Discussion Papers 2005. 
Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border 
Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe 102-162. p. 
III  RESULTS OF EMPIRICAL WORK IN THE 
HUNGARIAN–ROMANIAN AND THE 
HUNGARIAN–UKRAINIAN BORDER REGIONS 
1 
Results of the questionnaire survey carried out in the 
Hungarian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian 
border region 
1.1  Short description of the research 
In 2004/2005 within the framework of the EXLINEA research project the Debre-
cen Department of the Centre for Regional Studies of HAS carried out a question-
naire survey along the Hungarian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian border. 
Our interviewees were leaders of institutions, administrative bodies, NGOs and 
enterprises which are involved in cross-border cooperation and have considerable 
experience in this field. The final sample consisted of 105 persons, 41 persons from 
Romania, 35 persons from Hungary and 29 persons from the Ukraine. We sorted 
the respondents on the Hungarian side into two groups, according to the geographi-
cal field of activity, as the Hungarian border region consists of 2 sections, the Hun-
garian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian part. From the Romanian section 
24 actors were asked and 11 from the significantly shorter Ukrainian section.  
1.2  Types and levels of economic interaction 
According to our investigation in the field of cross-border exports in the Hungar-
ian–Romanian border region it is clearly identifiable that the respondents from the 
Romanian side take the level of exports from their side to the Hungarian side for 
higher than the exports to the opposite direction. The dissimilarity between the two 
mean values differs conditionally on the territory where the export is directed 
(larger regional city, other regional market etc.). The difference is relatively slight 
if our question referred to the nearest city on the other side or the larger regional 
city: the respondents considered the export into these areas relatively high. 
The disparity between the estimations in the two sides was much bigger if we 
asked for the exports into the capital city of the neighbouring country: the inter-
 
102

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
viewees in Hungary said that there is actually no export into Bucharest from the 
Hungarian border region, while the Romanian respondents reported relatively high 
level of exports to the Hungarian capital city. Probable reasons of this difference 
can be the relative closeness of Budapest to the eastern borders of Hungary. Its 
good accessibility and the fact that on the Romanian side of the border – as further 
results of this questionnaire will show – the rate of direct investments from Hun-
gary is high and the majority of the products manufactured in Romania are trans-
ported to Budapest or to the other destinations through Budapest. 
The export to other countries is considered as more significant than the export 
to the other side of the border in both Hungary and Romania, which shows that ac-
cording to the opinions the neighbouring border regions are not the most important 
partners for the local firms. The answers, especially on the Hungarian side reflect 
the peripheral situation of the border region, the economic problems and the low 
level of direct investments, since the results show that the respondents absolutely 
do not consider the actual level of export as satisfying. The more optimistic esti-
mation of the Romanian side is presumably ascribable to the significant foreign 
(mostly Italian) investments in the southern areas of the Hungarian–Romanian bor-
der region, in Timis and Arad counties, but export from this area is directed to 
Western-Europe for the most part, and not to Hungary. 
The answers in the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region concerning the cross-
border exports are very similar to the answers already presented in connection with 
the Hungarian–Romanian border. In this area the Ukrainian respondents assumed 
that the level of exports from the Ukraine is higher than the export from the Hun-
garian side, and the difference between the results in the two countries is bigger 
than in the Romanian case. The level of export to the larger regional city on the 
Hungarian side is considered prominently high, but the other, more distant regions 
are target areas for the export as well. 
Another point where the answers significantly differ is the role of the capital 
cities in cross-border export. It results from the geographic position of Kiev, this 
city cannot become an essential element of cross-border economic relations, but 
Budapest seems to be an important target for the Ukrainian export. Finally it can be 
told in this border region too that according to the respondents the level of exports 
into other countries exceeds the level of exports to the neighbouring country both 
in the Ukraine and in Hungary. 
Our results based on the questionnaire survey in relation to the cross-border im-
port were very similar to the results of the previous group of questions on cross-
border export in both border regions. It is noticeable in this case as well that the 
respondents from the Romanian and Ukrainian side take the level of cross-border 
imports for larger than the respondents from Hungary. The most significant differ-
ence can be observed between the questions concerning the role of the capital cities 
 
103

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
again, Budapest has a considerable role according to the respondents, while the role 
of Bucharest and Kiev is considered as insignificant in cross-border imports. 
In relation to cross-border investments by local firms sharp contrast can be ob-
served between the Hungarian and Romanian sides of the border. The interviewees 
on both sides realised the different activity of the investors of the two countries, 
and they totally agreed that Hungarian firms are much more active in this field. It is 
also noticeable that in reference to capital exports the larger regional city on the 
other side are considered as the most important target of investments on both sides 
and they are followed by other nearby regional markets. As regards capital imports, 
the difference between the two border regions is even more conspicuous, while 
respondents from Romania think that investments from Hungary reach a satisfac-
tory level, the respondents from Hungary submitted that there are no investments 
from the Romanian side at all. On the other hand, all respondents agreed that the 
level of investments in the local economy by firms originating in other countries is 
much higher than by firms of the neighbouring country, although Hungary is the 
12th largest investor in Romania. It is interesting that on the Romanian side the 
level of foreign investments in general was considered higher than on the Hungar-
ian side – if we take the earlier mentioned investments in Timis and Arad counties 
into consideration, this opinion seems to be rather realistic than unreasonably opti-
mistic. 
In this group of questions it is observable that Bucharest is clearly not among 
the most popular targets of the Hungarian investors, they preferably choose the 
border region and other regions with ethnic Hungarian population for their 
investments. The position of Budapest is not as bad; the respondents think that for 
the Romanian investors – even if there are not many of them – the Hungarian 
capital city is almost as attracting as the border region. As regards the capital 
imports, the results are alike, Budapest has an essential target for the investors from 
Romania, but Bucharest has an absolutely insignificant role in this respect. 
In the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region the answers in reference to cross-
border investments were slightly different. Remarkably the respondents in the 
Ukraine consider the level of investments by local firms in the neighbouring coun-
try almost as high as the Hungarian respondents, moreover in the larger regional 
cities on the other side and in the more distant markets they take the firms from 
their side more active than the Hungarians. The role of the capital cities seems to 
be very similar to the other case study region, only Budapest can be considered as a 
target area for the investors from the Ukraine, the local firms in the Hungarian bor-
der region do not esteem Kiev as a possible target for investments. Even more 
similarities with the Hungarian–Romanian border can be observed in the case of 
investments in the local economy by firms originating on the other side. In this 
case the Ukrainian respondents unequivocally submitted that the level of invest-
 
104

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
ment by Hungarian firms is relatively high, while the Hungarian respondents did 
not consider the investments from the Ukraine for significant. 
Neither in the Hungarian–Romanian nor in the Hungarian–Ukrainian border 
region was the de-localisation of activities considered as a typical characteristic of 
the last 15 years, most respondents assured that no de-localisation activities could 
be observed. The simplest and probably feasible explanation for this result is the 
peripheral situation of the border region – there were no considerable investments 
in these regions before 1989, so they did not have the industrial capacity which 
could have been de-localised to the other side. 
1.3  Immigration and social interaction 
If we analyse the answers concerning the immigration either in the Hungarian–
Romanian, or the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region, we will find that the means 
are significantly different between the Hungarian and the other side. According to 
the opinions of the respondents in Hungary a large number of immigrants arrive 
from the neighbouring countries, especially from the nearby regions, but from 
other, farther regions as well. The main reason of this phenomenon is the existence 
of the Hungarian minority in the Romanian and Ukrainian side of the border; for 
the most part they leave their countries to settle down in Hungary. Migration in the 
opposite direction is rare; it is reflected by the results of our research project too. 
The number of immigrants from other countries to Romania and the Ukraine is 
slightly higher, primarily from Moldavia to Romania and from the east to the 
Ukraine. 
Only in Hungary is it worth-while to analyse the answers concerning the 
occupational composition of immigrants, as the number of immigrants in the other 
two countries is too low. According to the respondents’ opinion the majority of the 
immigrants work in the fields. These opinions may be influenced by the fact that 
during the most important field works a large number of guest workers arrive at 
this region from the other sides, who are welcomed by the Hungarian farmers since 
they are ready to perform the same work for significantly lower wages. The image 
of these guest workers from Romania and the Ukraine can be confused with the 
immigrants although the two groups are naturally not identical. The respondents 
take those who work in the services for the second biggest group of the 
immigrants. One possible explanation for this view is that the rate of intellectuals 
among immigrants is very high, a large number of them conclude to settle down in 
Hungary. Finally we can refer to the peripheral situation of these border regions 
and the lack of industrial estates again, when we try to explain why the rate of 
those immigrants who work in the industry is so low. The questions concerning 
 
105

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
emigration reflect the same trends from the other side, the respondents in Hungary 
think that there is no emigration at all to the two neighbouring countries and the 
emigration to other countries is also insignificant in comparison with the same rates 
in Romania and the Ukraine. 
The means of the answers concerning labour commuting clearly show that both 
in the Hungarian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian border regions the 
target area is the Hungarian side. Not only the respondents from the Hungarian but 
from both other countries agreed that the flow of commuters is unidirectional at the 
moment, in the direction of Hungary. If we compare the situation in the labour 
markets and the rate of wages in Romania and Transcarpathia, it is understandable 
that for many people it is worth engaging themselves to work in Hungary even for 
a short period and even if it is illegal. However, a significant dissimilarity can be 
found between the situation in Romania and the Ukraine as well, since the results 
in Transcarpathia show that the level of commuting is much higher there than in 
Romania, altough this level is rather high too. In view of the economic situation 
and the living standards in the Ukraine it is not surprising. If we compare the result 
of the questionnaire from another point of view, it is perceivable that from 
permanent and occasional commuting the latter is considered to be more typical in 
all three countries, simply because this form of commuting usually means short 
term illegal employment in the other country. 
In connection with the questions concerning the one-day trade, respondents 
from the Hungarian side considered this form of trade very typical, more typical 
than either the Romanian or the Ukrainian respondents. After comparing the two 
case study regions it is clear that this form of cross-border cooperation has the most 
significant role in Transcarpathia. This may be led back to the extremely difficult 
economic situation of the border region, where in many instances one-day trade is 
the only source of income. On the other hand the difference between the price 
levels in Hungary and the Ukraine is significantly higher than in the case of Hun-
gary and Romania, and this difference keeps cross-border trade going. 
The questions concerning social interaction showed that interviewees on both 
sides of the Hungarian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian borders consider 
the level of personal connections of local inhabitants as really high, they frequently 
visit friends and relatives or do the shopping etc. on the other side. Most 
inhabitants of the Hungarian border region have relatives on the other side; this is 
one of the main reasons of the high level of social interactions in this area. Another 
reason can be the shopping tourism, in the last few years Hungarians who live near 
the border “discovered” this opportunity. While earlier mostly Romanian and 
Ukrainian citizens travelled to Hungary to do some shopping, by now the situation 
changed radically. Clearly in most of the cases cities near the border and the nearby 
regions are affected by this process; it is rare that these people visit farther areas.  
 
106

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Similarly to other questions analyzed earlier, the most significant differences 
between the three countries can be observed in case of cross-border visits of local 
residents to the capital of the other side, and the explanation is very similar too: the 
role of Budapest for the inhabitants of the border regions (partly because of the 
Hungarian minority in Romania and the Ukraine) is much more significant than the 
role of Bucharest and Kiev. 
1.4  Identifying barriers to interaction and cross-border co-operation 
Along the Hungarian–Romanian border, Romanian respondents were more satis-
fied with the infrastructural conditions of creating cross-border connections than 
Hungarian respondents. We can highlight telecommunication, which is – according 
to the answers from both sides – not a severe barrier of cross-border cooperation 
any more. The condition of railways and roads is a more significant, but still not 
insuperable barrier in the way of connection-building – although large scale in-
vestments are needed in the field of infrastructure, this is not the main barrier of 
cooperation between the two border regions. On the Hungarian side the respon-
dents were a bit more critical; the only exception is the already mentioned tele-
communication. Much more problems were caused by the condition of railways 
and the roads, although they are not severe barriers either. 
The answers in the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region were slightly different. 
As regards the train service, Hungarian respondents mentioned fewer problems 
than Ukrainian respondents, which is presumably caused by the fact that railways 
play a relatively limited role in transport of passengers between Hungary and 
Ukraine and the capacity of the transfer station in Záhony is more than enough to 
fulfil all demands that comes up in the field of transport of goods. In case of public 
roads respondents were more displeased, while the Ukrainian respondents – and 
that can be a bit surprising – did not take the condition of the roads as a serious 
problem, at least not in terms of cross-border cooperation. Another significant dif-
ference between the two case study regions is that in the Ukrainian border region 
the existence of a satisfactory telecommunication network is not self-evident, that 
is why the improvement of it is considered as one of the most important goals on 
both sides. 
In the eyes of the respondents crossing the Hungarian–Romanian border is not 
a severe barrier of the cooperation any more, but there are several problems which 
should be solved as soon as possible to reach a higher level of cooperation. The 
most serious of these problems is the behaviour of border guards and customs offi-
cers, which is the weak point of border control in most respondents’ opinion. Even 
so this problem was not considered as a severe barrier either, according to our re-
 
107

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
search result the harassment of the travellers is not as frequent as it was before 
1989, when the representatives of the authorities permanently humiliated those 
who crossed the border. 
On the other hand the closeness of check points and the number of check points 
does not raise a problem for the respondents in Romania. In Hungary the approach 
of both questions was more critical, but since in the last years, as a result of differ-
ent development programmes several border crossing points were opened in the 
border section, most of the respondents do not regard this problem as a severe 
handicap for transboundary cooperation. 
Along the Hungarian–Ukrainian border the closeness and the number of check 
points are the least significant difficulties, but the situation in this field seems to be 
less problematic only in comparison with the other problems. Especially the num-
ber of border crossing points was considered as a barrier by the Hungarian respon-
dents, even if a number of new check points were established in the last few years, 
and as a result of this the confinement of the border region – which was the main 
characteristic of this area – remarkably decreased. Probably because of these meas-
ures, which brought a number of positive changes for the local inhabitants, the re-
spondents on the Ukrainian side did not consider border crossing as a barrier.  
Nevertheless visa procedures were mentioned by the respondents as a restrictive 
factor, but it is surprising that interviewees from the Hungarian side, who do not 
need a visa for border crossing considered the visa regime a bigger problem than 
the Ukrainian respondents who need the visa, although the difference is not signifi-
cant. The attitude of the passport officers and the customs officers was considered 
as a restrictive factor to the same extent, so it is – in comparison with the results in 
the Hungarian–Romanian border region – a considerable barrier of the cooperation. 
As we analysed the trade conditions and their barriers in the Hungarian–Roma-
nian border region, we received very similar answers. The respondents from both 
countries denied that tariffs or duties imposed by the other side on exports or quo-
tas on exports would detain trade between Hungary and Romania. The CEFTA 
agreements and since May 1st 2004 the agreements between the EU and Romania 
regulate trade connections between the two countries and all these agreements are 
based on the principle of free trade and intend to strengthen this principle. Further 
results prove that in this border region the technical requirements concerning ex-
ports and imports are taken to be satisfying. The only barrier worth mentioning is 
bureaucracy; especially the respondents from Hungary mentioned that administra-
tion is still more complicated than it should be. 
Respondents from the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region considered the bar-
riers of commercial connections as serious problems. The immoderately bureau-
cratic attitude of the administration is the most serious problem in this case study 
region as well, but the insufficient technical equipments cause almost as many 
problems. Tariffs and quotas are not taken for really considerable barriers on the 
 
108

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Hungarian side any longer, but on the Ukrainian side they are considered almost as 
serious problem as bureaucracy. 
The role of different levels of administration, business associations and agencies 
in cross-border cooperation was estimated differently by the respondents in Hun-
gary and Romania. The respondents from the Hungarian side were more satisfied 
with the work of these establishments in every respect than the Romanian respon-
dents. If we compare the judgements concerning the local, regional and national 
levels we can learn that in case of every type of the above mentioned institutions 
the local level was considered as the most effective level, which encumbers the 
cooperation the least, although significant differences can be observed in case of 
the administrative bodies. The estimation of local governments is definitely posi-
tive, in Hungary local governments were – in addition to the above mentioned es-
tablishments – the most reputable in reference to their assistance for cross-border 
cooperation. This is not surprising if we take the fact into consideration that the 
most active forms of cooperation with the longest tradition are managed by the lo-
cal authorities and the network of twin settlements connect a number of villages 
and towns in the border region. 
The respondents from Hungary were far less satisfied with the effectiveness of 
the assistance of the business associations, although we cannot say that they are 
seen as severe barriers. The most appropriate explanation is that many of the re-
spondents take these associations among others for responsible for the insufficient 
level of economic cooperation between the two countries. 
The answers from Romania show that in this country the respondents encoun-
tered more problems as they tried to work together with these institutions, but the 
difference between the estimation of the institutions was insignificant. We could 
only point out that the local administration was the most acknowledged actor and 
the national government was considered as the least helpful partner in the course of 
cross-border cooperation projects. 
The answers from the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region almost totally coin-
cide with the answers from the other case study. Hungarian respondents perceptibly 
trusted these institutions more than the Ukrainians in every account. The results 
were very similar here to those in the Hungarian–Romanian border region in refer-
ence to the estimation of the government assistance: the local level is usually not 
considered as a barrier but as we approach the national level the level of confidence 
is decreasing. 
We can choose several factors from the general conditions listed in the ques-
tionnaire which do not hinder cross-border cooperation at all, and others where 
essential changes should be made to enhance cooperation. Respondents on both 
sides of the Hungarian–Romanian border agreed that different languages do not 
delay the common work significantly. This result reflects the special characteristic 
of these case study regions again, namely that a significant part of cross-border 
 
