69,8
102,4
21,8
33,1
40,5
32,7
17,8
17,1
194,8
11,0
25,9
VI.1.
833
85,5
103,2
21,5
34,5
70,9
39,4
26,6
10,3
200,3
25,2
6,7
VI.2.
507
60,2
87,6
31,3
30,5
57,7
37,9
26,5
7,7
232,7
16,9
7,7
VII.1.
371
52,3
90,7
27,9
27,0
73,9
50,9
15,2
4,1
157,6
11,2
6,5
VII.2.
476
46,9
92,8
24,2
23,7
46,7
30,1
16,6
6,7
154,4
11,4
23,8
VII.3.
532
70,5
105,9
17,9
17,4
65,7
42,8
18,9
5,3
99,2
9,4
5,7
VII.4.
402
46,2
86,9
35,1
18,0
51,9
32,1
26,6
6,0
137,8
9,5
7,1
* 1949 = 100,0%; 1990 = 100,0%
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Figure 5
Village typology of Hungary
Source: Authors’ construction.
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Nevertheless, it is evident that the relatively large number (218) of villages
categorised as settlements in the peripheral zone of the agglomeration (type II) do
not differ greatly from the previous type, remarkable differences can only be de-
tected in their demographic processes (their population is growing both in long-
and in the short term), their society is less urban (the rate of white-collar workers is
significantly lower – 25.5% compared to the 39% of the previous type – the rate of
people possessing a high school diploma is 23% while in type I this number is
37%) and income conditions are less favourable (see the rate of dwellings with 4 or
more rooms and the number of cars per 1,000 people). Observing the spread of the
settlements belonging to the outer zone of the agglomeration, the zone increases
around the capital, along the Budapest–Nagykáta–Újszász–Szolnok railway line,
towards Jászság, in the Dabas micro-region, along the Dunaújváros–Székesfe-
hérvár–Várpalota axis, around and between GyĘr and Mosonmagyaróvár, and
along the Budapest–Hatvan–Füzesabony–MezĘkövesd main railway line. The
agglomeration zone around Miskolc increases with 10–12 settlements. We must
note that this settlement type does not occur around Szombathely, Zalaegerszeg,
Nagykanizsa, Kaposvár or Pécs. This can be explained by the fact that the process
of agglomeration could not cope with the micro- and small-village structures. The
stagnating-declining economy of some towns, their lower demand for workforce
and decreasing commuting can explain the lack of settlement type II around Sal-
gótarján (Nógrád County), Ózd, Kazincbarcika (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County),
and Komló (Baranya County).
Settlements with residential functions belong to type III, while type III.2 com-
prises settlements with mixed (residential, tertiary and agricultural) functions.
Settlements in type III. 1 are distinguished from agglomeration types by their
demographic processes – their population is increasing even in the short term – and
by their location. They are not clustered around centres offering employment possi-
bilities, but are scattered all around in the dwarf village commuting areas. Villages
with a larger population, more favourable local positions, better social and income
conditions belong to this type. They are located mainly in Transdanubia, Nógrád
and Heves county, some of them in Szabolcs and Szatmár region. Only very few of
them can be found in the Great Hungarian Plain, while none in Hajdú-Bihar, Békés
and Csongrád counties.
It is not so obvious to identify sub-type III.2. They are definitely settlements
with mixed functions, the rate of local workplaces is significant and the rate of
wage-earners working in agriculture is relatively high. Another characteristic is
that the roughly 200 settlements belonging to this type can be divided into three
larger clusters, mainly in areas with favourable conditions: in Békés and Csongrád,
on the loess fields of the southern part of Tiszántúl – 60% of the settlements belong
to this sub-type in Békés, – in Northern Bácska (some villages with higher
34
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
population and good agrarian conditions near Mohács also belong here), and set-
tlements located in the square marked by Dombóvár–Tamási–Sárbogárd–Szekszárd
in Tolna (where 44% of the villages are of this sub-type).
4.2 Type IV
The 38 settlements in type IV were classified as villages with touristic functions
and spa resorts by the merger of four clusters. Their functions gave the settlements
their special characteristics, which means a suitable number and wide variety of
workplaces offering good income conditions for the inhabitants. The characteristics
and role of the villages is not quite clear. However, we must raise the question that
settlements which have significant touristic functions, village tourism, and
recreational facilities and still belong to a different cluster should be placed here or
not. This problem especially emerges in the case of settlements in sub-type VI.2.
(The number of visitors per 1,000 inhabitants at public accommodation establish-
ments is about 4,000 per year; while this number in type IV exceeds 20,000.) The
small villages in sub-type VI.2 are in rather unfavourable position, e.g. Teresztény
(Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County) has only 26 (!) inhabitants, 60% of whom are
older than 60, the village has lost eight-tenth of its population since 1949, only 4%
of the inhabitants are wage-earners and we could go on. We must also note that our
indicator system measured the touristic function of the settlements with the number
of guests staying at paying accommodation establishments, so people relaxing at
their own holiday homes and “temporary” guests at holiday resorts remained
unnoticed. Thus, some further settlements might have remarkable touristic func-
tions, but were not included in this type.
4.3 Type V
Settlements belonging to type V can mostly be identified as “traditional” villages,
even though in sub-type V.1 the rate of wage earners in agriculture hardly reaches
6%. The majority of them are located in Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County (nearly
two.third of the settlements in the county belong here), along the river Tisza (in
Bodrogköz, Taktaköz, Middle Tisza Plain [Közép-Tisza-vidék], Tiszazug) and
Bihar; some of them are scattered in the area of the Northern Central Ranges
[Északi-középhegység]. About two dozens of them can be found in BelsĘ-Somogy,
but in the area of GyĘr-Moson-Sopron, Komárom-Esztergom, Tolna, Vas and Zala
counties there are only three. Their labour market conditions – especially compared
to their size – is definitely bad, the rate of active wage-earners is only 23% (this
rate is lower only in the case of dwarf and small villages in unfavourable peripheral
position).
