Hardi Tamás - Tóth Károly (szerk.): Határaink mentén. A szlovák-magyar határtérség társadalmi-gazdasági vizsgálata (2008) (Somorja, 2009)
Esettanulmányok
Summary 211 the settlement network and ethnic considerations, all important for the organisation of the everyday life, were not considered during the decision-making. The border was pushed northwards in comiection with the Munich Treaty in 1938, and this situation existed until the end of World War II. Then the agreement on the ceasefire restored the situation existing before 1938, and the peace treaty annexed another small area to Czechoslovakia from the area of Bratislava. After the disintegration of Czechoslovakia, Slovakia inherited the state borders. The border regions are multi-ethnic areas. On the Slovakian side the proportion of the Hungarian ethnic population is significant along the total border section; in fact, there are still areas with Hungarian majority, especially along the western part of the border. In some districts Hungarians make over 80% of the inhabitants. (In the whole of Slovakia the proportion of Hungarians is around 5%, most of them live in the zone along the border.) Along the eastern section of the border the situation is different, areas and villages with both Hungarian and Slovakian majority can be found here. On the Hungarian side we also find inhabitants and villages of Slovak ethnicity. Although the proportion of Slovaks within the population of Hungarian is small (0.17%), along the border we still find many villages where Slovak ethnicity lives. Economic development The amount of GDP produced at NUTS 3 level clearly indicates that the most developed areas of both states can be found along the common border. The strong economic concentration of the western border section is undeniable. The capital cities of both countries have a significant and still growing share of the production in their countries. Bratislava in 1995 possessed 24.6% of the GDP produced in Slovakia, and this share grew to 27.3% by 2005. The concentration of Budapest is even bigger, as it was 33.9% already in 1995, to increase to 35.9% by 2005. Among the NUTS 3 units along the border, the growth of the western ones is dynamic. Both in Hungary and Slovakia the increase over the national average was typical in these areas from 1995 to 2005. In Slovakia it is Trnava after Bratislava that boasts of the highest production per capita, but during the whole of the decade the districts of Nitra and Žilinský show the fastest growth after Bratislava. Their share from the production of Slovakia also increased during this decade, while the proportion of Banská Bystrica, Prešov and Trenčín districts decreased. In the east it is only the Košice district that shows a considerable growth, approaching the national average. All these demonstrate that the economic power of Slovakia is concentrated in the western and northern areas of the country, in the east Košice stands out as an island. On the Hungarian side of the border it is the western areas too that show the fastest growth, and the highest amount of goods produced, only surpassed by the capital city. The weight of Budapest (and Pest county) within Hungary exceeds that of Bratislava and Tmava districts together in Slovakia, both in value produced and the number of population. Despite the basically high level of development of the western counties in Hungary then the regional disparities in the whole of Hungary and also across the border counties are bigger than in Slovakia. In Hungary the western counties (Györ-Moson-Sopron and Komárom-Esztergom counties) grew far above the national average in the decade in question, and have become the most developed Hungarian counties after Budapest by now. Symmetry is clearly visible: along the western section of the border the most advanced areas of the respective countries can be found on both sides. In Slovakia the three neighbouring western districts (Bratislava, Tmava and Nitra), in Hungary Budapest and
