The Development of Peripheries in the Great Hungarian Plain

The shared characteristic of the border regions belonging to the north-eastern-eastern and the southern international directions of connectivity is the dominance of the periphery nature together with all its socio-economic and cultural disadvantages. The ever important Hungarian-Romanian, Hungarian-Ukrainian, Hungarian-Serbian and Hungarian-Croatian border regions from the point of view of eastern cooperation of the future include peripheral regions that are mostly disadvantaged on either side of the border. While the strengthening rather than weakening multi-disadvantaged position in the relationship of Eastern-Hungary with Slovakia. the Ukraine and Romania have remained serious while the same of North-eastern Hungary with Slovakia, and the relationship of South-eastern Hungary with Romania are less serious concerns. Mostly due to the political and socio-economic crisis processes of the past fifteen years as well the peripheral nature along the southern borders manifests itself in the Hungarian-Serbian relationship and also characterises the peripheral regions along the South-Hungarian borders in the Hungarian-Croatian border region (Baranyi, 2004a).

The peculiarities of the formation of internal and external peripheries is well-illustrated by the process that can be characteristically shown best through the example of the Great Hungarian Plain. Although there are internal and external peripheries in several areas of the country they are the most characteristic and occur in the highest number and are most wide-spread in the Great Plain and mostly in the Northern Great Plain and North-Eastern Hungary.

In addition to what has been said and from the point of view of the formation of peripheries the Great Plain does not only manifest historic preliminaries but the consequences of historic development and the peculiarities of the times after the change of the regimes and the present in maybe the most typical way. All this is very important to mention in advance because in the Eastern half of Hungary the differences as regards ownership, qualifications, culture, employment, demography, health, social and regional differences did not decrease, what is more they increased considerably. There has been a considerable social, economic and territorial internal differentiation as well as falling behind in several (economic, infrastructure and social) areas in relation to the more developed regions, small regions and settlements taking place while problems also emerged, were re-established alongside with new inequalities, especially as regards the employment crisis.

As regards the characteristic features of the socio-economic development most researchers are of the same opinion now, especially on the development of the system of conditions and characteristics of social processes since the well-known historical symptoms of the “Great Plain syndrome” influenced the changes in the society of the Great Plain most markedly. Amongst others, the most characteristic manifestations of the Great Plain phenomenon are the multi-coloured difference, the backwardness that also carries elements of development in itself, the typical “mental relationship” and “the landscape mentality”, which evolved as a result of a close interaction in the course of the social development, the specific puszta frontier nature of the Great Plain that developed a peculiar social structure (which is primarily a social formula, and is an area development type in the second place) the periphery nature of the Great Plain, and what is more the periphery of the periphery situation of certain regions, the peculiar way of social development embodied in the disharmony of economic and social changes and the non-correspondence of social and economic development, the rise of the peasantry to a middle class status and the

peasant-civilian market town evolution, the unique Great Plain style settlement and town development and the numerous other individual features of the “Great Plain” approach (Baranyi, 2002a;

2011).

The peculiar “Great Plain” way of social development described above, which carried the signs of backwardness and a kind of relative development on itself at one and the same time, has got stuck in the course of historical, socio-economic changes over the past more than fifty years.

Looking at this from the aspect of the system of conditions it is easy to see that out of the multitude of old and new factors (e.g., the consequences of the disadvantaged historical heritage, the peculiarities inherited from the traditional agricultural society, the system of farm cottages, commuting, the selective migration, the strengthening of the periphery, etc.) that influence the shaping of social processes by all means the recent serious crisis of the economy is the most important one. all these factors played their roles both individually and in combinations to create the specifics of the society and regional differences (Baranyi, 1985).

The change of the regimes the transformation of the Hungarian agriculture again took place under conditions of a deep regional crisis. The basic characteristic of this regional crisis is the falling behind of the eastern part of the country. The most obvious manifestation of this fact is that the transformation of the economy in the counties in Eastern-Hungary is accompanied by serious and lasting unemployment. The counties found here (Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén, Nógrád, Békés, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok, Hajdú-Bihar) have been heading the list of unemployment for years.

The radical changes in ownership, structure and organisation that accompanied the change of the regimes in the economy did neither improve the situation of the peripheries in the larger region. The accumulated disadvantageous position of the extensive regions and rural areas in the Great Plain did not subside. Extensive areas in the Great Plain came to find themselves on the periphery (Baranyi, 2004a). It is primarily the backward, isolated rural regions along the orders of the county and counties of the Great Plain and Easter-North-eastern Hungary that became the real losers of the process of economic decentralisation that restarted in the course of the change of the regimes. In comparison to the centres that became established in Budapest and the so-called industrial axis of the country, the Great Plain continues to exist as a periphery and extensive areas along the border and internal regions relegated to the status of “islands” explicitly became “peripheries of the periphery” (see, figures 5.12 and 7.3).

Figure 7.3: The 33 most disadvantaged small region in Hungary, 2009

Source: www.nfu.hu

In addition to the figures already shown, on the basis of which the picture was illustrated convincingly indicates the situation of the economic configuration in relation to the types of regions and the status of the socio-economic development and is not a static description of a given situation. They indicate the locations of internal and external peripheries, and those of small regions that can be regarded as peripheral, are falling behind, underdeveloped and / or closing up, etc. the periphery nature is expressed with the same degree of plasticity by the employment data for settlements and small regions, on the basis of which the internal and external (along the border) peripheries and what is more “the peripheries of the periphery” are also outlined (figure 7.4, see also figures 5.7 and 5.11).

It continues to remain an open question how the advantages expected from our accession to the EU, in other words, the subsidies, will be able to contribute to changing the centre-periphery system of relations drastically, which will be needed to make the peripheries in Hungary close up, to enhance the success of the cohesion policy because the peripheral regions will have difficulties in getting out of the long lasting crisis on their own, or will not be able to do so at all. Or maybe the truth content of the statement of a universal validity by György Enyedi will continue to be valid, which especially applies to the Great Plain, namely, that the history of the Great Plain is a delay in a country that is delayed by being located on the semi-periphery of the semi-periphery. As regards it status of development the region is still of a semi-peripheral nature located somewhere on the peripheral region of the European Union.

Figure 7.4: Settlements disadvantaged from the point of view of society, economy and infrastructure, 2004

Source: Prepared on the basis of data from Foglalkoztatási Hivatal (Employment office) at the Debrecen office of MTA RKK ATI

It can be stated without going into any detail that the radical ownership, structural and organisational transformation of 1989/90 did not improve the position of the peripheries either, the accumulated disadvantaged position of extensive agrarian regions and rural areas in the Great Plain region did not moderate considerably and vast areas in the Great Plain

continue to show a peripheral nature. The losers of the restarted relative economic and social decentralisation process are the isolated and backward rural regions along the borders of the country and the counties in the north-eastern Great Plain and the South-south – western Transdanubian regions.

7.2.3. External Peripheries – Existence at the Border and the Peripheral Situation