35
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Another sub-type here is scattered farmstead villages, with a high ratio of
population in the periphery (40% as an average, but in some cases it can be more
than 70%). As a distinctive feature, scattered farmstead villages are almost
exclusively preserved in the Danube–Tisza Interfluve. In the region of Tiszántúl,
where there used to be a great number of these “tanya”, many of them disappeared.
Only a few scattered farmstead villages like Nagycserkesz, Kálmánháza, NagytĘke
near Szentes, CserkeszĘlĘ, the farmsteads in Tiszazug (with its Kiskunság-like
character combined with a touristic role – a thermal bath) could survive. It must be
stated that besides the 70 settlements considered scattered farmstead villages
during the cluster analysis, another 15 settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain
have 25% peripheral population, while in another 12, this rate exceeds 20%.
Several of them (Örménykút, Kardos, MezĘhék, Székkutas and Csabaszabadi in
Békés, Tompa in Bács-Kiskun County) are typical scattered farmstead villages.
4.4 Types VI and VII
Settlements belonging to this type are micro- and small villages. Their average
number of population does not reach 1,000. The main differentiating factor among
them is labour market conditions. Small villages with favourable labour market
conditions – the rate of active wage-earners in the total number of wage earners is
34.5%, the same rate as in the outer zone of agglomerations. Although they do not
provide enough workplaces on site, the majority of their wage earners could be-
come commuters in regions with favourable economic conditions. Their society is
stable, their living standards are average. In these settlements, the main defining
feature is the “opposition” between the size of the settlement and its labour market
conditions. Most of them are located in the small village region of Transdanubia. In
Vas County, 56%; in GyĘr-Moson-Sopron and Veszprém County, 47%; and in
Zala, 34% of the settlements belong to this type. (More than 60% of the 631 set-
tlements in type VI.1 can be found in these four counties.) Type VI.2 includes
micro-villages with an unfavourable position, but with significant touristic function
(only 44 villages are classified as this type).
The losers of settlement development processes are gathered in type VII. The
situation of small villages worsened in the 1960s and ‘00s (the number of small
villages with population lower than 1,000 was 1583 in 1970, and 1719 in 2004).
Their official judgment from the settlement development point of view has been
negative since the beginning of the 1950s. Settlement planning schemes which
were first introduced at the end of the 1940s considered only the villages' econo-
mies of scale. The thread of these thoughts is as follows: the starting point of the
arguments is that “the larger the number of inhabitants, the better and more eco-
nomical the supply of a settlement is”, so “one of the most important economic
36
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
efficiency questions in forming an agricultural settlement network is: what trans-
port costs does the concentration of population necessitate to cultivate the land?”
After considering these measurements they stated that “according to present aver-
age social demands, villages with population lower than 900–1,000 people are
unviable and not capable of development even temporarily under the conditions of
socialist society.” Even villages with 900–1,500 inhabitants represented “tempo-
rarily existing settlements with few basic public institutions, without public utilities
– except for street-lighting” in the eye of settlement planners. Considering some
public institution network and public utility – especially sewage-system –
parameters, they came to the conclusion that “villages with a population of 3,000
are the smallest type of socialist villages” (Perczel – Gerle, 1966).
These ideas were included even in a study completed in 1963 titled “Plans for
Settlement Network Development”. The monography distinguished district centres,
“satellite”-villages (villages which were connected to a larger administrative
centre) and ceasing villages among the settlements. This plan, however, did not
reach the enactment phase. The “National Settlement Development Concept”
(NSDC, 1971) which came into force in 1971, used a more precise phrasing. On
the level of settlements it distinguished (1) lower level centres of high priority, (2)
lower level centres, (3) partial lower level centres and (4) “settlements without
central functions” (“other” settlements, whose number exceeded 2,000 [!]) The
NSDC also referred to branch rationalisation when it sorted the settlements into
different development categories: “Settlements and central villages must be desig-
nated to be economic centres of large industries and seats of basic service institu-
tions whose economical operation is tailored to the number of inhabitants. These
settlements can develop into the region’s centre of organisation and attraction
zone” [Authors’ translation].
While evaluating the effects of settlement policy, it has to be taken into consid-
eration that the state of small villages is influenced by development processes,
conditions and geographic position of productive forces as well as by technical
opportunities (e.g. opportunities provided by traffic), by developments in property
relations and by the developments in social-individual demand for basic services.
In all, it can be stated that the situation of small villages is also influenced by ob-
jective processes. With a view to our field of research, the following settlement-for-
mulating processes not belonging to settlement policy have to be mentioned: a
plummeting demand for workforce in agriculture after World War II (In 1945
53.8% of all active wage-earners were employed in agriculture. The same figure in
2001 amounted to only 5.5%), excess agricultural labour force after the nationali-
sation of agricultural production (establishment of collective farms), land-owning
peasants with decreasing economic interests and looser emotional ties to their land,
rocketing labour demand in industrial production and mining after 1948, the over-
all availability of commuting due to developments in public transport. The state of
37
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
small villages was worsened due to the following facts: first, their transport geo-
graphic position was worse than the one of larger villages – there was a lower
number of transport services and their railway stations were in a rather more pe-
ripheral position. Secondly, in the regions with a small-village settlement structure,
the central offices of collective farms were relocated to larger villages. There they
provided more job opportunities. The institutional network of small villages had
been poor even before the system of districts was introduced; they hardly provided
any job opportunities for qualified labour; thus, those having pursued secondary
and higher education could not return to their native villages.