109

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
cooperation in these areas means cooperation between Hungarian communities on 
both sides of the border, and in this case the intermediary language is certainly 
Hungarian. But interethnic Hungarian–Romanian cooperation is encouraged by the 
fact that ethnic minorities live on both sides of the border and language problems 
can be solved relative easily by the help of these people. 
In the respondents’ opinion different cultures do not hinder the cooperation ei-
ther; the explanation is similar to the interpretation presented in case of language 
problems. As regards the religion in this area, there is a sharp borderline between 
Hungarians and Romanians, but in spite of the different religions, religion was not 
considered as severe barriers. To sum it up we can say that for Hungarian and Ro-
manian communities which live together in this area for centuries, different cul-
tures, religions and other elements connected to ethnicity do not discourage coop-
eration perceptibly. 
On the other hand, some other answers of the questionnaire survey seem to be 
inconsistent with these results, as Hungarian respondents think that historical 
events considerably hinder cooperation. We should refer here to the Trianon Peace 
Treaty after World War I and the events of the last few decades, when the relations 
between the two countries were usually hostile (sometimes openly, but in most 
cases impliedly) mostly because of the situation of the Hungarian minority in Ro-
mania. 
Nevertheless the impedimental effect of the historical events is clearly not as 
important as the consequences of some present-day phenomena, like corruption 
that was mentioned among the most severe barriers of successful economic coop-
eration on both sides. Some other elements are also connected to the economic in-
teraction: the frequent changing of the rules in business, the instability of the ex-
change rates and the inflation were considered as barriers by the Romanian respon-
dents. The latter was a serious problem for both countries for years, but in the last 
years successful steps were taken to decrease inflation. 
The questions concerning general conditions as barriers of CBC generated sig-
nificantly different results in the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region. Hungarian 
respondents for example considered political instability in the Ukraine as a severe 
barrier. This judgement may have been affected by the events of December 2004 in 
the Ukraine, the so called “Orange Revolution”, when political instability reached 
such a high level that it endangered not only cross-border cooperation but the op-
eration of the state itself. Similarly to the Romanian border section corruption was 
taken for the most dangerous hindering factor, but the level and the dangerousness 
of it far exceeds the mean values measured in Romania. 
It can be stated in reference to this border region as well that different religions, 
cultures and languages are not considered as barriers on either side of the border. 
Although the religious borderline between the Hungarians and Ukrainians is just as 
sharp as in the other case study area, this borderline lost its importance during the 
 
110

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
century-long living together and it does not endanger cross-border connections. 
The fact that in spite of the Hungarian–Romanian border region in this region his-
torical events were not considered as threats for the cooperation proves that the 
coexistence was peaceful here in the last centuries. 
As regards economic geography, the respondents in the Hungarian–Romanian 
border region agreed that the geographical conditions do not affect negatively the 
connections between the two sides of the border, as it cannot be stated either that 
distance of large cities from the border would have a negative effect on coopera-
tion. On the other hand, the respondents criticised the productivity of local firms 
and the quality of their products as well as the limited product differentiation of 
local economy. All these factors especially delay greater economic interaction just 
as low purchasing power of the nearby markets on the other side. Stressing of the 
latter factor was naturally more characteristic of respondents on the Hungarian 
side. 
In the Ukraine  insufficient size of the market cannot be a problem, rather the 
low purchasing power, which is a barrier that almost cannot be overcome in the 
respondents’ opinion. In Hungary the situation is reverse; the relatively small mar-
ket has a relatively high purchasing power (especially in comparison with the 
Ukraine). Geographical factors are not considered as a severe barrier in any side, 
but the low productivity and the limited product differentiation was mentioned by 
most of the respondents as a problem. 
1.5  Perceptions and images of the others 
With reference to the images of the others we were eager to see which conditions 
and traditions are considered as an advantage or disadvantage by the actors of 
cross-border cooperation in course of their activity. On the Hungarian side of the 
Hungarian–Romanian border the effect of the historical events was regarded as a 
hindering factor again. On the contrary, on the Romanian side history does not 
seem to play a significant role in the cooperation, the respondents did not take it for 
an advantage, but it was surely not a serious problem either. The answers of the 
Hungarian respondents show that besides history only linguistic differences were 
considered as a problem, although not an insolvable problem. The other elements 
listed in this group of questions were regarded as an asset rather than a problem in 
CBC.  
The positive effect of the existence of an ethnic minority on the other side was 
particularly emphasised by the Hungarian and Romanian respondents as well. The 
judgement on the current relations among local and regional authorities was also 
positive; especially the respondents in Romania considered these connections as 
 
111

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
very useful. The role of current relations between governments in CBC was not re-
garded as positive as local connections, but it was still rather an asset than a prob-
lem. 
Respondents in the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region also emphasised the 
essential role of national minorities in encouraging cross-border cooperation. The 
Current relations between the Hungarian and Ukrainian governments may have a 
positive effect on transboundary connections as well, but joining local forces have 
the most important role. Respondents in this region do not think that cultural and 
religious differences have positive or negative effect on cross-border connections. 
Conversely linguistic differences were considered as problem, especially on the 
Hungarian side. Interviewees from the Ukrainian side take historical events be-
tween the two countries rather for an asset than a problem, while Hungarian re-
spondents considered it neither an asset nor a problem. 
As regards the image of the others, the answers received from the respondents 
in the Hungarian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian border regions were 
rather similar, most of them agreed with the mostly positive statements listed in 
this group of questions. There were a few questions where the respondents did not 
differ in opinion, the results were alike on both sides of the border, e.g. in case of 
the statements that people on the other side are honest, peaceful, open minded, 
have “European” culture and have good feelings towards us. It is to be remarked 
that last of the statements, which refers to the feelings of the other side, was ac-
cepted by the respondents the least. If we take the history of the Hungary and Ro-
mania and the centuries-old mistrust into consideration, this finding cannot surprise 
us. 
In case of the other questions of point 4.2 the answers were significantly differ-
ent. Respondents from Hungary agreed upon the statements that people on the 
other side are hard working, friendly and similar to them much more than the Ro-
manian and Ukrainian respondents. On the other hand, the judgement of the re-
spondents from these two countries was more positive when they were asked about 
some characteristics of the Hungarians in connection with labour and their eco-
nomic situation. Thus a relatively great number of the respondents agreed that the 
Hungarians were wealthy, productive and disciplined. 
As the respondents from the Hungarian–Romanian border region expressed 
their opinion on the impacts of greater interaction, their estimations were surpris-
ingly similar. According to the answers, collaboration among universities, research 
institutes and more active cultural interaction may have positive impact on local 
economy and society. This is probably a reflection of the conception according to 
which most respondents thinks that at present cultural interaction is the most effec-
tive and viable part of cross-border cooperations, as it is also verified by other parts 
of our research. Besides the totally open borders within a wider Europe, encour-
 
112

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
agement of cross-border investment and local exports to the other side of the bor-
ders could have positive impact as well. 
In the respondents’ eye the increasing number of immigrants from the other side 
working in the local economy and emigrants from this side working on the other 
side of the borders would not be a really positive effect of greater interaction, al-
though these effects are not considered as a problem either. Most respondents 
would not take it for a positive result either if the number of mixed marriages with 
immigrants or local imports from the other side of the borders grew. 
The results in the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region are similar; the growing 
number of cultural and scientific cooperation project would have the most positive 
effects on local economy and society considered. The increasing number of immi-
grants from the other side who would like to find a job and mixed marriages are not 
welcomed by the respondents. In some cases the difference between the two sides 
of the border was bigger, for example the concept of totally open borders within a 
wider Europe was more popular on the Ukrainian side than in Hungary, and the 
emigration in order to find a job on the other side was considered as a positive out-
come for their own community preferably on the Ukrainian side.  
1.6  Evaluation of policies of cross-border co-operation 
The implementation of cross-border cooperation policies was estimated positively 
by most of the respondents in the Hungarian–Romanian border region; in their 
opinion in the fields listed in the questionnaire, policies of cross-border cooperation 
were implemented frequently to strengthen transboundary connection. It is clear at 
first sight that more respondents in Hungary assume that these policies were im-
plemented purposefully than in Romania. For example interviewees on the Hun-
garian side think that trust building policies are used very often by the Hungarian 
partners, whereas on the other side of the border only a few respondents recognised 
the signs of the implementation or even the existence of a deliberate trust building 
policy. The difference was similarly significant in the field of education, research 
and culture. The active role of the Hungarian side is understandable as for the 
Hungarian minority in Romania the aid coming from the “mother country” for edu-
cational and cultural institutions is essential. On the other hand, respondents on 
both sides had very similar opinions in connection with the local policies of cross-
border cooperation. Here respondents from Hungary and Romania clearly stated 
again that local connections have a determinant role in cross-border cooperation. 
The results in the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region also show that Hungar-
ian partners implement most of the various cross-border cooperation policies more 
often, although the difference between the two sides is not as big as in the other 
 
113

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
case study region. On the Hungarian side an accentuated role was attributed to lo-
cal authorities, but the opinions on the Ukrainian side are not as unambiguous – 
here we can refer to the centralised characteristic of the Ukrainian administrative 
system, which does not ensure as large scope for action for the local authorities as 
in Hungary. Besides cultural and educational cooperation, cooperations in the case 
of natural disasters are the fields where CBC policies can have an important role 
and these policies are implemented frequently in the respondents’ opinion. On the 
other hand, most respondent on both sides think that implementation of cross-
border policies of cooperation in migration issues and in development of infra-
structure is not frequent enough. In contrast with the Hungarian–Romanian border, 
significant differences can be observed here in reference to the implementation of 
European Union policies of cross-border cooperation and the application of Euro-
pean financial resources, which is clearly a consequence of the Ukraine’s situation, 
since this country can count on much less support from the Union than Hungary or 
Romania. 
As we tried to examine the effectiveness of the policies listed in the question-
naire, we discovered that for the most part the opinions were very similar to the 
results found in case of the previous group of questions. Regarding to the effec-
tiveness of cooperation, the local level was considered as the most successful field 
of cross-border cooperation by the Hungarian and Romanian respondents as well. 
Another prominently effective field of cooperation is culture and Hungarian inter-
viewees also took trust building policies and the implementation of policies of sci-
entific cooperation for an extraordinarily flourishing area of connections. It can be 
also mentioned that the respondents seem to be remarkably unsatisfied with two 
issues: in the field of cooperation towards organised crime and the development of 
infrastructure Hungarian respondents deem it necessary to elaborate policies of 
greater interaction. 
Respondents in the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region expect more effective 
implementation of policies in the field of fight against organised crime and coordi-
nated development of infrastructure, but a more effective migration policy and en-
vironmental policy are among the requirements as well, especially on the Hungar-
ian side. It can be stated as a general principle that the respondents in Hungary are 
less satisfied with the effectiveness of policies than in Transcarpathia, there are 
only a few exceptions, like the local policies of cross-border cooperation and the 
allocation of financial resources from the European Union. 
As we analysed the group of local actors active in cross-border interaction, we 
received fundamentally similar results in both case study regions. A group of actors 
was outlined which was considered to play an essential role in cross-border coop-
eration by respondents in all three countries. First of all the ethnic minorities must 
be mentioned, respondents in the Romanian and Ukrainian side of the border also 
think that the role of this group is all-important. Local authorities are among the 
 
114

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
most important actors again just as NGOs, universities and research institutes. At 
the other end of the scale there are the Labour Unions and the political parties, 
most of the respondents agreed that the role of these organisations is negligible in 
cross-border interaction, only in the Ukraine were there a few people who submit-
ted that Labour Unions show some activity in this field. 
There is a group of possible participants of interaction about which only Hun-
garian respondents said that they were especially active. Principally cultural or-
ganisations belong to this group as they play a very important role in the preserva-
tion of national identity of ethnic Hungarians in Romania and the Ukraine as well. 
But also local and regional chambers just as private citizens, development agencies 
and partly private firms are included in this group. 
1.7  Expected effects of greater cross-border interaction 
and co-operation 
As regards the benefits of cross-border cooperation, respondents in Hungary and 
Romania equally designated the national level as the greatest winner of interaction. 
The national level is followed by the border regions and then (slightly lagging be-
hind) rural areas and the capital cities. Respondents in both countries agreed that 
the rich and wealthy are the real winners of cross-border interaction, not the poor. 
Nevertheless in a few cases remarkably large differences can be observed be-
tween the answers in Hungary and Romania. We can highlight the fight against 
organised crime, where respondents in Hungary were very pessimistic in reference 
to the possible success of more active cross-border cooperation, while respondents 
on the Romanian side were rather optimistic. On the other hand the situation is just 
the opposite in case of the large cities near the border, the respondents in Hungary 
saw great opportunities for making the best of the cooperation, while the judge-
ment of interviewees in Romania was much more restrained. 
The findings described above are mainly relevant for the Hungarian–Ukrainian 
border region as well, only one difference must be pointed out. In this case study 
area Ukrainian respondents did not consider it as self-evident that the rich benefit 
more from greater cross-border interaction, or to be more precise they think that the 
poor have almost as much chance to utilise the opportunities. 
In the Hungarian–Romanian border region the respondents almost fully agreed 
on the statement that both countries gain from greater interaction. On the other 
hand, respondents on the Hungarian side were certain that the other country and not 
Hungary would gain more as a result of more intense interaction. Answers to this 
question on the Romanian side were more balanced, which shows that opinions 
 
115

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
were more divided there. The questionnaire survey showed the same results in case 
of the border zones as well. 
Both sides were of the same mind that the concerned border regions gain con-
siderably more from greater interaction than the countries, although this opinion 
was outlined more definitely in Hungary. The centralised character of the Roma-
nian administrative system may have a determinant role in this respect. Finally the 
majority of the respondents in both countries agreed that the expectable benefit of 
greater interaction is much bigger than the possible losses, although the respon-
dents in the Romanian border region tended to take these possible losses into con-
sideration much more than the Hungarians. 
Respondents in the Ukraine and Hungary also agreed that both countries and 
both border regions may benefit from more active interaction and that gains could 
be greater then losses. On the Hungarian side, just like in the other case study area, 
the other side of the border was considered as the real winner of greater interaction. 
On the other hand, the standpoint of the Ukrainian respondents is not absolutely 
clear since almost as many respondents said that their country/border region gained 
more as many stated that the benefits in the other country/border region are greater. 
1.8  Expected effects of EU enlargement on the region 
The answers in the Hungarian–Romanian border region to the questions related to 
the impacts of the EU enlargement were very similar to the answers received in the 
previous group of questions. Everyone considered the EU itself, the countries and 
the border regions as winners. Respondents from Hungary said again that the other 
country and the other border region would benefit more from the accession than 
their own country or region. When they had to make a choice between the country 
and the region, they chose the region as the main winner, while in Romania re-
spondents took the country and the border region for winners of the enlargement 
almost in the same measure. 
The picture outlined in the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region is largely simi-
lar to the description of the other case study area, so the border regions and both 
countries were placed among the sure winners. Although most respondents ac-
knowledged that EU enlargement causes both winners and losers, the benefits were 
considered greater than the losses, especially in Transcarpathia. 
The last group of questions in the questionnaire tried to find an answer to the 
question what impacts the EU enlargement will have on cross-border cooperation. 
In no other group of questions can be observed such a unity of answers in the Hun-
garian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian border regions as in this case, and 
the dominance of positive answers is convincing. We can highlight only a few 
 
116

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
questions where the answers from the Hungarian side were not as optimistic as 
from the other two sides. In conformity with several previous questions, respon-
dents in Hungary expect less positive changes in the field of in migration issues, 
the fight against organised crime and cooperation in the case of natural disasters 
than the respondents in Romania. Hungarian interviewees in the Hungarian–
Ukrainian border region were similarly restrained when they answered the ques-
tions in reference to the migration policy and the fight against organised crime, 
while the Ukrainian respondents’ opinion was more pessimistic when they were 
asked about the impacts of the enlargement on the national policies of cross-border 
cooperation. 
1.9 Summary 
We can highlight a few special characteristics from the results of the questionnaire 
survey carried out in the Hungarian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian bor-
der regions. One of these characteristics is that the existence of Hungarian minori-
ties in the neighbouring countries has a significant influence on the cross-border 
connections of Hungary and on several aspects of cross-border interaction in this 
region in general. As regards cross-border migration, the fact that they do not ar-
rive at an unfamiliar cultural and linguistic environment if they leave their land of 
birth may have an encouraging effect on those ethnic Hungarians who live in Ro-
mania or the Ukraine. The large number of ethnic Hungarians may also be an ex-
planation for the great importance of cultural and educational cooperation on be-
half of Hungary, since the aid coming from the “mother country” is essential for 
the Hungarian national minority in Romania and the Ukraine. On the other hand, 
the questionnaire results also showed that the Hungarian, Romanian and Ukrainian 
ethnic minorities in the neighbouring countries are considered as one of the main 
connecting links between the three countries. 
The development of more active cross-border cooperation is hindered by differ-
ent factors in case of the two case study regions, in the Ukraine for example the 
role of the visa regime and the slowness of border crossing. On the other hand there 
are factors which raise problems in all three countries. The differences of self-gov-
ernmental system, primarily the limited scope for action of the Romanian and 
Ukrainian local governments and the centralised character of the administrative 
system in these countries make cooperation more difficult. Bureaucratic procedures 
and frequent and unforeseeable changing of the laws also hinder the development 
of deeper connections. Finally the behaviour of passport and customs officers must 
be mentioned as a barrier of cooperation. 
 
