Hardi Tamás - Tóth Károly (szerk.): Határaink mentén. A szlovák-magyar határtérség társadalmi-gazdasági vizsgálata (2008) (Somorja, 2009)
Esettanulmányok
212 Summary three counties (Pest, Komárom-Esztergom and Győr-Moson-Sopron) produce half of the GDP of the respective country. Especially in Slovakia this proportion seems to be growing. On the other hand, the development level of the eastern part is below the average on both sides; although Košice stands out as an island in Slovakia, Miskolc is unable to have the same function in Hungary. The urban network The borders in the Carpathian Basin are young historical creations, and in many places the spatial structural elements (transport axes, urban hinterlands) crossing the present borders did no cease to exist; they may only have weakened to some extent. The weakening of the separating role of the borders allows their partial re-creation. At the same time we cannot neglect the fact that over the last decades, both in Hungary and in the neighbour states, processes affecting the spatial structure took place (industrialisation, urbanisation, transformation of the administrative structures and the ethnic relations) that in many places do not allow the automatic restoration of the spatial relations that had existed before the designation of the borders (Figure 1). On the other hand, there are new, formerly non-existing spatial needs that cross the present borders (suburbanisation, commuting of the labour force). The borders drawn in the early 20,h century had an impact on the further development of the cities and other settlements in the vicinity of the borders. Several cities lost some of their previous functions, but some settlements came out as winners, especially in areas where the region was cut by the border from its former centre (Hardi—Pap, 2006). After the designation of the borders there were several cities that lost the major part of their hinterlands and thereby their central functions within the new state territories, and their population hardly increased during the 20,h century, parallel to the decline of their central roles (e.g. Balassagyarmat, Kráľovský Chlmec). These cities and towns, having lost their county and district functions, found themselves in lower hierarchy categories. In the areas along the present borders, especially in the mountainous areas, the average size of the towns was smaller anyway than in the Great Hungarian Plain, thus the same hierarchy levels concerned smaller towns in these regions (Beluszky-Győri, 2005). These small towns, having lost their administrative functions, were practically deprived of any considerable urban development during the 20,h century. Especially in the eastern, mountainous section it is typical that the peripheral situation of the border regions is due to a large extent to the tearing apart of the urban hinterlands. Areas of considerable size remained without service centres during the 20th century, as the small and medium-sized towns were cut from their rural hinterlands by the border, and the substituting centres were far away in bad traffic access. The designation of the border deprived several towns and cities of their county seat role, and there were towns (especially in the east) that could not develop further after the loss of their hinterlands (Mezei, 2006). On the other hand, many towns and cities were bom or strengthened, climbed up in the hierarchy during the past decades, having services with more significant attraction on the other side of the border than at any time of their past. Such a city is Bratislava itself, together with South Komamo (Sikos—Tiner, 2007) and Salgótarján. Of course there were cities that developed due to political and economic effects. In the socialist era, in addition to the political decisions also the economic policy decisions, giving preference to industrialisation-linked urban development, often favoured the crossborder regions and settlements. In Hungary the goal was the development of the northeast-southwest “industrial axis “, in the neigh-