The relocation of the institutions of primary service (school, local council, cen-
tral offices of collective farms) into the so-called central villages, into seats of local
councils, made the situation in small villages regarding basic services even more
unfavourable and it also made the intellectuals leave. The inhabitants noted that in
order to get to a higher level in the social hierarchy there was a need to move up in
the settlement hierarchy as well (moving to settlements which were higher on the
settlement hierarchy, commuting and this way being connected to a workplace in
the nearby town, sending the growing-up generation into towns etc.). It was the
families in small villages that had no choice but to move to towns, agglomerations,
to settlements with a higher population. Moving off from villages gained pace in
the 1960s and 1970s (The last inhabitant left the small hamlet of GyĦrĦfĦ in
Baranya County in 1972. Further cessations of villages were disguised by
manipulations in public administration.) Moving off in those decades was se-
lective: mainly those had a chance to move that were well-off, who were qualified
labourers or those who were young. Thus, the proportion of the elderly, pension-
ers, the unhealthy and those with low qualifications (consequently also with low
income) among those who had not moved was increasing gradually. During the
socialist era, there was hardly anyone who moved into any of the small villages. If
it happened so, they made the conditions in these villages even worse. The value of
real estates went down. Those happening to go along could see only uninhabited
houses, abandoned and uncared-for yards and gardens growing wild.
The social structure of small villages so to say depreciated, and this resulted in
a further increase in the degree of moving off. This meant that the unfavourable
conditions in small villages were not a consequence any more but a reason for
moving away. It was rather rare that these small villages could get out of the vi-
cious circle of unfavourable position and status ĺ moving off ĺ increasingly
unfavourable social structure ĺ increasing degree of moving off. The degree and
direction of migration were proportionate to the size of settlements. Hundreds of
villages became only shadows of the settlements they once used to be (Table 12).
38
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Table 12
Changes in the population of selected villages, 1870–2001
Villages
Population
1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1941 1949 1960 1970 1980 1990 2001
1. Pamlény1
402
398
429
384
379
413
426
448
416
333
243
136
95
54
2. Perecse1
308
278
281
258
244
246
260
279
271
257
174
92
61
29
3. Debréte1
222
238
222
210
216
194
208
211
220
191
105
60
42
30
4. Magyarlukafa2
395
380
373
362
402
405
391
366
402
280
189
132
112
109
5. Tagyon3
191
174
213
204
208
188
194
169
191
198
123
107
103
94
6. Gagyapáti1
146
110
119
111
123
134
147
136
136
96
71
33
19
15
7. Sima1
155
172
188
198
187
199
183
177
171
150
78
42
24
19
8. FelsĘszenterzsébet4
205
225
224
250
210
194
168
146
129
85
57
38
20
19
9. Magyarföld4
100
140
151
159
156
149
160
146
140
122
79
54
51
42
10. Zaláta2
943
935
947
977
972
886
854
857
846
642
123
393
345
306
1 = village situated in Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County
2 = village situated in Baranya County
3 = village situated in Veszprém County
4 = village situated in Zala County
Source: County volumes of the census carried out in 2001.
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
The unfavourable demographic processes seemed to be irreversible, also for the
reason that due to the ageing of the inhabitants, population was also decreasing
naturally in small villages.
Our previous research documented these processes, in which we concluded that
settlement formulating processes are primarily determined by the following group
of reasons: settlement size, basic services, settlement hierarchy level. The biggest
group of rural settlements during the socialist era was the one which included those
villages that could be described as villages with micro-village phenomena. There
were nearly 1,100 of them in the country.
After 1990, as it was described earlier, there was a change in the relation of ba-
sic institutions and villages. This change was caused by the following two reasons:
On the one hand, one of the reasons was a dramatic decrease in the number of
− job opportunities and a decrease in the economic activity of population. This
caused that the role of labour market situation gained increased importance in
the life of rural population. This change influenced the life of village
inhabitants to a higher degree than the life of those living in towns. A rather
significant diversification took place in this respect: economic activity fell
back more moderately in villages with favourable regional position, i.e. in
economically more prosperous regions and near tows. Opportunities for
commuting remained the same in these villages, or there were job opportuni-
ties offered by rural tourism. Regardless of their size, there were relatively
good conditions in these villages concerning labour market situation, income
levels, circumstances of life, infrastructure etc. However, many small villages
are situated in regions and micro-regions where there are unfavourable labour
market conditions, or they are situated far from towns and places offering
employment. There are cases when the state of a village’s population – ex-
tremely ageing population, uneducated and unqualified inhabitants – leads to
its own unfavourable position. In these settlements, the population fights for
survival in the strict sense of the word and the quality of public services is of
secondary importance. This was also mirrored in the press: while in the sev-
enties and eighties there were articles discussing that for example cheap sa-
lami was delivered into small villages only twice a week, today the issue is
that the majority of the population would not even have money to buy that
salami.
On the other hand, opportunities for the utilisation of basic services have also
− changed due to the following factors: improvement of roads, increasing
number of cars, widespread use of communication tools and a growth in the
number of service companies. On this basis, small villages are not necessarily
remote and cut away from the rest of the world, and the availability of basic
services cannot be exclusively evaluated on the basis of locally present
40
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
institutions either. (Of course, there are still villages, mainly those in an un-
favourable situation, where basic services can only be reached with difficul-
ties. In these settlements, there is an insufficient number of businesses and
the use of modern communication tools is not widespread either.)
5 Conclusions
5.1 General remarks
A few conclusions that can be drawn from the research:
Regardless of how big a database is, what kind of mathematical-statistical
− apparatus we worked with, only the main coordinates of the villages and their
phenomena transformed and condensed into data could be taken into consid-
eration when setting up the typology. It is obvious that there are numerous
other factors, which influence the conditions, state, features and the overall
picture of individual villages and local communities. Some of these are as
follows: the diversity of the natural environment, settlement history (e.g. is a
village a former smallholder village, a settler village10, a manor village11, a
scattered farmstead village12, a so-called “summás” village13 or a craftsmen
settlement etc.), the time when the industrial age reached the village, the
former property relations in the village and consequently the social and
property status of the settlement’s population, the level of development of
middle classes in the village before the socialist era, the degree of how much
a village was stricken by deportations during and after World War II, the
national and religious composition of a village’s population, traditions
10 Settler village: most of them were founded after the end of the Ottoman occupation (end of the 17th
century) by settlers coming from further regions of the country or by settlers coming from abroad.