117

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
2 Cross-border 
relations 
- 
perceptions of the border 
and the cross-border co-operations 
In accordance with the preliminary research plan of the EXLINEA programme, 
interviews were made with prominent persons playing an active role in and having 
a good overview of the cross-border relations (the number of interviews made was 
25 on the Hungarian, 25 on the Romanian and 21 of the Ukrainian side). Due to the 
experiences, local skills, personal contacts and special skills (reaching beyond the 
statistical data) of the questioned persons, these talks were a source of information 
unavailable elsewhere; also, the information give us a clear picture of the situation 
and problems of the area in question and of the opportunities of cross-border co-
operations. 
The interviewees were selected from a preliminarily defined target group in 
each country, including a wide range of local government leaders skilled and com-
petent in cross-border relations, dominant persons of higher education institutions 
and research places, and also economic, ethnic minority and non-governmental or-
ganisations. Their common feature is that they are all active in cross-border co-
operations, and all of them have a sound knowledge of both the local and the na-
tional level problems. 
2.1  Present situation, internal and external factors determining 
co-operations 
2.1.1 Local problems 
During the interviews we first wanted to know where the interviewees saw the big-
gest problems and the future prospects of the respective border section. Most of the 
Hungarian answerers referred to the peripheral situation of the region, emphasising 
the presence of significant unemployment and serious outmigration. The agricul-
tural character of the region was also often mentioned, together with the formerly 
missing industrialisation which has resulted in an almost hopeless situation by now, 
as many respondents said. This is accompanied by the fear often mentioned in con-
nection with foreign direct investment, i.e. that foreign capital can easily skip this 
region and locate on the other side of the border, because of the much lower wage 
costs in the neighbour countries. In this respect the selected role of the cross-border 
co-operations was mentioned, as these investments mean jobs not only for one side 
of the border; both sides can profit from the investments, as the separating role of 
the border weakens and the historically existing relations between the centres and 
 
118

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
the hinterlands can be utilised again. However, investments are often blocked by 
the underdeveloped and backward infrastructure (an example that was raised: the 
county seat at a distance of only 60 kilometres is accessible within the same time 
from the Ukrainian–Hungarian border region as Budapest from the county seat – 
270 kilometres away). 
Especially the representatives of the institutions working at regional level men-
tioned the ad-hoc character and occasionally the total lack of the co-operations 
among the institution operating on the Hungarian side of the border; e.g. the inter-
nal cohesion among the counties making the NUTS 2 level regions is completely 
absent. Any kind of resource has to be divided equally among the counties, so the 
principle of concentration, supported by the European Union, cannot be realised. 
Problems related to innovation were also raised – the innovation potential of the 
North Great Plain regions is among the worst ones in Hungary, which is exacer-
bated by circumstances such as the already mentioned rivalry among the counties. 
In Romania almost each of the interviewees mentioned the underdeveloped na-
ture of infrastructure, as one of the most serious problems of the border region. 
Without the development of transport infrastructure it is impossible to reach a long 
term and well-established development of the economy. It is a general opinion that 
if the condition of the roads and the railways is significantly improved, the quantity 
of the invested capital can considerably increase, new jobs can be created and this 
process can lead to the alleviation of several other problems (unemployment in the 
first place). It is not only the deficiencies of transport infrastructure that cause a 
problem: canalisation is also missing, as is tap water and sometimes even electric-
ity. This is not only detrimental for the local inhabitants but also puts off investors. 
Another problem very often mentioned was the bureaucratic, centralised ad-
ministration system, leaving very little independence for the lower levels of 
administration. One consequence of the centralising policy is the lopsided realisa-
tion of the NUTS 2 level regions. The interviewees often mentioned as a problem 
the excessively influential bureaucracy, which is a natural consequence of strong 
centralisation; the negligence of the act on local administration; but first of all the 
lack of the decentralisation of the state budget. Based on the interviews we can see 
that the problems arising in connection with centralisation are especially serious in 
the border regions. The respondents often complained about their peripheral situa-
tion and the fact that their share from the central supports is far from being propor-
tionate either to their population or their needs. In many cases the suboptimal effi-
ciency of the economic management and legislation was mentioned as a problem, 
together with the not transparent enough and excessive tax and excise regulations. 
A factor that makes the picture described above even worse is that many respon-
dents said it was possible to reach everything in Romania for a certain amount of 
money, i.e. the fact corruption is present at each level of the power. 
 
119

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
The social problems were connected by many to the bad economic situation of 
Romania – in the lack of adequate financial resources, social protection network is 
an almost unknown phenomenon. Many said that the quality of the health services 
was unacceptable. The low purchasing power of the pensions is another source of 
serious social tensions. 
Fewer respondents mentioned the deficiencies of making applications and of 
project management, but they think it is a very serious problem of cross-border co-
operations. They consider their lagging behind considerable, even compared to 
Hungary; the reasons for this are the lack of information, i.e. the fact that the in-
formation channels that could transfer the important news for those interested have 
not been created yet. Also, even in the presence of good information flow, the 
skills necessary for the preparation and management of tenders are often missing. 
Presently the special trainings of this type are not efficient enough. 
In Transcarpathia the biggest problems seen by the interviewees are the heri-
tage of the Soviet system. The problems are of political nature, on the one hand, 
following the very strongly centralised system: the local levels do not have ade-
quate independence and resources that could promote among other things the de-
velopment of cross-border relations and projects. In addition, the halos of the dif-
ferent political parties have emerged in Transcarpathia too, and the different non-
governmental organisations and economic actors have to manoeuvre among them 
in order to get better opportunities. As a matter of fact, the economic and social 
backwardness is a consequence of this. 
Many said that in Transcarpathia the biggest problem was the lack of intellectu-
als and young experts with adequate skills. Using the easement that started in 1985 
after Gorbachev’s “Perestroika”, the outmigration of the intellectuals unable to 
make ends meet in Transcarpathia started and this process is still going on. How-
ever, the “beheading” of the local intellectuals has much longer historical tradi-
tions. The peace treaty signed in Trianon cut in two several counties that had made 
economic, cultural and political units for centuries (Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa and 
Máramaros). As a consequence of the peace treaty, not only cities lost their hinter-
lands but also a number of state formations succeeded each other in Transcarpathia 
in a relatively short time (Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Czechoslovakia, the King-
dom of Hungary, the Soviet Union and the Ukraine). Each new state brought their 
new public administration, the region lost the former public administration and also 
the intellectual elite (either because they did not know the new language or they 
were considered as politically untrustworthy, or they did not find adequate condi-
tions for living in the changing circumstances). We can say that Transcarpathia 
has been practically continuously suffering from a loss of intellectuals since 1920. 
The problems of the local Hungarian intellectuals are even worse, as they, together 
with other ethnic minorities, had lost practically all that they had after the Soviet 
nationalisation, but they were not able to participate in the creation of the new 
 
120

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Ukrainian state, where privatisation did occur but not re-privatisation; or even if re-
privatisation took place, the Hungarians could not take part in it. The winners of 
the privatisation were those people in high positions that had worked many years in 
the Soviet system, and such positions were unavailable for the Hungarians, because 
in the Stalinist era the Hungarian intellectuals and men were taken to the Gulag 
where they either died or were released as political prisoners. Consequently they 
and their children could not be party members, they could not study in higher edu-
cation institutions and have high positions (as they were politically untrustworthy). 
As a consequence of this, in the last 15 years many of them have emigrated to 
Hungary. 
The majority of the problems in Transcarpathia are related to economic difficul-
ties. The economy, after its deep crisis in the 1990s (the major part of the factories 
were closed down, resulting in mass unemployment) is now developing, but the 
respondents said it was important to shape the economic policy of the country and 
the region, together with its too often bureaucratic and not transparent regulatory 
mechanisms, in a way that growth should be sustainable. It would be good to intro-
duce as many as possible of the European norms, as it would attract investors. An-
other problem is the general lack of resources at each budgetary institution (espe-
cially in the sector of health and social care). The non-governmental organisations 
practically do not get any state support. Agriculture too struggles with serious 
problems, as large-scale farming has ceased to exist, the lands have been priva-
tised, but the private farmers cultivating small pieces of land cannot make a living 
from agriculture, because they have no access to modern machinery, technologies, 
chemicals, fertilisers and above all expertise. A sort of consulting system is just 
being created, with Hungarian assistance (following the patterns of the Hungarian 
network of village managers), also, rural tourism offers possibilities, but the 
chances of this activity are seriously limited by the infrastructure deficiencies. 
Partly because of the economic problems, a huge burden is carried by the social 
care system that is very outdated, seriously underfinanced and not effective at all 
(either from infrastructure of professional aspect). The international aid organisa-
tions and the churches try to alleviate these problems, but they do not get support 
from the state for their activity, despite the fact that they have state responsibilities. 
In fact, the state blocks their work. Another serious problem is the low quality level 
of education, including the technical and infrastructure conditions of education, but 
the biggest problem is the lack of up-to-date methods and competitive professions. 
In the opinion of the prominent persons asked, it is especially vocational training 
that is unable to keep up with the expectations of the time. 
Transcarpathia is not free either from corruption present all over the country 
and  in every field of life. In practice it means that practically anything can be 
achieved with good connections and financial background, or anything can be 
bought – from university degree to driving licence and different permissions etc. 
 
121

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
A serious problem is the underdeveloped infrastructure, including not only 
transport infrastructure but also the communal provision, mainly healthy drinking 
water supply (or any kind of supply in some villages), health care system, gas 
pipes, telecommunication, and also waste and sewage treatment. The latter results 
in the pollution of rivers (mostly by communal but to a smaller extent also indus-
trial waste water), which is accompanied by serious floods occurring in the catch-
ment area of the Upper Tisza River more and more often as a consequence of the 
deforestations accelerating over the last 15 years. The latter problem is not only a 
local but also international problem, due to the fact that the catchment area of the 
Tisza River belongs to several different countries. 
2.1.2 National level problems 
The problems of the national level in Hungary were by and large the same as the 
problems mentioned in connection with the local communities and the regions. 
They include unemployment, impoverishment, the ageing of the population. Less 
often a few concrete problems were mentioned, such as the issue of centralisation 
and decentralisation: although there are decentralisation efforts in Hungary, the 
devolution of the powers and the resources from the ministries to the regions and 
the counties is not fast enough. The building out of the institutional system neces-
sary for this is a very slow process too; meanwhile the respective elements of the 
existing administrative structure try to keep their positions. 
The replies to questions relating to the national level problems were very similar 
to this in Romania, too. The deficiencies of infrastructure were among the most 
frequently mentioned difficulties, but the problem of the centralised public admini-
stration and the unfair distribution of the resources are problems too, not only in 
the border region. The shortcomings of the legal system, the labyrinth of laws and 
decrees leads to instability all over Romania, as does corruption. Probably the only 
new element in the answers given to this question was the unfinished privatisation. 
The privatisation of the former large state-owned companies has not even started in 
many cases, although it would be an indispensable condition for the acceleration of 
the economic development. 
The respondents said that the national level problems in the Ukraine were partly 
similar to the ones in Transcarpathia. These include the low level of the efficiency 
of the economy, and the concomitant problems of living that is the main reason for 
the outmigration of the intellectual elite: the state is not able to offer them accept-
able conditions of living. These problems are very important for the future of the 
Ukraine, because they have other induced effects, as does the decrease of the num-
ber of population (lack of resources, social, educational and health care system 
etc.), which can significantly set back the development of the economy. 
 
122

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Another problem of the national level is the already mentioned corruption and 
the fact that the mafia-type habits have become integral parts of state administra-
tion, which affects all fields of the economic and civil life. We also have to men-
tion the low level of the efficiency of legislation, which definitely has to be changed 
and the laws should be harmonised with those of the European countries. Parallel 
to this, the security and transparency of the bank and taxation system should be 
improved, because the present regulations are not clear and comprehensible even 
for the local companies, let alone the foreign investors. Another very serious prob-
lem at state level that affects all other fields is bureaucracy and political instability. 
The other problems listed by the interviewees (outdated and underdeveloped infra-
structure, the deficiencies of education, worrying conditions of the human re-
sources) are practically the same as the problems mentioned in connection with 
Transcarpathia. 
2.1.3 Judgement of foreign policy 
While the answers given to the questions concerning the local and national level 
problems were very similar in many cases on the two sides of the border, the re-
sponses given to the question in connection with foreign policy were significantly 
different. When evaluating the Hungarian foreign policy, several complaints were 
stated by the respondents, especially regarding the most topical issue, the accession 
to the European Union. According to the respondents’ view, Hungarian foreign 
policy was much more characterised by a subduing behaviour than by interest 
representation, so the Union considered Hungary as an inferior partner. In addition, 
Hungarian foreign policy and the Hungarian representatives of the Union have a lot 
to learn about the decision-making mechanisms of Brussels, and the importance of 
continuous negotiations. Many compared the Hungarian diplomacy to the foreign 
policy of the neighbouring states, almost always saying that the Hungarian interest 
representation is not effective enough, especially when compared to the Romanian 
foreign policy that is considered as especially efficient. 
As opposed to the Hungarian respondents, almost all the Romanian answerers 
agreed that the foreign policy of the country is one of the most successful sectors; 
some said Romania had the most successful foreign policy in the whole of East-
Central Europe. One of the biggest virtues of the Romanian foreign policy is that it 
subordinates all political issues to the priorities defined – the most important of 
which is the accession to the European Union – and sometimes they can be sur-
prisingly effective and determined in order to reach their goals. The other key to 
success that the respondents stated was the unity that Romania was able to reach – 
as opposed to Hungary –, in issues of national interest. This unity that the different 
political parties are able to demonstrate to the world outside helps a lot to achieve 
 
123

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
the political objectives, even if the unity is only a seeming one in many cases. Last 
but not least an ability was emphasised that is considered as a traditional virtue of 
Romanian foreign policy: the leaders of Romania are able to manoeuvre among the 
different national interest groups. Although the primary objective of Romania, as 
we have already mentioned, is the EU accession, they do not neglect the other 
goals, either, so they can successfully meet the expectations of the United States, 
the NATO and Russia as well. 
The majority of the interviewees divided the Ukrainian foreign policy into two 
parts: the period hallmarked by the name of Leonid Kuchma and the period fol-
lowing the adventurous election victory of Victor Yuschenko. 
The former foreign policy of the Ukraine was characterised by a duality: on the 
surface it wanted to meet both the right wing and the left wing expectations, tried 
to appeal to the West (especially when it expected money) but in reality it was the 
lengthened arm of Moscow. The relations to the neighbouring countries were only 
superficial, at least as regards the national and regional level. 
The  new foreign policy has made a turn since the “Orange revolution”; 
Yuschenko’s new leadership has made definite declarations of accepting the Euro-
pean norms. It is too early at this point to evaluate the new foreign policy, but its 
seems certain that the Ukraine cannot be isolated from Russia in the future, either, 
so the duality probably remains, albeit the western orientation will be much 
stronger than before. 
An opinion was stated that in the foreign policy of the Ukraine the neighbour 
states have a special position between the Western countries and Russia. The pol-
icy towards the Central European states, who are especially important for the cross-
border relations, can be divided into three parts. The first group contains those 
countries with whom the economic and other relations are dynamically developing 
(Hungary and Poland are in this group). The Ukraine has not hostile but compared 
to the previous years definitely passive foreign policy towards Slovakia. The eco-
nomic relations are not developing at a high speed, and the personal and cultural 
co-operations were practically eliminated by the visa regime. We have to remark, 
on the other hand, that the Ukraine has introduced visa free entry for the EU mem-
ber states for the summer of 2005, and this can be extended if the travels of the 
Ukrainian citizens to Europe are also made easier. This places the relationship to 
the neighbour states on new grounds. The relationship between the Ukraine and 
Romania is very cold, not even a treaty has been signed by the two states so far, the 
economic co-operations are very scarce, in fact, some territorial disputes have re-
mained unsettled below the surface. 
 
