Gertrude Enderle-Burcel, Dieter Stiefel, Alice Teichova (Hrsg.): Sonderband 9. „Zarte Bande” – Österreich und die europäischen planwirtschaftlichen Länder / „Delicate Relationships” – Austria and Europe’s Planned Economies (2006)
Ágnes Pogány: The Changing Image of the Economie Role of Austria in Hungarian Public Discourse
The Changing Image of the Economic Role of Austria in the Hungarian Public Discourse According to the Community-Metaphor, Austria gave strong incentives to start economic growth. She provided a growing export market for Hungarian agricultural, later also for industrial products. Austria substituted the missing factors of production by lending working capital, technology, entrepreneurs and knowledge to Hungary. The huge internal market of the Monarchy helped not only agricultural growth but industrialization as well. Economic growth was bigger in Hungary than in Austria from 1867 to 1914. All this favourable development promoted the decrease of the development gap between Hungary and the more developed parts of the Monarchy.23 The lack of protection was beneficial; it did not hamper Hungarian economic development.24 The dominant discourse organised our knowledge on foreign capital as well. Whereas in the age of the Colony-Metaphor, capital imports were considered to be harmful leading to increased foreign dependence,25 some years later, the same authors, using the Community-Metaphor claimed that imports of foreign capital had many benefits, because it made the building of railways, huge public investments and the development of a modem banking system possible. It did not lead to growing dependence, because Hungarian capital accumulation was able to increase, and the importance of foreign capital decreased significantly by the mm of the 20lh century.26 Without Austrian capital Hungarian industrialization would not have been possible because of the low rate of capital accumulation.27 There were attempts to alter dominant metaphors already in the 1970s. Scott Eddie tried to prove by economic methods that the price policy of the Customs Union did not have the positive effects on Hungarian agricultural producers and that Hungarian terms of trade were not as beneficial as Peter Hanak had claimed. György Kôvér questioned the overall importance of foreign capita! imports in Hungarian industrialization in his studies based on archival sources.28 23 Katus, Laszlo: A Monarchia közös piaca (The common market of the Monarchy). In: Magyar Tudomâny, 150 (1989). Nb. 10-11. p. 808-820. Ko ml os, John: A Védegylet. (Society for the Promotion of Hungarian Industry). Tôrténelmi Szemle, 24 (1981) Nb. 1. p. 51-57. here p. 57, Katus: A Monarchia közös piaca, p. 813-815. p. 819. 26 Berend- Rânki: Magyarorszâg gyâripara az imperializmus, p. 7-8. 11. 26 Berend, T. Ivan - Rânki, György: Közep-Kelet-Euröpa gazdasâgi fejlôdése a 19-20, szâzadban (The Economie Development of Central-East-Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries). Budapest 1974, p. 138-144. "7 Rânki: Az Osztrâk-Magyar Monarchia gazdasâgi fejlôdésének, p.92-98. Komlos, John: Az Osztrâk-Magyar Monarchia, mint közös piac. (It is very informative, that the original title of the book The Habsburg Monarchy as a Customs Union' was translated into Hungarian as: 'The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy as a Common Market’). Budapest, 1990. p. 20-21. 28 Eddie, Scott: Cui Bono? Magyarorszâg és a dualista Monarchia védovâm politikâja. (Cui Bono? Hungary and the Policy of Commercial Protection of the Dualistic Monarchy). Tôrténelmi Szemle 19 (1976), Nb. 1-2. p. 156-166. Köver, György: A dualizmus-kori tôkeimport-szâmitâsok historiogrâfiai és môdszertani kérdései. (Questions Concerning the Historiography and 231