Frequently, they were not built at the place of former villages. They were built up according to
plans; the arrangement of streets and properties were elaborated by engineers. A lot of settler
villages were founded by settling together the inhabitants of scattered settlements in outer areas, or
in some special cases, a village was created for a special group of settlers, e.g. the village of
Beloinnaisz was built for Greek communist partisans and their families who had fled from their
country after the end of the Greek Civil War.
11 A village built up on manors. These were inhabited by agricultural workers working for the land-
owner. The buildings in the village were owned by the landowner. Later, many of these became
independent villages.
12 Villages that were created by a planned settling together of the inhabitants of “tanya” scattered
farmsteads.
13 A village inhabited by day-labourers and peasants who were landless or owned only a dwarf estate.
The day-labourers who did seasonal work on manors further away from their home were called as
“summás” people.
41
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
with different roots and consequently the population's scale of values, their
lifestyle, their ability to innovate, their tastes and the leadership skills of their
representatives etc. The mixture of hard data and the above mentioned by far
not complete set of features make each village a unique and irreproducible
individual unit. After all, in Hungary there are more than 2,800 types of
villages nowadays. Each effort to classify or to put any of them into a certain
type damages their uniqueness. It is evident that there are not only 14 types
(number of types and sub-types) of villages in Hungary nowadays but there
are thousands of them. Thus, if we decide to draw up any system of rural
settlements, we will have to accept the fact that during the classification of
villages, we will have to ignore some of their significant individual features.
Each group of villages belonging to the same type will still include different
rural settlements with numerous individual features. It follows from the
foregoing that even if we follow a research method that is based on a
carefully and perfectly created wide-ranging database, we will not get per-
fectly homogeneous village types.
− The above mentioned so to say difficulties are made even more complicated
by the fact that all of the rapid and sharp changes that took place in the vil-
lages and in the lives of their population after 1990 (deindustrialisation, the
liquidation of socialist-type cooperative farms, significant changes in their
labour market position, regaining the right to self-government, technical de-
velopments etc.) have not manifested themselves fully as a whole, yet. The
settlements and their inhabitants have not had time so far to react fully to
these changes. Numerous contradictory processes are taking place simulta-
neously and there are contradictory states as well. As an example, contra-
dictory demographic and social processes could be mentioned here. If a
complex classification method is applied where a wide range of factors is
taken into account, the above mentioned so to say irregularity or disorder
makes individual groups of rural settlements extremely hard to interpret. On
the other hand, of course, different types can be derived on the basis of dif-
ferent factors, such as on the basis of the population of settlements, the em-
ployment structure of the population, changes in the number of inhabitants,
the proportion of out-commuters, the availability of basic services and the
development of infrastructure. The merging of these factors into a complex
type may result in the fact that similar rural settlements from the same group
may be put into different types (e.g. the proportion of commuters is high in
nearly each type; thus, residential villages can be found in nearly each type,
even in scattered-farm villages). At the same time, even if the majority of the
indicators of individual villages show more or less similar values, and the
factor analysis is based on these indicators, some of their indicators can be
42
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
considerably different from the cluster’s centre, i.e. they may differ from the
average. This way, if we define the typical data of villages belonging to each
type as indicators (with minimum, average and maximum values), it may
seem that very different villages were put into a certain type. With full
awareness of the peculiarities of factor and cluster analyses this statement can
be accepted only partially. However, it is a fact that the homogeneity of the
types is less than ideal and that exactly due to the current irregularity or
disorder in the processes.
At the same time, all villages have undergone a certain homogenisation. For
− example the ratio of out-commuters compared to the number of wage-earners
in every village and village type is rather high: it amounts to or exceeds 60-
70%. So, this formerly strong differentiating factor nowadays plays a modest
role in the typology; while earlier the proportion of out-commuters used to be
the most important indicator of suburbanisation and of the degree of becom-
ing agglomerations; nowadays agglomerations cannot be determined on the
basis of the same indicator. The majority of our villages serve only as an area
for living due to a low number of local employment opportunities (62% of
the economically active population is commuting). The disappearance of
mining villages and industrial settlements (partly because they had been
granted urban status , partly because mines and factories were closed down)
also resulted in the relative homogeneity of villages. The decrease in agri-
cultural production (considering the number and ratio of wage-earners
working in the agricultural sector) has suppressed agriculture as a primary
activity among the determining factors. Today the old equation of “village =
settlement with an agricultural activity” is no longer valid. There are only a
little more than 50 villages, where the proportion of wage-earners working in
agriculture exceeds 30%. In 141 villages the corresponding proportion is
between 20 and 30%. This means that the same figure is under 20% in ap-
proximately 200 villages. In addition, agriculture does not play a major role
in the latter group either. In more than 1,300 villages, however, the propor-
tion of wage-earners employed in agriculture does not reach 5%. This means
that these villages are not influenced by the degree and the nature of their ag-
ricultural activities (at least not concerning the proportion of wage-earners).
While on the basis of the hard data, a certain unification can be observed
− within the stock of villages, the status of local society, their sociological
features, the differences deriving from the different financial status – e.g. the
environment formed by the ways of recreation, the amount spent on “cul-
ture”, tastes, demands, financial background; the general appearance of the
village, the lifestyle of the inhabitants, their scale of values, their dressing
habits etc. – along with the traditions the inhabitants preserve, the social lay-
43
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
ers of villages and several, non-factual factors generate a rather diverse
formula. The diversity of the soft data – from the so to say elite residential
quarters in the suburbs, to the unemployed people of the villages stricken by
demographic erosion, scraping along on social benefits or casual work – is
highly remarkable. However, obviously, these differences appear only indi-
rectly in our database.