124

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
2.2 Cross-border 
co-operations 
and regional correlations 
2.2.1  The role of the border and the cross-border relations in the everyday lives 
of the interviewees 
As the interviewees have links to the border coming from their work, it is not sur-
prising that the border and cross-border co-operations play an important role in 
the life and work of all respondents. The leaders at the different tiers of public ad-
ministration (region, county, district and municipality) have their official and per-
sonal relationships to their counterparts, the organisations and local governments 
on the other side of the border. In Romania and the Ukraine it is especially the mu-
nicipalities with Hungarian majority that are active in foreign connections, a twin 
settlement system is working that is reaching beyond the protocol level now (not 
only local governmental leaders meet and exchange their experiences, like for-
merly; local entrepreneurs, experts, non-governmental organisations are also 
contacting each other). 
For the actors of the economy, the proximity of the border and the co-operation 
are already factors basically influencing business opportunities. This is field where 
the strengthening of the relationship has been going on for years and where the op-
portunities offered by the border are more and more appreciated. A similarly prac-
tical approach to the issue of cross-border relation is used by the non-governmental 
organisations, several of whom have already established relationships on the other 
side of the border and are actively trying to utilise the tender possibilities lying in 
this field. 
On the Hungarian side of the Hungarian–Ukrainian border, especially in 
Záhony, the town with the biggest border crossing station, many interviewees said 
that the border had been the most important source for living of the respective 
settlement for decades, and it still is. Formerly the freight transport crossing the 
border here, now it is more and more shopping tourism that plays a dominant role 
in the everyday life of the local population. 
For the Romanian interviewees too the border and the cross-border relations are 
organic part of the everyday life, during their work they have regular contacts with 
the population on the other side of the border. They continuously feel the disad-
vantages and in some cases also the advantages of this. The border has a huge im-
portance for the population living here, as on the Romanian side they are just a few 
kilometres away from an EU member state, and this gateway role between the 
European Union and Romania is an enormous opportunity both in economic, po-
litical and social sense. Accordingly, several forms of co-operation have already 
been established among the representatives of public administration, the economic 
sector or the non-governmental organisations, although the intensity of the rela-
tionships varies across the different sectors. 
 
125

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
In addition to the above-mentioned, on the Ukrainian side the non-governmen-
tal organisations have to be emphasised, some of which (e.g. charity organisations, 
Hungarian ethnic minority organisations) have very intensive relationships to Hun-
gary, as the majority of them do not expect any resource from the Ukrainian state 
even if they are responsible for tasks (e.g. orphanages, education) that are state 
tasks anyway. The cross-border co-operations and resources are especially impor-
tant for the Ferenc Rákóczi II Transcarpathian Hungarian College, as the college 
does not get any state support, despite the fact that they play an outstanding role in 
the region with their constantly expanding number of graduate trainings and -
growing number of students. They can only rely on Hungarian and tender re-
sources, practically, so both in the field of training and supports the college has 
relationships with several Hungarian higher educations and municipalities (e.g. 
Hungarian towns renovate or equip rooms in the buildings – of bad conditions – 
given to the college). 
2.2.2 Common tasks, problems that require cross-border co-operation 
In Hungary the well functioning cultural relationships that are especially successful 
at the local level were mentioned by several respondents, as a dominant element in 
the cross-border relations. These relations were rated as especially important be-
cause they play a traditionally significant role in preserving the identity of the 
Hungarians living on the Romanian and Ukrainian side of the border. As regards 
regional development issues, a co-operation much more effective than today would 
be welcome by the interviewees, although the conditions for that are still to be cre-
ated, as there are significant differences between Hungary and the two neighbour 
states in matters of the administrative system, regional development policy and 
living standards. Many interviewees said that those living on the Romanian and 
especially the Ukrainian side of the border have to get to know a few issues of re-
gional development policy in more depth, and if they want to become EU mem-
bers, they have to apply these regulations in course of time. 
The  development of infrastructure was mentioned in the first place by those 
living on the Hungarian side of the Ukrainian borders, where even the technical 
conditions of smooth border crossing are absent. Even the existing border crossing 
stations are inadequately built out, e.g. at the border crossing station of Bereg-
surány there are four lanes on each side of the border, but the two sides are con-
nected by one single lane, as nobody bothered to build the other lanes on “no man’s 
land” – this is a good example for the lack of joint action and adequate 
communication. The importance of environmental co-operation was mentioned 
both at the Romanian and the Ukrainian border, but it is considered as a very im-
 
126

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
portant objective especially in Romania, after the cyanide poisoning that occurred a 
few years ago. 
On the Romanian side of the border, the almost equivocal opinion of the inter-
viewees was that economic co-operations should be developed in the first place. 
The reason for this is that Romania means a huge market, and the opportunities in 
this field are not utilised yet, on the one hand; on the other, the demand was stated 
that the Romanian party should learn as much as possible from the Hungarians, as 
Hungary has much more experiences in this respect. Several people mentioned the 
results of the Hungarian–Austrian cross-border co-operation, and it seems from the 
interviews that the respondents think that the transfer of these experiences could be 
one of the most important achievements of the cross-border relations. The need for 
infrastructure developments is partly connected to the issue of economic develop-
ment, and the Romanian respondents said the cross-border relations might play a 
significant role in this. Among the possible joint projects, the acceleration of mo-
torway constructions was mentioned on both sides, the restoration of the railway 
connections that were eliminated by the Trianon treaty, including the re-opening of 
the Debrecen–Oradea (Nagyvárad) line. The tender resources can play an impor-
tant role in the future in increasing the number of border crossing stations, too. 
A special field of economic development ideas can be the development of tour-
ism, because the Romanian side has excellent endowments, but the capital is miss-
ing there in an adequate amount. According to the ideas, the Hungarian side can 
contribute to the boom of tourism by investments, on the one hand; on the other 
hand, the natural assets of the two sides can well complement each other, which 
offers a good opportunity to organise joint programmes. One prerequisite for 
successful tourism is the preservation of the natural landscape, so the environmen-
tal projects have a high priority among the plans. Finally, for the realisation of all 
these objectives it is necessary to include tender resources from the European Un-
ion, in which cross-border co-operations can play a selected role. The already 
mentioned, missing information on the tenders and the experiences of project man-
agement are things that some of the Romanian interviewees wish to gain from the 
Hungarian partners. 
On the basis of the opinions stated on the Ukrainian side, the cross-border rela-
tions are in their initial phase and need to be developed in each sector. Neverthe-
less, similarly to the Romanian interviewees, the respondents mentioned the need 
to intensively develop the economic relations in the first place, as this has the big-
gest effect on the other sectors. In addition, training and education would be very 
important (transfer of up-to-date curricula, educational tools and methods), but the 
co-operations in the field of agriculture (mainly import of expertise and trainings), 
flood prevention and sewage treatment, and waste management should also be 
made more intensive. 
 
127

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
2.2.3 The dominant actors of cross-border relations 
In addition to the potential objectives of cross-border co-operations, the identifica-
tion of the possible actors was also our research aim. The most important partners 
are different, according to the Hungarian respondents, in the case of the different 
co-operation forms, e.g. municipal relations are the most active in the field of cul-
tural co-operations, but the activity has considerably increased in the Hungarian–
Romanian relation in infrastructure investments, too. Besides these, in Phare CBC 
the universities and higher education, municipal governments, and the institutions 
dealing with EU resources play a dominant role. What is really missing is the es-
tablishment of social relations; social embeddedness is extremely weak on both 
sides of the border, the participation of NGOs in decision-making or even the mere 
expression of their opinion is very casual. 
During the interviews, in Romania each respondent defined the different levels 
of public administration as the presently most active levels of co-operation. Within 
this, the cross-border relations of the local and county self-governments deserve a 
special attention, because in most respondents’ views they can create the frame-
works for the economic and non-governmental organisations, and a part of the nec-
essary financial resources is also expected from the local governments by the inter-
viewees. The national level was only mentioned in a few cases, as the national 
politics is responsible for the legal regulation and sets the budgetary frameworks 
for cross-border co-operations. 
Although the respondents said that in cross-border co-operations it is still poli-
tics that has the dominant role, the relations of the economic actors are continu-
ously strengthening. Today the co-operation among the different chambers can be a 
starting point. We cannot forget, however, that in the everyday life it is the per-
sonal relations that make the biggest share of the cross-border relations. The role of 
shopping tourism has not decreased in the recent years, but its direction has turner 
round: a few years ago mostly the Romanian citizens crossed the border with shop-
ping intentions, now it is usually the Hungarians who travel to Romania with the 
same purposes. 
In accordance with the responses we got in Transcarpathia, in the cross-border 
relations of the region it is still personal relations that prevail (in addition to 
keeping in touch with relatives and friends, making a living is dominant here, as 
they said, they “live from the border”). The most typical activity and source of in-
come is fuel tourism (not only for own consumption but also for sale in Hungary), 
shopping (the direction of which turned round after 2000, now the Hungarian citi-
zens cross the border with shopping purposes more often, to buy cheap and re-
cently good quality Ukrainian goods) and different illegal activities (smuggling of 
tobacco, spirits and humans, illegal employment). A positive change of the last few 
years is that economic actors and joint ventures play a more and more important 
 
128

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
role in cross-border relations, together with the increasing activity of municipal 
governments and non-governmental organisations. 
2.2.4 The motivations of the relations 
Finally we tried to discover what motivates the actors of the co-operations, what 
are the driving forces in the establishment and development of the relationships. 
We can see that the motivations depend on the activity of the actors of the co-op-
erations, but the motivations also vary across the different countries. Least depend-
ant on the border and the place of residence of the individuals are the motivations 
of the cross-border co-operation of citizens. The interviewees reinforced that the 
most active level of the relations was the personal level. In this case, in addition to 
maintaining relatives relations and friendships, the already mentioned factors (fuel 
tourism, shopping, different illegal activities) are the main driving forces. As re-
gards the economic actors, it is relationship building and of course the profit that 
can be realised that are on the top of the list of motivations. 
The researches of the cross-border relations had already demonstrated before 
that the traditionally most common and still most functioning types of contacts are 
the different cultural co-operations. This kind of co-operation is especially alive 
where a population very keen on their traditions live on both sides of the border. 
The Hungarian ethnic respondents in Romania and the Ukraine, and the respon-
dents in Hungary very often mentioned the common historical past, the common 
historical roots, as in many cases relatives live on the two sides of the border and 
the need to keep in touch is natural. 
The respondents on the Hungarian side of the border often said that money, the 
acquisition of supports is often dominant in cross-border relations, but this is not 
necessarily negative, as money is an indispensable element for these programmes. 
If no EU or national resource is available, usually there is no co-operation, either. 
The main objective of the cross-border co-operations should be job creation, given 
the rapidly worsening conditions after the systemic change, and the prevention of 
outmigration, in close relation with job creation. An important benefit of the estab-
lishment of the relations could be the creation of regional cohesion. As regards de-
velopments, the restoration of the formerly disintegrated settlement development 
correlations and regional hinterlands should be achieved – thinking in a way as if 
the border were not even there. The interviews often mentioned the Hungarian to 
Hungarian relationship as a motivation of the co-operations, which is very impor-
tant for co-operations especially for the Hungarians living on the Romanian and 
Ukrainian side of the border. 
In  Romania and Transcarpathia, the acquisition of the resources of the Euro-
pean Union is not among the main motivations yet, but its importance is definitely 
 
129

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
increasing. The interviewees in Romania and Transcarpathia are aware of the fact 
that significant amounts of money will be available for such purposes in the future 
and several respondents also said they would happily use for the acquisition and 
effective use of these resources the help of the Hungarian partners who have some 
experiences in this respect. 
2.3 Perceptions 
2.3.1 Associations relating to the border and the border region 
When making the interviews we tried to find out what image the respondents had 
of the border and those who live on the other side. The Hungarian responses re-
vealed that everybody knows: theoretically the border does not separate but con-
nects, but we cannot forget the fact that it is a Schengen border, a border that defi-
nitely separates now. This is not a serious obstacle of personal relations any more; 
there is a network of personal contacts that is a good framework of the relations. 
On the other hand, in cross-border relations, in regional development and spatial 
planning the separating functions are still much stronger, but this is due not so 
much to the border itself, rather to the completely different administration systems, 
the altering administrative practices on the two sides of the border. The 
synchronisation of these is a significant task; today it is often difficult to find co-
operating partners and get the necessary licences. 
In Romania, the responses were divided, the interviews stated three very much 
different opinions. For the first group, the border is still an obstacle in the first 
place. The customs control, the concomitant bureaucracy and the humiliating be-
haviour of the customs officers and frontier guards to the passengers is a kind of 
“historical heritage”, a remnant mostly from the Ceausescu era that unfortunately 
still lives on. On the other hand, the border is a possibility for the economic actors 
questioned, a possibility for trade, although it is still an obstacle for them too, be-
cause of the occasionally several hours of waiting in freight traffic. Finally there 
were respondents who said the Hungarian–Romanian border had always been a 
bridge and the situation had improved a lot since 1989, today the presence of the 
border is not a serious obstacle. 
In Transcarpathia the associations relating the border are definitely negative, 
the border reminds everyone of being kept waiting, corruption and humiliation in 
the first place. Many respondents said that people are treated in a rude and humili-
ating way at the border, and the sad thing is that the Hungarian side had taken over 
this style; in the early 1990s the Hungarian side was typically polite. It was also 
mentioned that it is not the physical permeability of the border crossing stations 
that causes a problem; it is much more the attitude (bad work ethics and corrup-
 
130

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
tion). In many people the border evoked a though of lagging behind, they are espe-
cially afraid of the Schengen “wall” that separates them from the more advanced 
world, from which Transcarpathia is pushed farther again. Others see an opportu-
nity in the border, due to the Hungarian EU membership and the available re-
sources in accordance with this. 
2.3.2 The border region as a separate region? 
Another important element of the cross-border relations can be how much the citi-
zens can identify themselves with the idea of a region reaching beyond the national 
boundaries and whether there is such a regional identity in the people – or if such 
an identity can be born in the future. The equivocal opinion of the respondents in 
Hungary, Romania and Transcarpathia was that the border region can already 
definitely be seen as a separate region; some elements of the common identity can 
be seen, mostly due to the common historical past, but also because of the common 
problems – and now because of the intensity of the cross-border co-operations. 
From the economic perspective, however, the relationships should be strengthened, 
so that this territory can be treated as a really single region. A sort of common 
identity of the people living here can be created by the formerly mentioned periph-
eral situation, as the difficulties are the same, as are the attempts for the solution of 
these problems. Outside the border region it is difficult to imagine anywhere else 
shopping tourism and fuel smuggling as a source of living for many. This also 
strengthens the birth of a common mentality, world view on the two sides of the 
border, even if the roles occasionally change: formerly those living on the Roma-
nian and Ukrainian side of the border came to Hungary for shopping; now the di-
rection of shopping tourism is just the opposite. 
The issue of the identity of the inhabitants with their region, regional identity 
was more difficult to measure, as there is no sense of identity whatsoever with the 
development regions created in Hungary so far. On both sides of the Hungarian–
Romanian border, it is much more the spatial units of the historical past, i.e. with 
the counties that people identify themselves with (e.g. there is a Szatmár identity, 
and even more so a Bihar identity), as are the respective settlements. At the same 
time, the people are much more capable of the reception and creation of such an 
identity in issues related to their everyday lives and problems: the people living 
here are mostly interested in whether they can cross the border to visit their rela-
tives and friends or to do some shopping; if these relationships are established, the 
people can identify themselves with the notion of a cross-border region. Such a 
region would resemble in many respects initiatives started in Hungary where some 
especially important tourism areas are identified as separate regions, such as the 
Lake Balaton and the Tisza Lake region. People usually know the physical bounda-
 
131

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
ries of such regions, this is by and large the area where their personal relationships 
are, let them be family or friendly relationships or even economic co-operations. 
Because of the several hundred years of common history and Hungarian public 
administration, in Transcarpathia too there is a kind of regional (Bereg or Ung) 
identity connected to some historical counties, but the border that has been there 
for 85 years now also created a special “us” identity, which was further strength-
ened by politics (e.g. the recent referendum on the Hungarian citizenship of the 
Hungarians living in the neighbour countries), separating the formerly single sense 
of identity of the Hungarian ethnic group. This statement, however, is not only 
valid for the Hungarians but also for the other nations living in Transcarpathia, 
from the Rusins registered as Ukrainians to the Slovaks (e.g. many people in Tran-
scarpathia set their clocks according to the Central European time that they call 
local time – “our time” –, although the official time is the Kiev time zone, one hour 
ahead). 
2.3.3   “Us” and “others” – similarities and differences between those on the two 
sides of the border 
In Hungary most interviewees emphasised that the people on the other side of the 
border are “just like us”. A basic factor from this aspect is the fact that both sides 
of the border are peripheries, which bears a socio-economic backwardness; in ad-
dition, the mentality of the people, their responses to the challenges of the world 
are similar, so we cannot really differentiate between the two sides. Of course, 
when asking opinions about the economic situation, in connection with the 
Ukrainian side everybody said that the huge poverty was the biggest difference, 
whereas this was less typical in connection with Romania. Cultural differences 
were only mentioned in a few interviews, especially because the people on the 
other sides usually meant the Hungarians living in the neighbour countries for most 
answerers. As regards the Ukraine, the major part of the answerers emphasised the 
political differences, too. 
According to the findings of the survey, the image of the people on the side of 
the border is not single in the Romanian respondents. The majority said that the 
people on the Hungarian side of the border were just like them. They (ant not only 
the Hungarians) usually referred to the formerly mentioned common historical 
roots, the difference, according to the respondents, is more among the individual 
people, whichever country they live in. A smaller part of the interviewees said that 
there were tangible differences between the inhabitants of the two countries. They 
too admitted that there were many similarities, but they saw differences in a few 
aspects. It was usually the better financial situation of those living on the Hungar-
ian side of the border that was mentioned, but some respondent considered the 
 