Of course, the description of the individual types of rural settlements does not
− outline the peculiarities of the villages of individual areas, micro-regions and
parts of the country. Not even in spite of the fact that the spreading of certain
types of villages has been outlined and the position of villages belonging to a
certain type has been presented on detailed maps. The frequency of the
presence of certain types, the different mixes of different types, the role of
towns in the individual regions and the developments in settlement
neighborhoods can form peculiar areas and groups of villages, so-called
macro village regions or village districts in individual regions. We cannot
integrate the description of these peculiar areas into this research, but the
frequency of the presence of certain village types in certain counties provides
information about the peculiarities of territorial structure (Table 13). In
Figure 6, those parts of the country and those regions are shown, where
similarities can be observed in the frequency of the presence of certain vil-
lage types and in the proportions of mixing of certain types. On the basis of
our observations nine macro village regions should be drawn up, of course
with the possibility of drawing up further sub-regions within each one.
5.2 Macro village regions
Macro village region I: Western Hungary: This macro village region includes the
villages of Vas, Zala, GyĘr-Moson-Sopron (not including the zone by the Danube
and the villages lying by the Mosonmagyaróvár–GyĘr–Komárom axis) and Vesz-
prém (not including the villages of the Veszprém and Várpalota agglomeration)
counties and some villages around Kisbér.
This macro village region of some 800 villages is made up of micro- and small
villages. Nearly four fifths of the villages have lower population than 1,000. The
number of inhabitants exceeds 2,000 only in 40 villages. The population of the
latter ones increased mainly as a result of the agglomeration process in the last few
decades, or as a result of industrialisation and mining. In the majority of the area,
there are favourable agricultural natural conditions, transport geographical posi-
tions are good market centres are within easy reach for the villagers. The town
network has been built up completely, both the medium-size towns (Sopron, GyĘr,
44
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Table 13
Types of rural settlements by counties
County
Number
I.1
I. 2
II. III. 1 III. 2 IV.
V.1 V.2 VI.1 VI.2 VII.1 VII.2
VII.3
VII.4
of villages
Baranya
289
7
15
18
1
6
1
67
2
90
20
52
10
Bács-Kiskun
101
11
6
29
0
7
37
3
0
1
6
0
1
Békés
58
5
0
35
0
10
0
0
0
0
5
0
3
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén
334
7
13
9
7
5
83
0
24
5
25
3
75
78
Csongrád
52
1
4
0
16
0
2
20
4
0
2
2
0
1
Fejér
98
3
7
31
2
18
1
2
0
21
0
11
2
0
0
GyĘr-Moson-Sopron
172
4
23
20
10
1
0
0
81
0
23
7
0
3
Hajdú-Bihar
55
2
4
0
13
0
32
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
Heves
111
1
1
27
18
5
3
22
1
5
3
15
1
2
7
Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok
61
20
2
3
1
23
1
1
0
1
5
2
2
Komárom-Esztergom
66
4
15
17
3
1
0
0
20
0
5
1
0
0
Nógrád
122
4
30
0
0
26
0
17
3
25
0
5
12
Pest
152
27
23
46
17
2
0
6
6
14
2
3
0
2
4
Somogy
231
1
4
27
4
7
25
0
55
5
45
25
22
11
Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg
208
2
1
9
0
0 132
3
1
1
2
4
21
32
Tolna
99
1
5
1
44
0
0
0
18
0
25
3
0
2
Vas
207
2
1
25
0
2
1
1 116
9
47
1
1
1
Veszprém
211
1
4
4
22
2
13
1
0
99
10
39
8
2
6
Zala
248
4
0
53
0
3
1
0
85
4
72
12
3
11
Total
2875
34
68 218 273 209
38 379
70 631
44
432
105
189
185
Source: Authors’ calculations
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Figure 6
Macro village regions in Hungary
Source: Authors’ construction.
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Mosonmagyaróvár, Szombathely, Pápa) and small towns (Kapuvár, Csorna,
Sárvár, Celldömölk, KĘszeg, Körmend, Tapolca, Sümeg etc.) are busy traffic hubs.
The industries processing agricultural products (beet, dairy, distilling and meat
processing industries etc.) are well-developed. The conditions of micro- and small
villages in this region are rather favourable. The micro-village syndrome is present
only in a small scale. The situation of some villages in Zala County and in some
micro-regions of Vas County (Vendvidék, ėrség, Vasi-Hegyhát) is less favourable:
there are unfavourable agricultural conditions, vital small towns and market centres
are missing and traffic conditions are not good. In the villages of the Transdanu-
bian Central Range (Dunántúli-középhegység) both mining and industrial produc-
tion started early. During the socialist era they became major economic branches
and thoroughly transformed the villages.
Macro village region II: Danube Region (Dunamente) and MezĘföld Region:
Villages by the Mosonmagyaróvár–GyĘr–Komárom–Esztergom–Dunaföldvár line
and villages in the vicinity of Székesfehérvár.
The villages of this long-stretching region have been in an advantageous posi-
tion for a long time. Agricultural conditions in this zone are undeniably good: agri-
culture has been pursued in the region on good and excellent quality soils on plains
(except for a few villages in the Transdanubian Central Range where the quality of
soil is sub par and agricultural conditions are poor). The market conditions are
excellent as well: the proximity of Vienna and other towns in the Small Hungarian
Plain (Kisalföld) created a demand for production in the villages of Moson and
GyĘr County quite early; the Danube as a waterway solved the problem of trans-
port even before the appearance of railway links, and there was a line of towns by
the Danube, which created a demand for crops, such as Moson, GyĘr, Komárom,
Vác, Dunaföldvár and Paks. Though agriculture on manors hindered the develop-
ment of smaller farms to a great extent, the former served as good examples of
intensive agricultural production. Busy traffic on the roads of international impor-
tance (the Danube as a waterway and the international road on the right side of the
river, the road between Dunaföldvár, Székesfehérvár and GyĘr, the “Road of
Butchers’”) created a bustling life in this zone: the middle-class developed early
and craftsmanship started to flourish in villages such as Dunabogdány, Visegrád,
Nagymaros, Nyergesújfalu, Piszke, SüttĘ, Dunaalmás, Neszmély etc.