132

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Hungarians more disciplined, more open, referring in the first place to the differ-
ences between the two socialist systems before 1989. 
Given the fact that the regions had been deeply integrated for centuries, the 
majority of the respondents in Transcarpathia thought that from cultural and 
mental aspect there was no real difference between the people on the two sides of 
the border, they live from each other and they depend on each other. Nevertheless 
it was stated that the Transcarpathian people are more hospitable and less material 
than those living in Hungary. The rejection of the issue raised at the referendum of 
5 December 2000 (whether the Hungarians living outside the borders should be 
given a Hungarian citizenship) – especially by the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg in-
habitants, many of whom “live from Transcarpathia” – was a great shock for the 
Transcarpathians, they feel now that they are not welcome on the other side, con-
sequently the judgement of the Hungarians of the mother country worsened. 
2.3.4 Assessment of the economic situation on the other side of the border 
An important element of the image of the other nation is how the economic situa-
tion of the neighbouring country is seen. As we have already seen, this affects 
cross-border relations as well; the price level in the neighbour country influences 
the personal relation in the first place, and shopping tourism. The Hungarian re-
spondents, not surprisingly, consider the economic situation on the other side of the 
border much worse than in their own country. As regards the Ukraine, many re-
spondents not only saw the present situation depressing but could not be optimistic 
about the future prospects, either. The reasons for the bad economic situation, as 
most respondents said, were the deteriorated infrastructure and the inadequate pro-
duction structure. As regards Romania, the interviewees were much less pessimis-
tic. Although they did not consider the present situation in Romania as comparable 
with the circumstances in Hungary, either, many said that the catching up period 
had already started by which Romania could go through a spectacular development 
in the middle or even the short run. The assessment of the situation is not the same, 
however, along the whole border section. On the southern part of the border sec-
tion, in the Romanian West region a much more striking development was empha-
sised, palpable in Hungary as well – in harmony with the responses we got in Hun-
gary –, while in the northern part of the border region the Romanian respondents 
thought that the changes were much slower and the amount of capital invested 
much more modest. 
The major part of the Romanian interviewees definitely considered Hungary and 
the Hungarian side more developed, although the development differences are not 
the same in each area. The responses in the Northwest region revealed that the dif-
ferences are seen much bigger here than in the West region. In the latter, over the 
 
133

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
last few years a significant amount of foreign direct investment has been realised, 
the spectacular results of which made the respondents see the differences in the 
development level much smaller. Among the reasons for the differences, in the first 
place the better economic management and policy was mentioned, but the Roma-
nian economy was really set back by the Ceausescu regime, as the shift to the mar-
ket economy started in Romania with a significant delay. 
The assessment of the mode developed side of the border is varied in Transcar-
pathia, it cannot always be clearly seen where people have a better living. We can 
say that in matters of infrastructure the Hungarian side is in a much better position 
than Transcarpathia, but if we look at the pace of the development of the economy 
right next to the border, the situation is different. Usually people live better on the 
Hungarian side, but not everywhere: while Nyíregyháza definitely offers better 
possibilities for its area, the small Hungarian villages in the direct vicinity of the 
border struggle with a host of problems. As the historical centres were in Transcar-
pathia, the living standards are higher in the villages in their neighbourhood than in 
the small villages of their hinterlands now in Hungary (although the Soviet Union 
deteriorated to a large extent the conditions of living, some people in Transcarpa-
thia nevertheless have the notion in their minds that their settlements used to be 
richer). 
2.3.5 Visa-free border traffic and open borders 
One possible effect of the open borders, in the view of the Hungarian respondents, 
can be of migration character, the immigration to the otherwise gradually depopu-
lating villages from the other side of the border is already frequent. The open bor-
ders have an effect on the labour market in the first place; when employing people 
from the other side of the border, the employers can always calculate lower wage 
costs. This potential source of danger was raised in a few interviews, but the ma-
jority of the respondents said it would not be a real danger in the foreseeable future. 
Apart from this, practically no interviewee had bad feelings about the more 
open borders. If they had some reservations, this was usually the consequence of 
the fact that they did not consider the guarding of the border adequate even in the 
present regulation. Most respondents mentioned the potential growth of crime in 
connection with the Ukraine, but the general opinion was that anybody wishing to 
enter Hungary can do so now, despite the visa regime, so the visa-free border traf-
fic would not worsen the situation. In some cases the opinion was stressed – also in 
connection of the Hungarian–Ukrainian border section in the first place – that Hun-
gary has the obligation to assist the Hungarians on the other side of the border. A 
Hungarian passport or other possibilities could help them cross the border more 
easily, work abroad and keep their family this way. 
 
134

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
As regards the more open borders and visa-free border crossing, the Romanian 
and the Ukrainian respondents had no bad feelings, either. This is due on the one 
hand to the fact that the visa regime is not valid for the Romanian citizens travel-
ling to Hungary; on the other hand, the majority of the interviewees favoured visa-
free travel on theoretical grounds too, they said the visa-free travel would be very 
important at other borders too, being the basis of the deepening of cross-border co-
operations, but also leading to the acceptance of the regions along the border. 
There are no fears in connection with the more open borders, this would cause 
some difficulties (e.g. stronger competition in the field of the economy and ser-
vices), but on the whole it is good for the market, the positive effects will domi-
nate. In some cases we found that the respondent usually thought this way about 
the western borders (of Romania and the Ukraine), they do not welcome the open-
ing of their eastern borders; in fact, they would like to strengthen their protection, 
afraid of the emigrants from there. In Transcarpathia it was said that the small-scale 
cross-border traffic should be re-introduced, because in addition to visa exemption, 
it would provide much cheaper travel possibilities to Hungary, because interna-
tional passport is very expensive in the Ukraine (more than a monthly wage for 
many people) and its preparation is very bureaucratic. 
2.4  Cross-border co-operations in practice 
2.4.1 Ongoing and finished projects, the financial grounds of co-operations 
During the interviews made in Hungary, the respondents mentioned many projects. 
When classifying these, we find that the programmes with concrete economic ob-
jectives are very few. On the other hand, there are a significant number of further 
trainings and workshops organised for the partners on the other side, including 
trainings of tendering skills for the preparation of the EU accession. There are also 
a large number of environmental projects, mostly with support from the Union, and 
cultural programmes. The planned projects are of similar character to the ones al-
ready implemented. In the future plans the INTERREG programmes have a more 
significant role than before, the larger-scale plans include infrastructure invest-
ments and projects simplifying border crossing and improving traffic conditions. 
In  Romania each respondent had information on some PHARE CBC project; 
the majority even had personal experiences about such co-operations. Most fre-
quently mentioned were the environmental and river regulation developments and 
cultural co-operations (especially in the Hungarian to Hungarian relation: Day of 
Hungarian Culture, Day of Hungarian Science), the ones considered as most im-
portant were the opening of new road border crossing stations. As regards the 
 
135

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
economy, the training of small and medium sized enterprises and the preparation of 
tourism manuals were mentioned. Among the planned projects, tourism and envi-
ronmental protection were the main fields of co-operation. It was mentioned sev-
eral times that a strategic co-operation had been established between Debrecen and 
Oradea (e.g. among the development priorities of Oradea, the investments in con-
nection with the potential award of the title “European Capital of Culture” to De-
brecen for the year 2010 have an outstanding significance). 
The majority of the interviewees in Transcarpathia have no information about 
major county level projects; if the newspapers mention some successful applica-
tions, there is no information on the implementation of the projects. Some say that 
the county level projects are only operational on the paper; they have no practical 
use, apart from the mutual visits. Most people mentioned the project aiming at the 
establishment and operation of a flood and water quality monitoring network on the 
Tisza River and its tributaries. In addition, the building out of a network of village 
managers in Transcarpathia is underway, with the assistance of the agriculture de-
partment of the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg county government; also, in the co-opera-
tion of the two counties trainings are organised and implemented for local govern-
ments and non-governmental organisations (the latter is part of the TACIS). 
The organisations interviewed were able to mention several projects, but these 
rarely involved EU resources, because they (TACIS) only support the democratic 
transition in the region for the time being and there are few fields where they can 
be applied. Today it is usually the Hungarian resources that can be applied (Apác-
zai and Illyés Foundation, ministerial resources), the Ukrainian resources are rather 
few, and there is no information for their acquisition, the tender system is not open 
enough. Such a project is the maintenance of the Hungarian college in Beregovo 
(Beregszász) that does not receive Ukrainian support at all; its operation is almost 
exclusively financed from Hungarian resources. In addition, e.g. the Dorcas Tran-
scarpathia support organisation operates significant, self-financed programmes 
(e.g. orphanages, the renovation and support of medical surgeries, training of com-
puter skills, leper mission, drinking water programme with the inclusion of Hun-
garian resources), which can also be seen as cross-border programmes, as the ma-
jority of the money is collected by the organisation in Hungary and Western 
Europe. 
2.4.2 Partnership, conflicts, and communication strategies 
It is of basic importance for the efficiency of cross-border relations what partners 
the respective organisation or institution has relationships with and how they com-
municate to each other. The Hungarian interviewees naturally have contacts with 
similar organisations on the other side, so the partners of local governments are 
 
136

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
usually local governments, whereas the chambers establish contacts with the 
chambers, and the non-governmental organisations also make contacts with their 
counterparts on the other side of the border. Along the Hungarian–Romanian bor-
der, each respondent had a positive opinion about their own partners, but it is a 
factor supporting understanding that a significant part of the partners abroad are 
Hungarians living in Romania, which alleviates keeping in touch – among other 
things from the language aspect. The situation is slightly different along the Hun-
garian–Ukrainian border, but the complaints here about the lack of co-operation 
willingness did not concern the partners outside Hungary, much more the official 
organs that often blocked co-operations. 
Most of the concerned Romanian and Ukrainian organisations have their coun-
terparts on the Hungarian side of the border – county governments, local govern-
ments of town with county rank, universities, research institutes, non-governmental 
organisations, economic organisations, professional organisations and institutions. 
The technical conditions of communication are usually given (e-mail, telephone, 
fax) and utilised (maybe Transcarpathia is an exception where the use of internet 
and e-mail is not so widespread yet). During personal talks, the language used in 
communication is usually Hungarian, as the majority of the negotiating partners 
speak Hungarian, otherwise English is also frequently used (in Transcarpathia oc-
casionally Russian too). Romanian and Ukrainian language is less typical, because 
very few speak there languages on the Hungarian side. At meetings at higher level, 
hiring translators is no problem, either. Conflicts of interest, as we have seen, can 
appear only among the economic actors (competition), who try to handle their con-
flicting interests in different ways, using their personal relations (but they were re-
luctant to talk about exactly how). Some neighbouring towns are also competitors 
for each other (e.g. Záhony and Csap compete with each other for railway reloads 
and freight traffic). They try to hide the conflicts of interests (at least on the sur-
face); they strive for co-operation and consensus rather than open confrontation. 
2.4.3 Efficiency or opportunities missed? 
In Hungary relatively few interviewees wanted to evaluate the efficiency of the fi-
nancing possibilities, as the major part of the programmes only aim at supporting 
the establishment of relations among the institutions on the two sides and the defi-
nition of common development ideas. The economic effect of these programmes 
cannot be felt directly, so their efficiency cannot be measured from this aspect, ei-
ther. The effects are much more tangible in social relations and in the connections 
among the institutions, the efficiency of which was considered good by the major-
ity of respondents, remarking of course that the efficiency could be further in-
creased. 
 
137

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
In  Romania the opinions were much more determined, not one interviewee 
considered the use of the resources as satisfactory. In their opinion, only a frag-
ment of the available resources has been used, the reasons for which in their opin-
ion are strong centralisation, and the lack of money and information at local level. 
The efficiency is not good enough in an international comparison, although signifi-
cant improvements have been made over the last two years in this respect. In a 
comparison with other regions in Romania, on the other hand, the Hungarian–
Romanian border region has a good position. The practice is insufficient yet, there 
are too few competent applicants (who, on the other hand, have good results) and 
in the tenders the objectives set are not always realised. There was a case when the 
money was used for private purposes. Some groups considered the number of pro-
tocol events too high and the tangible results too weak. It is frequent that the co-
operating parties look for partners not in the border region but in a farther, Western 
European country, although they have more interests in common with those living 
on the other side of the border. 
According to what the majority of the interviewees said, in Transcarpathia we 
cannot talk about an efficient use of resources in practically any sector. One impor-
tant obstacle of the efficient use of the resources in the region is the lack of -
information; the calls for tenders do not reach wide layers of potential users. The 
EU resources do not play a dominant role in the region yet, but their larger scale 
use in the future is blocked by the lack of experts necessary for the preparation of 
the tenders and then the management of the projects. Some of the financial re-
sources provided by the Hungarian state gets where it should and is used efficiently 
(e.g. education in Hungarian language, non-governmental minority organisations, 
newspapers etc.), but another part simply disappears, as it is practically impossible 
to control in Transcarpathia the distribution and use of the resources now, the 
money is often embezzled. Organisations not interested in “stealing” the money 
should be involved in the distribution; these amounts are not so big that they are 
significant for a larger company, for example. Many respondents stated that the use 
of resources should take place with assistance from Hungary, in the form of 
information and expertise transfer, preferably in trainings organised in Transcar-
pathia. 
2.4.4 Relations that can be expanded, actors who can be involved 
The interviewees agreed that the range of the actors of cross-border co-operations 
should be expanded in the future, which could promote the intensification of the 
relations. The more intensive co-operation of the economic actors was raised by 
almost all respondents in Hungary, they see a big opportunity especially in the 
strengthening of the relations of small and medium size enterprises. It was often 
mentioned that the Hungarian investors should use the new opportunities that 
emerged on the other side of the border, and they should participate in the privati-
 
138

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
sation in Romania. The interviewees said that the Hungarian investors might even 
be late now in Romania, but in the case of the Ukraine, the investments in the busi-
nesses there, that are in a shortage of capital, may offer a high profit. In addition to 
the economic actors, the non-governmental organisations should be more inten-
sively involved in co-operations, as the civil relations are in their infancy now, but 
the can provide the mainstream of the co-operations in the future. 
The respondents in Romania thought that the number of participants in cross-
border co-operations should be increased in all social groups, although there are 
groups, such as the aged people, where major results are rather unlikely to achieve. 
The majority thought that the inclusion of the younger generations is very impor-
tant, as it can establish the more intensive relations of the future. In addition, the 
youth are the group that seems to be most receptive – in addition to the non-gov-
ernmental organisations – to such co-operations. Also, non-Hungarian speaking 
Romanian partners should be involved in larger numbers, as the majority of the 
relations are Hungarian to Hungarian co-operations now. 
The majority of the interviewees in Transcarpathia agreed that the economic 
relations should be strengthened in the region in the first place, as it would have 
effects radiating to other sectors, as well. Besides the economic actors, the inclu-
sion of young intellectuals is of special importance, as they are the ones that can be 
relied on in the future (e.g. at the use of EU resources). In addition, the role of cul-
tural relations is very important, because Hungarians live on both sides of the bor-
der. Education, twin settlement co-operations in the broader sense (not only local 
governments but also NGOs, economic and educational actors etc.) need further 
development too. In order to achieve all these, it would be very important in Tran-
scarpathia to strengthen the trust among the ethnic minorities living here, as they 
too can profit from the Hungarian to Hungarian relations. 
2.4.5 Initiators and beneficiaries 
The  Hungarian interviewees made marked difference between Romania and the 
Ukraine when we asked which party was more initiative in the co-operation pro-
jects. In the Romanian-Hungarian relations, the majority said that the Hungarian 
party was more active initiating projects, although the situation is rapidly changing 
in the recent years, and the other party is showing an increasing activity. Never-
theless today it is more typical that the initiative comes from Hungary and the other 
half would only like to see the document ready for signing in many cases, leaving 
the preparation to the Hungarian side. 
In the Ukrainian-Hungarian relations the situation is even clearer, the Hungar-
ian side is more initiative, especially because the Ukraine followed a policy of iso-
lation and was not active in practically any field. Those questioned at a latter stage 
 
139

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
of the survey, the ones who already knew the events going on in the Ukraine in late 
2004, were more optimistic, although only the possibility was born for more active 
participation in cross-border co-operations, it is questionable to what extent this 
opportunity will be used. 
According to most of the Romanian respondents, the two parties showed by and 
large the same activity in initiatives. Several interviewees mentioned that formerly 
the Romanian side had been more active, while the Hungarians are more active 
now, after the appearance of EU resources, and they seek partners much more con-
sciously. The fact that the Hungarian partners have access to much more financial 
resources and have more experience in participating in competitions makes the po-
sition of the Hungarian side better. That is why in many cases Romanian partici-
pants can only assist their Hungarian partners in the achievement of the goals 
which were determined in Hungary. On the other hand many interviewees said that 
the poorer partner – in this case Romania – would necessarily profit more. Pres-
ently the co-operation is promoted by the fact that the relations are created mainly 
among the Hungarian communities on the two sides of the border, but this can be 
an obstacle in the future, so the initiatives should be gradually taken over by the 
Romanian actors. In the field of economic co-operations, it is the Hungarian party 
that is more initiative, the reason for this, according to the interviewees, is that the 
entrepreneurs bring their products from a more saturated market, hoping for better 
sales prospects in Romania. 
The opinions stated in Transcarpathia were that the Hungarian party initiates 
cross-border projects more often, having access to resources available for this pur-
pose in larger amounts. The key of the process is that partners have to be found on 
the other side, as the resources are only available in this case. Due to the rather 
limited financial means, it is not typical of the Ukrainian party to initiate projects. 
In the view of the majority of the interviewees, the beneficiaries of the project-
based cross-border co-operations it is definitely the EU member, i.e. in this case the 
Hungarian side that profits more, having access to much larger resources, allowing 
good investments and the acquisition of markets. The example to be followed can 
be that of Burgenland and West Hungary – although everybody agrees that is only 
a theoretical possibility along the eastern borders of Hungary, as this border region 
is peripheral itself and has limited chances to utilise the opportunities. In course of 
time, as the Romanian and Ukrainian side can become more and more active in 
initiating projects, an increasing share of the results will be realised in Romania 
and the Ukraine. Presently the Romanian and Ukrainian partners only assist the 
projects generated in Hungary many times, often they are only needed so that the 
Hungarian party should be eligible for support, the Romanian and Ukrainian part-
ners cannot directly profit much from the relations. The transfer of skills, however, 
can be of help to the Romanian and Ukrainian partners as well, but the direct finan-
cial benefit is not tangible yet. In the case of Transcarpathia the situation is “wors-
 
140

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
ened” by the fact that the presently available EU resources do not support invest-
ments directly, only assist the democratic transition process. 
2.4.6 The limits to co-operation 
Among the main obstacles to cross-border relations, in Hungary the interviewees 
mentioned very frequently the differences of the institutional systems. The Hun-
garian respondents consider the Hungarian institutions more flexible than their 
Romanian counterparts, in Romania it sometimes happens that the deadline of the 
tender expires by the time all the necessary permissions are given by the authorities 
at different levels. It also happens on the other side of the border that the authorities 
deny to give the permission to start a project; it never happens in Hungary. 
The Hungarian respondents also attributed an important role in the slow devel-
opment of the relations to the special feature of the Romanian self-governance 
system. Actually this and not the evident poverty is the main reason; this was a 
statement often repeated in the interviews. The essence of the problem is that in 
Romania the local governments have very limited authorities, in all important is-
sues decisions are made at the central government level. This is not necessarily 
good for cross-border co-operations. Even if there are such initiatives, they usually 
do not have the chance to get to the Hungarian party, the higher levels of politics 
and public administration usually prevent this. The signing of the founding docu-
ment of the Bihar–Bihor Euroregion is a good example for the conditions in Ro-
mania. The singing of the document was blocked by the leaders of the municipali-
ties on the Romanian side of the border for a long time; but this is not the main 
point of this issue. It is much more typical that when Biharkeresztes asked the 
Hungarian government for help in order to accelerate the process, the Hungarian 
government did not turn to the Romanian local governments concerned but to the 
central government of Romania. With the help of the Bucharest politicians it was 
possible to finally settle this absolutely local issue. 
The Hungarian interviewees did not always find the co-operation willingness of 
the Transcarpathian partners strong enough, either; on the Ukrainian side the ad-
ministrative system and the mentality are serious barriers. According to the Hun-
garian partners, the co-operation would be assisted to a large extent by the estab-
lishment of the system of micro-regions in Romania and the Ukraine, and by the 
creation of the development agencies, as in many cases there is nobody to initiate 
projects. This basically determines the possibility to launch joint projects: accord-
ing to the respondents, if there is no bottom-up initiative, it is difficult to start pro-
jects. In addition, on the Ukrainian side the infrastructure possibilities of border 
crossing are absent, the businesses cannot stand waiting for several hours. The 
elimination of the small-scale border traffic is the consequence of the acquisition of 
 
141

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
the Union regulations, which in many places worsened the possibilities of the local 
population to keep in touch with the other side. Also, there are other, seemingly 
unimportant measures that prevent the deepening of the relations, as the interview-
ees said. (E.g. the Hungarian government, parallel to the EU accession, terminated 
the possibility for entrepreneurs, and those having important positions in the border 
region – including mayors or academics – to cross the border without queuing up. 
This possibility was eliminated referring to the fact that it could lead to corruption. 
The situation now is that practically everybody has to bribe the border guards on 
both sides of the border.) 
Among the factors holding back the co-operations, the special social and eco-
nomic situation of the border region was often mentioned, as was the lack of gov-
ernment measures aiming at the alleviation of the problems. The interviewess felt 
that the Hungarian government did not pay enough attention to the problems of the 
eastern part of the country, the people living here feel they are still “stepchildren” 
of the country. The Hungarian respondents often complained about the not thor-
oughly worked out and with the other side not well enough reconciled development 
concepts. An example mentioned was that on both sides of the Hungarian–Ukrain-
ian border a huge truck terminal was built, the building of which was promoted by 
the respective governments, but nobody uses them today, as the Hungarian customs 
authority decided that the trucks still have to queue up at the border. 
Although not typical, there are still fears on the other side of the border, as the 
interviewees said, especially in Romania, that Hungary wants to regain its former 
territories now outside the border. This leads to the lack of trust, blocking the 
cross-border co-operation. 
In Romania, in addition to the already mentioned many problems, the respon-
dent emphasised bureaucracy and excessive centralisation again as factors that 
have already made the launch of joint projects difficult many times. All respon-
dents agreed that the administrative mechanisms have a very slow reaction time, 
and often its expertise is below the level it should be. The situation of public ad-
ministration is further worsened by the fact that the Romanian legal regulations do 
not favour cross-border co-operation. The regulation differs from that typical in the 
European Union in many respects, and needs serious transformation, which seems 
to be more and more probably as the EU accession of Romania approaches. Simi-
larly to the previous answers, many mentioned here too the centralisation of the 
Romanian public administration, remarking that the EU accession might bring a 
change in this respect too. 
In addition to the deficiencies of the administrative system, the participants of 
the co-operations mentioned the displeasing features of the Romanian politics. 
Many said that the mentality of the Romanian politicians is unsuitable for an effec-
tive co-operation in European projects with people from the other side of the bor-
der. Also, a well-established and long term strategy is missing that could make the 
 
142

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
basis of any co-operation agreement in economic development or the field of infra-
structure investments. In this relation many respondents mentioned the responsibil-
ity of the professional organisations, which have not been able to take over the 
working methods usual in the Union, they work slowly and not efficiently enough 
and thus they do not help the establishment of relations. 
In the Ukraine, among the major obstacles of cross-border relations, the diffi-
culties of crossing the border were mentioned in the first place. This involves the 
low permeability of the border crossing stations, the visa regime against the EU 
and Hungary, the customs system, and not last the depressing work ethics typical at 
the border crossing stations. Another serious obstacle to co-operations is the omni-
present corruption. A further problem is the not efficient and excessively bureau-
cratic Ukrainian economic management system (taxation system, banking services, 
legal regulations, other fiscal tools blocking the flow of capital). A bottleneck con-
cerning regional development is the fact that the Ukrainian public administration is 
slow and bureaucratic; it is anything but EU conform. 
It is not surprising then that all respondents agreed that the economic relations 
in the region in question cannot be considered satisfactory and they can never be; 
there will always be room for development. The separating role of the border is 
still a problem, as are excessive bureaucracy, corruption and the lack of central 
support. The political decisions should have opened the way for the economy, and 
not economy should have played a pioneer role. Presently there is still a transition 
process going on, nevertheless the Hungarian investors have achieved significant 
results for to their economic power both on the Romanian and the Ukrainian side. 
There are very few really large-scale investments. It means that are still enormous 
reserves in economic relations, only a small share of the opportunities have been 
used so far. 
2.5 Cross-border co-operation strategies, guidelines 
2.5.1 Bottom-up building or central influence, or which level is more active? 
There was a consensus of the respondents in the three countries in our survey that 
the most effectively operating level of the relations is the local level. In most cases 
these are daily relations, especially where technical obstacles (especially the lack of 
a nearby border crossing station) do not prevent them. The most spectacular part of 
the co-operations is connected to this level; the cultural and sports events of the 
settlements in the vicinity of the border can be mentioned in this place. The re-
spondents often mentioned the municipal associations in the border region that 
have been successful in the last few years and make one of the most important pil-
 
143

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
lars of cross-border relations now. Many respondents mentioned that the local level 
is the most interested in the promotion of co-operation, the motivation is the 
strongest here, as everybody would like to build and develop their own settlement 
in the first place. Also, several advantages are provided by the physical proximity, 
either in matters of social or economic problems. Finally, the possibilities are big-
gest at this level, relationships are the best here, and the existence of personal con-
tacts is an important asset. In the most recent times, in cross-border co-operations 
not only local governments but also inhabitants, the economic and non-govern-
mental organisations have played an initiating role. 
In addition to the local level, the respondents mentioned the county level; in 
their opinion this is the level of co-operation where a regular personal touch can 
still be kept. In addition, the traditions of the co-operations have the longest history 
at this level, some counties kept in touch with their counterparts already in the dec-
ades before the systemic change, even if these relations did not go beyond the for-
mal, protocol level. Several counties are trying to build on these existing founda-
tions, in many cases successfully. The interviewees also agreed that the state level 
has been the least active in this respect so far (especially in Transcarpathia many 
respondents criticised the Hungarian economic policy for not concentrating on the 
Ukraine seriously enough, as opposed to Slovakia e.g.). 
2.5.2  The organisational background of co-operations – Euroregions 
and their partners 
Most respondents had already heard about the Euroregions working in their terri-
tory, but thy usually could not inform us about much personal experience. In many 
cases we heard that the territory these organisations involved was too large, both in 
the geographical and the professional sense. They are considered as political or-
ganisations, operating in territories too large to be integrated. Also, they involve 
territories that have nothing in common with the other side, which makes practical 
co-operation impossible. Many respondents accepted that the Euroregions can be 
useful for political purposes, they can contribute to the strengthening of trust, but 
no concrete achievement is expected of them. 
The majority of the respondents in Romania could not inform us about any con-
tinuously existing organisation, despite the fact that there are two large Eurore-
gional organisations along the western part of the country, the Carpathians Eurore-
gion and the Danube-Körös-Maros-Tisza Euroregion. These are two organisations 
that the interviewees almost never mentioned; when they did, they usually empha-
sised their excessive size, the dominance of the formal elements and the low level 
of social embeddedness. In addition to those directly involved in the work of the 
Euroregions, it was only the Danube-Körös-Maros-Tisza Euroregion to which 
 
144

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
some Romanian respondents attributed a positive role; the assessment of the Car-
pathians Euroregion was even more negative. Also rarely were mentioned the 
smaller- scale, county level co-operation organisations, such as the Hajdú-Bihar-
Bihor Euroregion or the Bihar-Bihor Euroregion, but the evaluation of these was 
much better. Many respondents were optimistic about the future of the county level 
co-operations; on the basis of the experiences of the recent past they thought it 
might be a breakout possibility to stimulate the presently not enough effective 
cross-border co-operations. 
In Transcarpathia the majority of the interviewees had already heard about the 
Carpathians Euroregion, in fact, some had even applied to the Carpathians Foun-
dation operating in its territory. Nevertheless, similarly to the Hungarian and Ro-
manian respondents, they too thought that this organisation was too large to be ef-
fective; in the future, smaller organisations will become more important. In addi-
tion to the Euroregion, several organisations were mentioned that are active in de-
veloping cross-border relations: e.g. the Transcarpathian Business Development 
Centre, The Four Borders Entrepreneurs Association (in Beregovo), the Upper 
Tisza Business Club, and the Transcarpathian Hungarian Farmers Association. 
Furthermore, the non-governmental organisations with the mission to promote the 
development of cross-border relations are just being established, and they wish to 
have access to EU resources. 
The interviews revealed that in all three countries it was the larger-scale organi-
sations, i.e. the Euroregions operating at higher administrative levels where the use 
of the previous experiences and models was possible, but the interviewees do not 
attribute great significance even in this case to the following of the patterns. In 
their opinion it was much more important to have sound local background knowl-
edge, the better information on the special local needs at county level or maybe 
micro-regional level co-operations. As regards the models taken over, in Transcar-
pathia only those who were directly involved in the Carpathians Euroregion had 
information. They said that at the creation of the Carpathians Euroregion, Western 
European patterns had been followed, but many respondents knew it was not a real 
cross-border initiative; the establishment of the Carpathians Euroregion and the 
joining of some members were decided by central political will. At local level co-
operations the role of the Western models was considered even less important, 
these co-operations had almost exclusively been built on own initiatives and own 
experiences, both in Hungary, and in Romania and the Ukraine. It is typical, on the 
other hand, that in Romania many respondent raised Western European patterns 
when we asked where these models could be imported from. The experiences of 
Hungary (e.g. the utilisation of the Hungarian–Austrian cross-border co-operation) 
were only mentioned by the interviewees of Hungarian nationality. 
 
145

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
2.5.3 Local resources, or external assistance? 
Despite the deficiencies described above, the Hungarian respondents usually have 
a positive view of the attitude of the Hungarian and the European authorities. They 
said that according to their experiences their request were usually positively ac-
cepted, if they turned to these authorities with well established requests and rec-
ommendations. A successful lobbying activity is nevertheless inevitable, but not 
everybody is capable of this; usually the lower the administrative level, the less 
opportunities they have for lobbying. In their view especially the EU level could 
assist much more efficiently the establishment of cross-border relations, but they 
are far from the everyday practice, so they have a “hunger” for information on the 
programmes financed by them and place a great emphasis on feedbacks in each 
case. 
In Romania the representatives of organisations that do not operate from central 
state budget had a rather pessimistic opinion about the assistance they got from the 
central level, some said that the Bucharest government definitely held back infor-
mation or was only willing to assist them in return for little “services”. The local 
level is much more supportive, although the level of this support is far from the 
desirable, as the respondents said. The situation is similar in Transcarpathia, where 
nobody gets state support apart from the municipalities and other budgetary or-
ganisations. 
As regards the financial resources of the European Union, the situation in Ro-
mania and the Ukraine is significantly different from that of Hungary, already be-
ing an EU member. In Romania the EU resources are only partially available; the 
order of magnitude of the money is too little in the respondents’ view to have a real 
effect on cross-border co-operations. This statement is even more valid for Tran-
scarpathia. The respondents working for the organisations maintained by the trans-
border Hungarians usually mentioned the help coming from Hungary, the scale of 
which is less than desirable; nevertheless it is indispensable in some cases for the 
maintenance of the organisation. 
2.5.4 Principles and procedures to be changed 
At the end of the interviews we asked the respondents to briefly summarise what 
official principles, policies should be changed in order to increase the efficiency of 
the cross-border co-operations. In Hungary – similarly to the other two countries – 
the excessive bureaucracy was mentioned is most cases, many said that the unnec-
essary paperwork was one of the most serious obstacles to the success of the pro-
jects. It is not only the amount of bureaucracy that causes a problem; the interview-
ees said that the organisations responsible for the control of application resources 
 
146

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
often had a rather poor performance. An example for that is the INTERREG III/A 
programme, for which the call for tenders was originally planned by September 
2004, but was finally announced no sooner than in the spring of 2005. 
In the case of Romania, in addition to the bureaucratic obstacles, the malfunc-
tions of the calls for and evaluation of tenders were criticised by most respondents. 
According to the general belief, the calls for tenders are not elaborated precisely 
enough, it would be much more appropriate to define them by special sectors, so 
that the potential applicants should have a much better chance to find the tenders 
important for them. The interviewees were not satisfied with the events after the 
submission of the applications; the criteria system of project evaluation should be 
fundamentally changed. More objective aspects of evaluation are necessary and the 
whole process should become more transparent. 
Apart from the tenders, the quality of the already existing development docu-
ments is a serious problem in Romania, both at national or lower levels. These 
documents usually do not reach the necessary quality; as one respondent said, they 
are usually made in offices, research institutions, without sound knowledge of the 
real life. One of the conditions for successful projects would thus be the clear defi-
nition of priorities. The majority of the respondents said that among the priorities, 
economic development should be a selected one, together with the connected 
fields, e.g. the development of transport infrastructure. Finally, as several times 
before, the excessive centralisation typical of Romania was mentioned several 
times. Decentralisation is one of the most urgent tasks; in the absence of decentrali-
sation most respondents do not see the point in a change of strategy. 
According to the respondents it would be very important in Transcarpathia to 
change the system of financial means and the support and distribution systems (es-
pecially in the case of the supports from Hungary), because the major part of the 
resources is non-refundable and of aid character, of which only a narrow circle has 
information; also, the distribution of these resources takes place in this narrow cir-
cle, which leads to the establishment of a clientele. The calls for tenders should be 
given a bigger publicity and more fair and transparent mechanisms for the distribu-
tion, and the use and control of resources should be built into the process, taking 
the local characteristics in consideration. Instead of aid type support, it is expertise 
and technology that should be transferred (“give people a fishing net, and not fish”, 
so that they should be able to get along on their own on the market). It would also 
be very important to eliminate corruption, change the bureaucratic economic man-
agement administration and increase the financial and investment safety. 
 