Later, in the second half of the 19th century, manufacturing industry also settled
down in the region. The part of this zone belonging to the Small Hungarian Plain
had food industry and textile industry, and the part belonging to Komárom-Eszter-
gom County had mining and building materials industry. Populous villages and
villages with medium-size population did not lack basic institutions. During the
decades of socialism the industrial development of this zone came to the front. A
large number of important industrial districts and towns developed in the region
47
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
(GyĘr, Tatabánya, Dorog and its vicinities, Várpalota, Dunaújváros etc.) New so-
cialist industrial towns14 grew up on crop fields – Dunaújváros, Tatabánya,
Oroszlány and Várpalota. This was the zone where the transformation of former
agricultural villages started the earliest, partly due to the opening of mines and the
launching of industrial projects, and partly due to a rapid growth in the number of
commuters.
As a result, this zone became a conglomeration of industrial and residential
communities. It was only a certain part of the MezĘföld, the one between Székes-
fehérvár, Sárbogárd and Dunaújváros, where major manufacturing industries had
not settled. However, due to the fact that towns were attracting new labour force,
changes in the occupational structure of the population gained pace in these vil-
lages as well. The vast majority of settlements in this zone showed signs of be-
coming agglomerated and turning into sleeping settlements on different levels even
in measures of the socialist era. Today, the majority of the villages belong to “ag-
glomeration types” too; mostly the type that includes settlements in the outer zone
of agglomerations (type II). There are only a few villages, which lie in the Trans-
danubian Middle Range that did not become agglomerated settlements, however,
the settlements belonging to type VI in the Gerecse and the Vértes Mountains can
be considered residential villages as well (Vértestolna, Bajót, Nagysáp, Újbarok,
Felcsút, Bakonykuti etc.). Mining and manufacturing ceased in most settlements
after 1990, which caused depression; however, job opportunities offered by nearby
towns offset the influence of deindustrialisation in these settlements.
Macro village region III: Somogy–Baranya: This area is made up of villages in
Somogy and Baranya counties.
Baranya County has a micro-village settlement structure (In 90% of the rural
settlements, population is under 1,000). Until the years after World War II, So-
mogy County was dominated by small and medium-size villages; however, due to
the large decrease of population, even Somogy County is registered as a small-
village area nowadays. (In 1949 only a little more than a half of the villages had a
lower population than 1,000. Today the same figure amounts to 72%.).
These two counties are also dominated by villages belonging to micro-village
types, and within this most of them are greatly disadvantaged dwarf and small
villages – 53% of the villages in the two counties belong to a sub-type of type VII,
and only a fourth of them are registered as villages belonging to type VI (a group
with good labour market conditions). Thus, nearly four fifths of the villages in
Baranya and Somogy counties belong to some of the small-village types. The mi-
cro-villages that are in a relatively good situation are lying near Kaposvár and
14 Settlements built after the communist takeover. These were built during the time of forced industri-
alisation near state projects such as ironworks, power plants, aluminium works, coal mines etc.
Their aim was to settle down new workforce. At first they were just built as housing estates.
48
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Pécs; they are parts of the agglomeration of the two towns. The disadvantaged
settlements are concentrated in Ormánság and Zselic regions and in the northern
part of Inner Somogy (BelsĘ-Somogy). There is a shortage of populous villages
here, which could serve as low-level centres or so-called central settlements, where
a higher number of basic public services could be concentrated. These could turn
rural regions into better supplied ones.
Macro village region IV: Tolna–Bácska: This macro village region is made up
of villages in Tolna County, some settlements belonging to the Sárbogárd Micro-
region in Fejér County and of villages situated in the former Bács-Bodrog County.
This macro village region, cut into two parts by river Danube, forms a whole
only because the distribution of village types is roughly identical within this re-
gion. Similarly to the previous macro village region this zone is also dominated by
medium-size and large settlements. Agricultural conditions are favourable in this
area as well (Bácska, Southern MezĘföld [Dél-MezĘföld], Mohács Plain [Mohácsi-
sík]), except the Tolna Hills (Tolnai-Hegyhát) and the Völgység. There are two
different parts distinguished within this area with regards to their settlement
history: one of them is made up of villages belonging to Tolna region, the other
one is made up of villages belonging to Bácska region. For example, while in
Bácska region farming on scattered farmsteads is common, and what is more, there
are even some farmstead villages such as Tompa, Kéleshalom, Rém and Borota; in
Tolna region, a typical settlement type was the one of large manors before World
War II. However, some similarities can be observed as well: a significant propor-
tion of the population was not Hungarian until the deportations which took place
after World War II. In Bácska just like in Tolna, the majority of population was
Swabian. In numerous settlements the population was nearly solely German-
speaking before World War II, and in some villages the vast majority of population
was made up of different southern Slavic people. On the other hand, these villages
were not influenced by socialist industrialisation, and there was a rather small de-
mand for their labour force in towns. Thus, commuting started in the area at a later
point. They pursued booming agricultural farming during the decades of socialism.
Nowadays, this macro village region can be described as one with balanced
settlement development processes without major extremities. Nearly all indicators
of rural settlements are around the national average or slightly above. This area is
dominated by villages belonging to type III: in Bácska there are only a few villages
belonging to other types, and in Tolna there are some small villages around
Bonyhád and Szekszárd with good labour market position.