147

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
3  Summary of the research findings 
3.1  Findings of the preliminary research 
The eastern state borders of Hungary were actually created by the Trianon Peace 
Treaty, tearing apart organically integrated areas coexisting for centuries, and or-
ganically developing regional initiatives. This too contributed to the fact that sig-
nificant differences evolved among the regions on the different sides of the borders 
in the 20th century, as it was also proved by the findings of the preliminary back-
ground study that preceded the empirical surveys conducted in the framework of 
the EXLINEA programme. One of the most important findings is that the respec-
tive area struggles with a number of common problems, despite the evident differ-
ences among the Hungarian and Ukrainian, and the Hungarian and Romanian sides 
of the border (e.g. administrative and legal system, differences in the living stan-
dards, different economic performance etc.). Along the states borders we find adja-
cent regions that are peripheral or semi-peripheral compared to the other regions of 
their respective countries, with a low level of solvent demand, shortage of capital 
in the businesses, low capital attracting capacity of the economy, few jobs and a 
general poverty; the typical demographical processes are outmigration and the in-
crease of the social disparities. 
The Hungarian–Ukrainian and the Hungarian–Romanian border regions are 
burdened by problems of historical origin, coming from the distant past; the new 
state borders designated in 1920 totally disregarded the ethnic relations, conse-
quently there are still large ethnic Hungarian blocks on the Romanian and the 
Ukrainian sides of the border. This is an advantage for cross-border relations, on 
the one hand, because of the common language, similar mentality, common tradi-
tions and culture; on the other hand, nationalism reviving in the neighbour coun-
tries after the systemic changes brought to the surface formerly hidden problems, 
which naturally crystallised in the strengthening of fears of the amendments of the 
borders. Although the situation has normalised by now, it is very difficult to anni-
hilate overnight prejudices gathered during several decades. 
The Hungarian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian relations are regulated 
by a large number of international agreements at the national level. Most important 
are the so-called Treaties that basically define the relationship of Hungary, Roma-
nia and the Ukraine. Among the bilateral agreements made at national level, the 
water management and environmental agreements are of special importance. As a 
consequence of the arbitrary delineation of the border in the Trianon peace treaty, a 
large part of the catchment area of the Tisza river in now in Romania and the 
Ukraine, and in want of harmonised actions and due to the large-scale deforesta-
tions, floods occur more and more frequently, against which there is an urgent need 
 
148

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
for joint action. The cyanide pollution in the Tisza River system not so long ago, 
resulting in a mass destruction of fish, drew attention to the importance of cross-
border environmental co-operations. Nevertheless it was the floods and the envi-
ronmental disasters of the last decade, together with the EU supports, that deepened 
the co-operations in the field of protection against and the prevention of risks. 
Another consequence of the inconsiderate designation of the borders and the 
subsequent isolation for decades is the narrowing of the traffic connections be-
tween the two sides of the Hungarian–Ukrainian and the Hungarian–Romanian 
borders, which is a serious bottleneck of the cross-border co-operations. After the 
designation of the Trianon borders several railway and road connections were 
eliminated and have not been restored since then. It is true that several new border 
crossing stations were opened after the systemic change that took place at the turn 
of the years 1989/1990, but these are still too few to meet the demand. According 
to our experiences – which were reinforced both by empirical studies and the local 
seminars – one of the main bottlenecks of the cross-border relations in the Hun-
garian–Ukrainian border region is still the length of waiting necessary to cross the 
border. Especially the economic actors are put off by the several hours of waiting, 
but it also makes educational relations and the other personal relations very diffi-
cult. The situation was further exacerbated by Hungary’s accession to the EU in 
2004, after which it is impossible to use those special border crossing permission in 
the possession of which those with business travel purposes could cross the border 
out of turn. The small-scale cross-border traffic is also temporarily stopped. Due to 
the increasing shopping and fuel tourism, the number of those who wish to cross 
the border has increased to a large extent. This considerably increases waiting time 
and makes the time of border crossing unpredictable, making it impossible e.g. for 
the guest lecturers to reach the educational institutions on the other side of the bor-
der in time. The difficult conditions of border crossing also discourage the actors of 
the economic sector and other actors active in cross-border relations, when they 
have to wait for hours to get a signature necessary for a project proposal or to man-
age any other business affairs in a settlement only a few kilometres away on the 
other side of the border. Formerly there was a significant shopping and fuel tourism 
in the Hungarian–Romania border region too, due to the different price levels, but 
the equalisation of the price levels and the strict Hungarian customs regulation re-
sulted in a new situation where it is not typical to have to queue up at the border. 
Our experiences suggest that at the Hungarian–Ukrainian border it is not the 
physical permeability of the border crossing stations that causes a problem (al-
though this too could be improved, especially the capacity Záhony-Csap border 
crossing stations is inadequate, because of the narrow bridge over the Tisza river); 
the speed of the border crossing procedure is also slow. As the Hungarian–Ukrain-
ian border became an external EU border, customs regulations have become ex-
tremely strict. On the Ukrainian side, on the other hand, it is the control and ad-
 
149

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
ministration of the passports and the documents of the vehicles that takes too much 
time (in case of cars with foreign licence plates it is necessary in each case to show 
the licences and environmental certificate, “green card” of the car; each passport is 
stamped, and even the registration number of the car driven is written in the pass-
port of the driver). The computer system necessary for the management of the bor-
der traffic is not free of occasional problems, either. Our survey suggests that all 
these problems are exacerbated by the slow pace of work, bureaucracy and corrup-
tion that are present at the border crossing stations. 
The findings of the empirical researches also revealed that the economic co-op-
erations have also appeared very slowly in the cross-border relations. One of the 
treasons for this is the economic crisis taking place after the disintegration of the 
COMECON and the systemic change, another reason is that during the socialist 
decades no significant industry was located in the border region, for economic 
policy and military policy considerations; i.e. there were no large-scale investments 
that could have boosted the economy. The economic crisis following the systemic 
change had very serious effects on the border regions, because the business plants 
operating here were usually subsidiaries or suppliers of large companies operating 
far away, consequently these remote units were liquidated first. This generated 
rather serious employment problems in the border region, also contributing to the 
unfavourable demographic processes (outmigration of the young and highly skilled 
population). 
On the basis of the summary report we can say of the cross-border relations that 
the co-operations at subnational levels (of regions, counties and micro-region) are 
usually of protocol and formal character, despite the fact that a decade and a half 
have passed since the systemic change. This circumstance is visible in both the 
quantity and the character and depth of the co-operations. Within the co-operations 
the proportion and weight of economic and trading relations is still relatively low. 
However, in the recent years we can witness some positive changes, the relation-
ships have developed towards concrete, operational and often project-based co-
operations in several cases. In all probabilities this is partly due to the EU resources 
(e.g. Phare, Interreg) available in an application system. 
In the Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian border regions the per-
sonal relations, very much limited before the systemic change, play a very impor-
tant role. In these relations, in addition to friendships and family ties and also 
shopping, subsistence tourism plays a very significant role – especially on the Ro-
manian and Ukrainian sides –, the most lucrative activity of which is illegal fuel 
and cigarette trade. Now more and more institutions, non-governmental organisa-
tions and businesses use the opportunities offered by the cross-border co-opera-
tions. There are more and more Hungarian investments planned in the Ukraine and 
even more in Romania, together with an increasing number of business supports, 
 
150

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
expanding investments, and in general, the favourable effects of the improving 
business environment are more and more visible. 
The empirical survey conducted in the framework of the EXLINEA programme 
underlined the findings of the previous researches and also supplied important new 
information among other things about the role of the European Union in the region 
(for more details see Chapters 1–4). 
3.2  The presence of the border region and the cross-border relations in 
planning documents 
When outlining the problems and the possible future development directions of the 
Hungarian–Ukrainian and the Hungarian–Romanian border region, in addition to 
inter-state agreements and the programming and planning preliminaries at na-
tional level and in the NUTS 2 areas including the border regions it is the joint de-
velopment documents worked out for the border regions that give us information 
(such documents are the “Joint development concept of the Hungarian–Ukrainian 
border region”, “Development concept and programme of the Hungarian–Roma-
nian border region”). Also, we have the Euroregional planning documents of the 
respective areas (“Strategic development programme of the Carpathians Eurore-
gion Interregional Alliance”, and the Strategic plan of the Danube-Körös-Maros-
Tisza Co-operation”; also the Hajdú-Bihar–Bihar Euroregion at county level and 
development documents of the Bihar–Bihor and the Interregio areas at micro-re-
gional level). 
Following the systemic change, a relatively long time passed until the Hungar-
ian–Romanian Treaty was signed (in 1997), which is primarily due to the special 
situation of the Hungarian ethnic minority in Romania. The Treaty set up interna-
tional professional committees (for minority affairs, economic co-operations, co-
operation of municipalities, environmental protection), which work out the co-op-
erations concerning the “common issues” of the two countries and revise the fac-
tors blocking their implementation, assisting this way the development of cross-
border co-operations also at the local level. The treaty between Hungary and the 
Ukraine was signed as soon as in 1991 (“Treaty on the grounds of good neighbour-
hood and co-operation between the Republic of Hungary and the Ukraine”), which 
included the improvement of the conditions of cross-border co-operations both at 
national and individual level. Several of the professional committees created by the 
Treaty still operate. 
In addition to the treaties, there are several valid bilateral agreements in several 
fields. As regards the connections at state level, the water management and envi-
ronmental protection co-operations are the most important both in the Hungarian–
 
151

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian relation. The necessity of such co-opera-
tions was demonstrated by the huge floods in the Tisza river system, affecting all 
three counties, and the cyanide pollution resulting in the mass destruction of fish. 
As regards the relationship of Hungary to its eastern neighbours, the Act LXII. 
of 2001 on Hungarians living in neighbouring countries (commonly known as the 
Status Act) received the biggest attention, together with the connected so-called 
“Hungarian–Romanian Agreement Declaration”. As regards the implementation 
of the act providing the Hungarians living in neighbouring countries with special 
benefits (in health care, travel, employment), no final solution has been found to 
date, despite the several negotiations. 
 In Hungary the long-term objectives of regional development are set by the 
National Regional Development Concept. In this concept, being located in a border 
region is mentioned as an influencing factor mainly in connection with the ex-
tended and contiguous regions with low competitiveness in the eastern part of 
Hungary. On the other hand, a positive sign mentioned by the document is that a 
significant part of the sporadic areas in good environmental condition can be found 
in the border region. The document treats as a cornerstone of cross-border co-op-
erations the fields of water management and environmental protection, because the 
pollutions occurring in the catchment areas of the Tisza River are problems for 
Hungary as a “country downstream” that can only be solved together with the 
neighbouring countries. The positive effect of the local initiatives supported by the 
Phare CBC programmes is underlined in the document, but it is also mentioned that 
despite these the catching up of the eastern part of Hungary still has not started. 
Among the factors influencing co-operations the concept mentions the date of the 
EU accession of the neighbouring countries and the presence of a large number of 
Hungarian ethnic group living in the Carpathian Basin – considering common cul-
ture and language as a catalyst for co-operations. 
An objective to be reached is the establishment of integrated border regions in-
tensively connected at several levels within the framework of an effective and suc-
cessful co-operation, by which the development of the regions on the other side of 
the border can greatly contribute to the catching up of the border regions of Hun-
gary as well. The basic objective of the cross-border co-operations is the creation 
of integrated cross-border regions, for the realisation of which the following are 
important: establishment of a coordinated system of tourism products; building out 
cross-border nature and environmental protection systems; revitalisation/creation 
of cross-border centre and hinterland relations; utilisation of special benefits in 
trade; building out logistic services related to transit and border traffic; joint in-
vestment promotion and economic development; joint physical planning and re-
gional programmes; transfer of experiences and further development of the joint 
institutional structure with the countries involved in joint programming; improve-
ment of accessibility by cross-border trunk and side road developments and the 
 
152

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
launch of cross-border public transport, and also by the establishment of new bor-
der crossing stations. 
In the Hungarian National Development Plan made for the 2004–2006 period, 
the eastern border regions of Hungary are mentioned as peripheries in whose 
catching up the accession of Hungary to the European Union may play a significant 
role, by the increasing economic relations. The document underlines the important 
logistic role of the rail border crossing stations and projects considerable future 
developments. 
The Romanian regional development documents, similarly to the Hungarian 
ones, have been made in accordance with the planning schedule of the European 
Union and the expectations of the EU. In the Hungarian National Development 
Plan made for the 2004–2006 period, the issue of the borders and the cross-border 
co-operations is not seen as a major priority. The document mentions the effects of 
being located in a border region mainly as a factor influencing the development 
level of the regions. In the West Romanian regions adjacent to Hungary, border 
location does not have as negative consequences as in the peripheries in the eastern 
part of Romania. The development of the cross-border transport corridors is seen as 
a chance to promote economic relations. As opposed to this document, the devel-
opment plan made for the 2000–2005 period dealt in much more depth with the 
cross-border co-operations, indicating them as some of the most important tasks of 
the development regions, with special regard to economic co-operations. The 
document deals in a separate chapter with the catalytic effect of the PHARE pro-
gramme in deepening relations, together with the gradual adaptation of the prac-
tices of the Union. 
In the Ukraine several development documents deal with the border regions and 
cross-border co-operations. The act defining the basic principles of regional devel-
opment is the National Regional Policy Concept, which describes the tasks of the 
regional actors and the main directions of development. The concept also includes 
the institutional and practical tools designed for developments at local and regional 
level. The Act on National Regional Economic Policy Concept contains the defini-
tion of the border region and expresses the importance of assisting them. Among 
the successor states of the Soviet Union the Ukraine was the first to sign a Partner-
ship and co-operation agreement, after whose ratification president Leonid Ku-
chma issued a regulation on the EU accession strategy of the Ukraine, including the 
establishment of relations between the Ukrainian regions and the regions in the 
member states and the candidate countries. An integral part of the Ukrainian devel-
opment policy is the socio-economic development strategy called “Ukraine 2010”, 
which projects an administrative reform; as regards the directions of the contacts, 
the development of the economic zones along the western regions of the Ukraine is 
mentioned as a priority. After the “Orange Revolution” that took place in the 
Ukraine in late 2004, significant changes are expected in the Ukrainian regional 
 
153

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
policy; the European relations and the western neighbours have become much 
more important, which projects the evaluation of the role of the border regions and 
the strengthening of the cross-border co-operations. 
In Hungary the preparation of the development documents for the 2007–2013 
planning period is underway. In the North Great Plain region, the development of 
logistic services, built on the location along the border and the cross-border trans-
port corridors, is a strategic objective in the so-called gateway cities with favour-
able endowments. According to the document, the cross-border economic co-op-
erations may receive more attention in the period starting in 2007 (following the 
EU policy), especially those peripheral border regions where these opportunities 
are underutilised at the moment. In this the business zones may have a dominant 
role. The makers of the concept only saw a possibility for the catching up of the 
backward regions along the Romanian and the Ukrainian border after the elimina-
tion of the “heritage of Trianon”. 
Along the border areas of the South Great Plain region, the backward territories 
mentioned above as “external peripheries” continue with some interruptions. These 
areas are mentioned selectively by the development documents of the region. The 
development documents of South Great Plain deal in more depth and detail with 
the issues related to the state border, analysing the possibilities of the respective 
tiers (county, micro-region, municipality) separately. A problem mentioned is the 
uncertainty of the conditions for co-operation and the serious bottlenecks of co-op-
eration (inadequate infrastructure connections, lack of information, and in some 
cases mistrust). A strategic development objective of the region is to “become a 
dynamic and open, easily permeable border region of Europe”, serving as a gate-
way to Southeast-Europe. This is why the development of cross-border relation is 
emphasised, whose spatial frameworks are set by the Danube-Körös-Maros-Tisza 
Euroregion. The solution of the problems of water management is also of special 
importance, like in the case of the national level development documents. 
Among the development regions created in Romania, two are neighbour to 
Hungary, the “Nord-Vest” and the “Vest” regions. In the current development 
documents of both regions (for the 2004–2006 programming period), the develop-
ment of the border regions and the cross-border relations are important elements. 
Both development documents see the respective regions as gateway regions, which 
is not surprising given the fact that these two regions are neighbour to the European 
Union; on the other hand, the development of the co-operations with Serbia and the 
Ukraine is also seen as a priority. It is clearly expressed, however, that the mem-
bership of Hungary in the European Union entails the increase of the number of co-
operations. The surveys on the Romanian side have found that the cross-border 
economic relations and cultural contacts have an increasingly positive effect in the 
development of the border regions. 
 