49
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Macro village region V: Budapest agglomeration. This macro village region is
made up of villages from the overwhelming majority of Pest County and of some
rural settlements from the neighboring Nógrád County and Jászság excluding Szob
Micro-region in Pest County. The suburbs, agglomerations and residential zones of
Budapest and partly of Vác are made up of villages belonging to type I. and type II.
Apart from these there are only a few villages in this zone that belong to other
types (e.g. small villages with favourable labour market conditions around Vác).
This macro village region could be described as a region with peculiarities of ag-
glomeration types.
Macro village region VI: Rural settlements situated in Csongrád and Békés
counties, in Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County excluding the Middle Tisza Region
(Közép-Tiszavidék), and in Bács-Kiskun County exluding Bácska.
A considerable part of this macro village region is made up of urban zones. For
example, there is a large continuous area which belongs to the administrative au-
thority of the towns of Karcag, Kunhegyes, Kisújszállás, Túrkeve, MezĘtúr, Szar-
vas, GyomaendrĘd and Dévaványa. Thus, the macro village regions in Békés and
Csongrád counties exist in the form of isolated islands of different size. This zone
in fact could be divided into two macro village regions. One of them could be the
area of mainly scattered farmstead, or “tanya” villages in the Danube–Tisza Inter-
fluve (Duna–Tisza köze). The other one could be an area made up of villages be-
longing to type III in Southern Tiszántúl (Dél-Tiszántúl). In the 18th and 19th centu-
ries the typical settlement system of the Southern Great Plain (Dél-Alföld) com-
prised of populous provincial towns with an agricultural role. From the second half
of the 19th century, the empty spaces in this low-density network of country towns
were more and more embedded into farmsteads that were becoming inhabited
permanently. Since the beginning of the 19th century, independent rural settlements
formed from these farmsteads. Later, after World War II, a large number of so-
called scattered farmstead settlements were artificially founded by separating some
of the farmsteads administratively from the settlements they were administratively
subordinated to. This system continued to live on in the Danube-Tisza Interfluve,
though for different reasons it has become less frequent. The majority of villages
are young ones with populous outskirts. Residential villages formed only on the
periphery of this macro village region, i.e. by the Danube and near the towns of
Szolnok and Kecskemét. The majority of the villages in Southern Tiszántúl were so
to say average populous villages with mixed functions that could be classified as
ones belonging to type III. They have lost their agricultural character by now. In
some rural settlements the proportion of population living in outer areas is still
high, but as a result of their demographic processes now they are classified as vil-
lages belonging to some of the small-village types.
50
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Macro village region VII: Northern Tiszántúl (Észak-Tiszántúl): The territory
of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg and Hajdú-Bihar counties and the territory of the Mid-
dle Tisza Plain (Közép-Tisza-vidék).
This is the zone of the Great Hungarian Plain, which did not use to be made up
of country towns and scattered farmsteads as much as other parts of the Great
Hungarian Plain, or rather today there are towns like Hajdúság, Debrecen and
Nyíregyháza in these micro-regions. In spite of this there are some settlements in
the stock of villages that used to be collections of farmsteads. Nagycserkesz and
Kálmánháza formed from scattered farmsteads situated around Nyíregyháza and
they are still farmstead villages. What is more, Nagyhegyes, Ebes, Nyírtelek and
Bélmegyer also formed around “tanya”. However, the Nyírség, Bereg and Szatmár,
the Middle Tisza Region and Bodrogköz are areas with normal villages, while
“tanya” appeared later and in a low number even in Bihar (on the outskirts of
Komádi, Szeghalom, Füzesgyarmat).
This macro village region is dominated by settlements belonging to type V.1.
These medium-size villages with unfavourable labour market position and stag-
nating population make up two thirds of the rural settlements in the area. They
form three large, continuous, nearly completely homogeneous blocks. The first
block is situated in Szabolcs. The second one in Bereg and Bodrogköz is bordered
by the first block, but there are also other types of villages in it. The third block is
situated in the Middle Tisza Region and in Bihar. The rural settlements belonging
to type V.1. in Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County make up 65% of all villages. What
is more, there are similar conditions in all of the villages of the region. The ma-
jority of agrarian population in this overpopulated county used to be day-labourers,
agricultural labourers or they used to own only a small farm before 1945.
Macro village region VIII: The northern zone of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén and
Nógrád counties; it also includes the territory of the Zemplén Mountains
(Zempléni-hegység), Cserehát, Hernád Valley (Hernád-völgy), the Aggtelek Karst
(Aggteleki-karszt) and the territory of the hilly region between Ózd and Salgótar-
ján.
This part of the country is dominated by small villages where agricultural con-
ditions are particularly unfavourable and rural settlements are traditionally poor;
agriculture does not offer jobs and income. Thus, the population in this region
pursued additional economic activities (such as sylviculture, home industry, or they
became travelling craftsmen), they emigrated, or in the second half of the 19th
century when industrialisation started, they became miners in the local coal and
iron ore mines, or they became factory workers in ironworks and other heavy-
industry plants. These activities, however, did not bring better living conditions for
the population and they did not contribute to the development of middle classes
either. They did so only in villages that were situated near larger towns. During the
decades of socialism, the Sajó Valley and the Zagyva Valley were industrialised
51
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
considerably. The towns in the region such as Salgótarján, Ózd, Kazincbarcika and
Miskolc were forcedly developed, yet only miners and unskilled workers arrived to
the industrial areas from remote villages. Commuting from these settlements was
rather difficult. Changes in the occupational structure of the population and
commuting that reached extremely high proportions did not change the state of the
villages, their general look and the state of the local communities for any better.
Apart from villages lying close to towns there was a huge wave of migration from
rural settlements into towns and into villages in their agglomerations.