154

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
The largest-scale developments (presently underway or planned in the future) 
are the investments of the cross-border transport networks – given the inadequate 
capacity of the present cross-border transport corridors –, and the connection of the 
dominant urban centres on the two sides of the border. In connection with the river 
pollutions occurring in the last years, the decrease of the cross-border effect of en-
vironmental accidents is of outstanding importance, especially in metallurgy and 
petrolchemistry, as is the increasing the level of canalisation. The development 
documents mention that several towns have strong and traditional cross-border re-
lations, the revitalisation of which has good chances and can be a considerable op-
portunity for the future co-operations. The document mentions the active participa-
tion of the member counties in the work of the Euroregional organisations as an 
important opportunity. In the Vest region the strengthening of the economic effects 
of the Danube-Körös-Maros-Tisza Euroregion is expected, and a great significance 
is attributed to the development opportunities opened by the Phare CBC pro-
grammes. 
In the Ukraine the administrative units equal to the counties (NUTS 3 level ter-
ritorial units) have development ideas and concepts. The socio-economic develop-
ment programme of Transcarpathia, directly neighbouring Hungary, titled “Tran-
scarpathia – 2004. Entering 21st century”, was created in 2001. The development 
priorities are grouped into nine major chapters, among which it is primarily the 
Foreign Economic Relations and the development of the Transcarpathian Special 
Economic Zone that mostly influence the development of cross-border relations. 
The development of the foreign economic relations concentrates on the transport 
infrastructure providing access to the border crossing stations, the improvement of 
the infrastructure of the customs office, and the increase of the volume of the eco-
nomic relations, with an active participation in the Euroregional organisation called 
Interregio. The Transcarpathian Special Economic Zone is scattered in the logistic 
hubs of the border region, offering good opportunities for foreign investors. Since 
its foundation the economic zone has made several successful co-operation agree-
ments with the Záhony and Its Region Business Zone on the other side of the bor-
der. 
Both for the Hungarian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region 
development concepts have been made with the contribution of experts living on 
the two sides of the borders, in order to harmonise the concepts and utilise the re-
sources more efficiently. The Development concept and programme of the Hun-
garian–Romanian border region was made in 2000, with Phare support. The de-
velopment document analysed the socio-economic conditions in the border region, 
the common features of the areas on the two sides of the border (which may pro-
vide a basis for further co-operations), the development of the cross-border rela-
tions (with special regard to the economic relations), the factors influencing them 
and the role of the institutions most active in cross-border co-operations. On the 
 
155

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
basis of the European practice, the concept defined the basic principles of co-op-
eration, and on the basis of the development priorities of the spatial units it also set 
the development objectives and strategy of the border region. The development 
programme defined five main directions of co-operations: permeability and acces-
sibility of the border; environmental and nature protection and water management; 
human resources; the strengthening of economic relations; the institutionalisation 
of the co-operations. 
As a result of the joint efforts of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg and Transcarpathia 
counties, the Joint development concept of the Hungarian–Ukrainian border re-
gion was made in 2003. The objective of the document is to promote the catching 
up of the Ukrainian–Hungarian border region and improve the quality of life of the 
population living there by the maximum use of the opportunities lying in cross-
border co-operations. Among the five strategic priorities, the first is the creation of 
a competitive economic structure, as the economic indices of the region are bad 
from all aspects, the reasons for which are the relative homogeneity and inflexibil-
ity of the economic structures. The development of the human resources can be a 
catalyst for the development of the border region, but today it is the outmigration 
of the skilled people that is typical. Another basic precondition for the increase of 
investments is the improvement of the accessibility of the border region. The co-
operations in the field of environmental and nature protection are basically deter-
mined by the role of the Tisza as a border river, which, as a joint asset, requires co-
operation. The maximum use of the opportunities offered by the EU accession of 
Hungary can be seen as a non-sector specific field of development, which may en-
tail the transfer of very important experiences, assisting this way the integration 
efforts of the Ukraine. 
Each of the Euroregions in the respective border regions have defined their 
strategic development concepts, which, with a full consideration of the interests of 
the cross-border relations, try to find the most effective fields of co-operation on 
the basis of the development documents of the individual member regions. The 
Regional Development Working Committee of the Carpathians Euroregion worked 
out the Strategic Development Programme of the Euroregion in 2004. The analysis 
of the existing situation revealed that the organisation founded in 1993 had not 
been really successful by the copying of the Western European examples in the 
region, due to the lack of adequate conditions and the significant development dif-
ferences among the member regions. Accordingly the strategy makes several pro-
posals for the organisational and operational renewal of the Euroregion. The re-
gional development strategic programme processed the planning preliminaries and 
analysed the success of the previous projects, on the ground of which the following 
main development fields were identified: transport relations; creation of a competi-
tive economy; coordinated development of human resources; a complex approach 
 
156

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
to tourism; nature and environmental protection; and strengthening the foreign re-
lations of the Euroregion. 
The other Euroregional organisation, the Danube-Körös-Maros-Tisza Eurore-
gion involving the Hungarian–Romanian border region created its first strategic 
development plan in 2000, which was renewed in 2005. In the analysis of the ex-
isting situation the document mentions among the weaknesses the usually missing 
harmonisation of the objectives on the two sides of the border and the low number 
of joint programmes and projects. Among the strategic objectives we find the har-
monisation of public administration, the improvement of the physical infrastruc-
ture, the diversification of the economy and the strengthening of the resource ac-
quisition capacity. A programme of outstanding importance is the development of 
the communication and PR strategy of the formerly less known region, in order to 
introduce the activity of the region to as wide an audience as possible, make the 
Euroregion accepted for the wide public and allow the organisation to apply for 
application resources with better chances. 
In order to reach a more operational co-operation, within the Carpathians Eu-
roregion the Hungarian Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg county, the Romanian Szatmár 
(Satu Mare) county and Transcarpathia county in the Ukraine founded Interregio 
on 6 October 2000. In 2003 a development concept was made for the Interregio (on 
a Hungarian initiative and with active Hungarian participation), the basis of which 
was the development concept of the Ukrainian–Hungarian border region. The 
range of development priorities built on the common possibilities is basically the 
same as the objectives of the Carpathians Euroregion, placing even more emphasis 
on the strengthening of the economic relations at the level of concrete projects. 
The Hajdú-Bihar–Bihor Euroregion was also founded within the territory of the 
Carpathians Euroregion, on 11 October 2002 (since then these two member coun-
ties have left the Carpathians Euroregion), in order to establish a closer, project 
based and operational co-operation. The basic objective of the Euroregion is to 
contribute to the birth of good neighbourhood and promote the EU integration of 
the border regions of Romania by joint programmes and the acquisition of devel-
opment resources. The founding document defined eight main development direc-
tions, including the strengthening of the economic relations, the improvement of 
the permeability of the border, the management of the often common cultural heri-
tage, but also the establishment of the institutionalised relationships of the different 
professional organisations (e.g. in the field of environmental protection, education, 
health care) of the two counties, mainly because of the less advanced decentralisa-
tion processes of the Romanian public administration. The first results are realised 
in the field of tourism, implemented in the form of organising common events and 
making a joint marketing strategy. 
A separate development document was made for the Bihar–Bihor Euroregion, 
the only micro-regional level Euroregional organisation in the Hungarian–Ukrain-
 
157

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
ian and the Hungarian–Romanian border region. The Bihar–Bihor Euroregion was 
established on 12 April 2002 in Biharkeresztes, it involves 19 Hungarian settle-
ments and 17 municipalities (with a total of 40 settlements) in Romania. The centre 
of the organisation is Bors. The objective of the co-operation is the implementation 
of harmonised sustainable developments coordinated from social, economic, envi-
ronmental and cultural aspects, as well as the preparation for and participation in 
the European integration processes. 
Looking at the planning documents concerning the border region at different 
levels we can say that they well reflect the problems of the border region and have 
identified the breakout point concentrated on the most important dilemmas. An im-
portant step forward is that now there are efforts for the harmonisation of the 
strategies at least at the level of the planning documents, even if this is not always 
successful during the implementation in practice. 
4 
Conclusions, good practices, recommendations 
The role of the European Union in the local co-operation mechanisms is not really 
significant yet, but its importance is expected to considerably increase parallel to the 
expansion of the European integration processes, above all due to the regional support 
and security policy of the Union. In the future the European Union can have a catalytic 
role. The EU policies and financial means promote the single operation of the formerly 
integrated areas, divided by the borders. Along the Hungarian–Romanian border, where 
some EU resources for cross-border relations were available as soon as in the middle of 
the 1990s, the effect of these supports is naturally stronger than in the Hungarian–
Ukrainian border area where the Union resources for such purposes have only been 
available for a year or two. 
During the interviews conducted and the local seminars, several actors com-
plained about the fact that very few of the resources coming from the European 
Union are available for concrete economic co-operations, there are much less re-
sources available for this purpose than for bilateral discussions, conferences and 
exchanges of experience. Since the resources are rather scarce in the region, those 
projects are the most popular for the implementation of which resources can be 
acquired in an application system. This is especially true for projects with large 
investment needs (e.g. transport infrastructure, environmental investments). A 
problem is that the calls for tenders are often announced with a significant delay, 
which is a fault of the national level. In Transcarpathia it was mentioned too that it 
is very difficult to get information necessary for applying for EU money, and that 
there are too few experts with adequate professional and language skills who can 
write successful applications and can also successfully manage and administer the 
 
158

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
implementation of the projects. It was raised also on the Ukrainian side that since 
there are significant EU resources only on the Hungarian side at the moment, the 
Transcarpathian partners are only needed for their Hungarian counterparts to make 
them eligible for supports; accordingly the real benefits are too few on the Ukrain-
ian side. It is also true, on the other hand, that the acquisition of financial means by 
tendering, available for the development of cross-border co-operations, has been a 
strong motivating factor since Hungary’s accession to the European Union. 
In the Hungarian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian cross-border co-
operations a bottom-up approach is most typical, i.e. personal relations play a 
significant role not only in the personal but also in the economic and other co-
operations. We can see that the municipalities and the municipal associations are 
much more active in the initiation and organisation of cross-border relations than 
the regional or national level, although the opinion of the citizens and the private 
sector is rarely asked. Today it is not typical but formerly the state level was rather 
an obstacle of the relations in Romania and the Ukraine, they often refused the 
establishment of cross-border co-operation organisations. A traditionally active 
administrative level in the countries in question is the county level; the counties are 
the leaders in the establishment of cross-border co-operation strategies. In addition, 
different professional bodies with competence in the respective areas (environment 
and water management directorates, chambers of commerce, national parks etc.) 
are active in the development of the relations, involving the actors of the economic 
and the civil sector and the municipalities. Although the reason behind the 
establishment of the large-scale Euroregions (Carpathians Euroregion, Danube-Kö-
rös-Maros-Tisza Euroregion), organised on committee basis and often not free 
from politics, was definitely the development of the cross-border co-operation and 
the improvement of the population living here, they have not been able to achieve 
considerable results in the region. The future lies much more in the smaller, “pro-
ject type” organisations (as opposed to the “committee type” ones), more suitable 
for an operational co-operation (e.g. the Hajdú-Bihar–Bihor Euroregion operating 
in the Hungarian–Romanian border region, involving two neighbour counties, is a 
good example; in this Euroregion a number of projects have been successfully 
implemented from tourism through training to the different conferences). 
As regards cross-border relations, both in the Hungarian–Romanian and the 
Hungarian–Ukrainian border region positive changes have taken place over the last 
few years, structures and practices to be followed and further developed have been 
made to which the resources of the European Union made a significant contribu-
tion: 
  The joint development concepts of the Hungarian–Romanian and the Hungar-
ian–Ukrainian border region have been made with the use of EU supports; 
parallel to this the ad-hoc character of the co-operations has decreased, the 
 
159

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
participants continuously communicate to each other and think more and 
more in project-oriented concrete developments. 
  An institutional network of experts have been created, is expanding and con-
tinuously developing that can receive EU resources available in a tender 
system and also to coordinate the implementation of the different projects. 
  From EU resources trainings are organised for Hungarian, Ukrainian and 
Romanian experts, entrepreneurs, local governments, non-governmental or-
ganisations etc., by which they get an insight to the policy and tender systems 
of the European Union; also, the transfer of practical experiences and meth-
ods takes place in several fields. 
  It is a very good practice that the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and In-
dustry has established its Romanian and Ukrainian sections in Hungary (in 
Békéscsaba and Nyíregyháza, respectively), and they naturally have their 
partner organisations in the neighbour countries. This way the entrepreneurs, 
companies and those with investment goals can get very important informa-
tion on the investment possibilities in the neighbour countries and they can 
also get assistance as regards the legal regulations, taxation, banks etc. in the 
respective country. In this respect we also have to mention the business de-
velopment centres operated by the Hungarian state in the primarily Hungarian 
inhabited regions of the neighbour countries; these centres also play a very 
important role (e.g. tender information, partner mediation for businesses etc.). 
  The  more and more intensive relationships (especially due to the cultural, 
sports, educational, religious etc. events) have brought the people on the two 
sides of the border closer to each other, these relations have helped them to 
get to know each other’s culture and contributed to the decrease of the con-
flicts on ethnic grounds. 
  In the last decade the infrastructure conditions of the border crossing stations 
have  significantly improved, but this has not improved the speed of border 
crossing to the necessary extent – due to the increased traffic and strict border 
control (especially at the Hungarian–Ukrainian border). In addition, the ac-
cessibility of the border crossing stations has slightly improved. 
  The floods and environmental pollutions of the recent years have made the 
three neighbouring countries realise the importance of the prevention of dis-
asters, and accordingly they have built out close everyday connections to 
each other. One of the most striking features of this may be the monitoring 
system established along the Tisza River that provides very useful informa-
tion for the prevention of disasters. 
  In the last decade and a half, the inter-municipal relations operating in a de-
clared, institutional form have developed in the border regions in question, 
now reaching beyond the level of protocol; more and more concrete joint 
programmes are implemented (mostly cultural and sports events). In addition 
 
160

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
to the twin municipality relations, micro-regional and municipal associations 
are becoming more and more important. These, co-operating with their 
counterparts on the other side of the border, have already implemented sev-
eral projects (e.g. the Bihar–Bihor Euroregion was founded on the basis of 
the municipal associations in the Bihar border region along the Hungarian–
Romanian border). 
  The different Euroregions created in the Hungarian–Romanian and the Hun-
garian–Ukrainian border region (above all the smaller, bi- and trilateral or-
ganisations, e.g. the Hajdú-Bihar–Bihor) intensively encourage the institu-
tions operating in their territories to take up the relations with their counter-
parts on the other side of the border, because the adaptation of the EU meth-
ods and practices is both a common interest and a requirement). 
  Over the last five years, in the field of tourism too, more intensive co-opera-
tions are unfurling, one or two practical results of which can already be seen 
(e.g. in the Hajdú-Bihar–Bihor Euroregion the member county of Hungary 
and that of Romania participate together on the international market; also, the 
tourism map of the Upper Tisza Region was published in a Ukrainian–Hun-
garian co-operation). 
The findings of the survey conducted within the EXLINEA programme clearly 
demonstrate that the Hungarian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian border 
regions have similar problems and deficiencies, so the future development 
directions are more or less the same, too. However, there is a significant difference 
in the situation of the two border regions, namely that Romania is becoming a full 
right member of the European Union soon, whereas for the Ukraine even the 
associate membership is wishful thinking at the moment. Consequently the 
Hungarian–Romanian border region can actually function as a single region free 
form borders in the near future, where, due to the acquisition of the EU legal 
harmonisation practices, the cross-border relations will have less and less obstacles. 
On the other hand, the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region has a Schengen border, 
less resources and other obstacles, due to which it evidently has a longer path of 
development. 
Mostly in accordance with the joint development documents made for the Hun-
garian–Romanian and the Hungarian–Ukrainian border region, in our opinion the 
most important development priorities of the future are as follows: 
  Speeding up of border crossing and improvement of the accessibility of the 
border region. In order to achieve this, infrastructure developments are 
needed, on the one hand (expansion of the permeability of the border cross-
ing stations and their linking to the speedway network in as many places as 
possible); on the other hand, the re-introduction of small-scale cross-border 
traffic should be achieved, because international passport is extremely expen-
 
161

---

Balcsók, István - Baranyi, Béla - Dancs, László - Koncz, Gábor - Raffay, Zoltán - Szabó, Gyula : 
Results of Empirical Work in the Hungarian-Romanian and the Hungarian-Ukrainian Border Regions. 
In: Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian Border Regions as Areas of Co-operation Along the External Borders of Europe. 
Pécs: Central for Regional Studies, 2005. 102-162. p. Discussion Papers, Special Issue
sive in the Ukraine and not everybody can afford to have one (contrary to the 
preliminary expectations this is much more of a problem than the acquisition 
of the necessary visa). In addition, the restoration of a former practice should 
be considered: those who had to cross the border because of their work were 
allowed to pass through the border out of turn (e.g. with a special licence). 
  The promotion of economic relations; the favourable spillover effects of this 
can be seen in other areas, as well. Within the economic sector, the joint de-
velopment of business services and the business poles (industrial parks, busi-
ness zones) should be a priority, together with joint tourism development 
programmes based on the complementary endowments; joint marketing; 
small and medium size enterprises; and the agricultural co-operations. 
  For the catching up of the region, transport and infrastructure developments 
are of a selective importance, mainly the development of the roads and rail-
ways connected to the cross-border trans-European network running though 
the region, but also of the logistic hubs and services. 
  The further development of co-operations in the field of environmental and 
nature protection, and also water management is an important task too. Joint 
efforts should be made for the preservation of the environment in the border 
region (flood and high groundwater prevention, waste and sewage manage-
ment etc) and also for the preservation of the natural assets, as they are also 
the basis of tourism developments. 
  As the border region in question is stricken by a significant outmigration, one 
selected task of the future can be the development of the cross-border rela-
tions of human resources. We should emphasise in this place the further ex-
pansion of the educational, training and research co-operations, the estab-
lishment of labour market relations, the development of social and health care 
co-operations, but the non-governmental organisations, the cultural and 
sports relations and language trainings can also be included here. 
  Apart from these, there are non-sector specific fields that play a very impor-
tant role in the relations. These include the development of long term institu-
tional co-operations in the first place. Within this, of selected importance is 
the quality and preparation of the regional development institutional system 
for the use of the resources coming from the European Union, i.e. a signifi-
cant emphasis should be placed on co-operations, exchanges of experience 
and trainings in this field, and also on the harmonisation of the development 
ideas in all of these areas. Also it is very important to improve the level of in-
formation and communication, together with the creation of a joint and mu-
tual regional marketing activity. 
 
162

---