The almost complete liquidation of mines and industrial plants in the 1980s and
1990s had disastrous consequences on the villages of this region: the number of
jobs fell dramatically; cooperative farms that were making losses anyway were
liquidated, the formerly developed basic institutional network rather deteriorated
than improved. This macro village region is the one where the poorest regions in
the country can be found. Apart from the elderly and those with unfavourable fi-
nancial conditions the original inhabitants tend to move away from this region or
die, and their place is taken over by even poorer new inhabitants who are trying to
escape from somewhere else. Although these new inhabitants improve the demo-
graphic structure of these settlements, they make the villages’ social structure ex-
tremely unfavourable. Most of the villages in this macroregion can be classified as
micro- and small-village types typically with the most unfavourable conditions.
The rural settlements around towns are more populous and they are similar to those
that can be found in Nyírség region, so they suffer from dwarf village syndromes to
a lower extent, but their labour market conditions are unfavourable.
Macro village region IX: This zone is made up of the southern foothills of the
Northern Central Range (Északi-középhegység) and of villages lying by the
Miskolc–Eger–Gyöngyös–Hatvan–Pásztó–Balassagyarmat line.
It is a territory dominated by temporary and different types of villages. This
zone was made up of populous villages with favourable agricultural conditions in
the past, but due to overpopulation numerous villages inhabited by small landown-
ers and “summás” villages formed in this macro village region as well. The indus-
trial age and commuting made the villages even bigger, and dwarf village syn-
drome affects fewer villages. Villages influenced by the micro-village syndrome
can primarily be found in Nógrád County. Nearly all types of villages are present
in this zone; thus, this village micro-region lacks homogeneity.
52
Beluszky, Pál - Sikos T., Tamás :
Changing Village-Typology of Rural Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 53. p. Discussion Papers, No. 66.
Bibliography
Andorka, R. 1979: A magyar községek társadalmának átalakulása [The Transformation of the
Society of Hungarian Villages]. Budapest, MagvetĘ Kiadó.
Bajmóczy, P. – Balogh, A. 2002: Aprófalvas településállományunk differenciálódási folyamatai [The
Differentiation Processes of Our Micro-Village Society]. – Földrajzi ÉrtesítĘ. 3–4. pp. 385–405.
Beluszky, P. 1965: Falusi településeink osztályozása [The Classification of Our Rural Settlements]. –
Földrajzi ÉrtesítĘ. 2. pp. 149–163.
Beluszky, P. 1999: Magyarország településföldrajza [The Settlement Geography of Hungary].
Budapest–Pécs, Dialóg Campus Kiadó.
Beluszky, P. – Sikos T., T. 1982: Magyarország falutípusai [Village Types of Hungary]. Budapest,
MTA Földrajztudományi Kutatóintézet.
Beluszky, P. – Sikos T., T. 2007: Változó falvaink (Magyarország falutípusai az ezredfordulón) [Our
Changing Villages: Village Types of Hungary at the Turn of the Millennium]. Budapest, MTA
Társadalomkutató Központ.
BĘhm, A. 1995: A magyar falu társadalma a rendszerváltás után [The Society of Hungarian Villages
After the Change of Regime]. – Kovács, T. (ed.): A mezĘgazdaságtól a vidékfejlesztésig. III.
Falukonferencia (conference paper). Pécs, MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja.
Buday-Sántha, A. 2001: Agrárpolitika – vidékpolitika [Agricultural Policy – Rural Policy].
Budapest–Pécs, Dialóg Campus Kiadó.
Enyedi, Gy. 1980: Falvaink sorsa [The Fate of Our Villages]. Budapest, MagvetĘ Kiadó.
Erdei, F. nd.: Magyar falu [The Hungarian Village]. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó. 1974. (Erdei
Ferenc ÖsszegyĦjtött MĦvei)
Kovács, K. 1987: Falutípusok a Dunántúlon [Village Types in Transdanubia]. – Degré, Antal – Foki,
Ibolya (ed.): A dél-dunántúli aprófalvak és szórványok település- és társadalomtörténete.
Zalaegerszeg, Zala Megyei Levéltár, pp. 33–44.
Kovács, T. (ed.) 2000: Törpefalvak a településrendszerben [Microvillages in the Settlement System].
Budapest, KSH.
Perczel, K. – Gerle, Gy. 1966: Regionális tervezés és a magyar településhálózat [Regional Planning
and the Hungarian Settlement Neztwork]. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó.
Sikos T., T. (ed.) 1984: Matematikai és statisztikai módszerek alkalmazási lehetĘségei a területi
kutatásokban [The Applicability of Mathematical and Statistical Methods in Regional Studies].
Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó. (Földrajzi Tanulmányok, 19.)
Szilágyi, M. 2005: Bevezetésként: az utóparaszti hagyományokról [Introduction: On Post-peasant
Traditions]. In: Schwarz, Gy. – Szarvas, Zs. – Szilágyi, M. (eds.): Utóparaszti hagyományok és
modernizációs törekvések a magyar vidéken. Budapest, MTA Néprajzi Kutatóintézet–MTA
Társadalomkutató Központ.
Thirring, L. 1963: Magyarország népessége 1869–1949 között [Population in Hungary Between
1869–1949]. Budapest, KSH.
Timár, J. – Váradi, M. M. 2000: A szuburbanizáció egyenlĘtlen területi fejlĘdése az 1990-es évek
Magyarországán [Differences in the Spatial Development of Suburbanization in Hungary in the
1990s] In: Horváth, Gy. – Rechnitzer, J. (eds.): Magyarország területi szerkezete és folyamatai az
ezredfordulón. Pécs, MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja.
Valuch, T. 2001: Magyarország társadalomtörténete a XX. század második felében [The Social
History of Hungary in the Second Half of the 20th Century]. Budapest, Osiris Kiadó.
53