Hardi, Tamás–Lados, Mihály–Tóth, Károly eds.: Slovensko–maďarská aglomerácia v okolí Bratislavy/Magyar–szlovák agglomeráció Pozsony környékén

[Bratislava Agglomeration in Slovakia and Hungary] Győr–Šamorín: Stredisko regionálnych výskumov Maďarskej akadémie vied, Západomaďarský vedecký inštitút– Fórum inštitút pre výskum menšín 2010, 209 p. ISBN 978-80-89249-43-5
To download this book: http://agglonet.foruminst.sk

Research deals with suburbanisation proccess of Bratislava. The capital of Slovakia, located close to border with Austria and Hungary is after 2004 facing with challenges of ‘territorial expanding of towns and willages outside of administrative city border’ as suburbanization can be defined. Natural growth of the city is limited with Small Karpatian hills, Danube river and two borders (Tamás Hardi 2010). The author in the first contribution explains reasons why approximately 3000 Slovaks have chosen new home across the border in Hungary and in Žitný ostrov region in Slovakia. The favourable credits are accessible, on hungarian countryside prices of estate are cheaper than on the other side of the border (in Rusovce even seven times expensiver than in Rajka across the border), Bratislava can be easily and fast accesible due to good road connections. Besides residential suburbanisation we differ two more: comercial (business activities, new working places) and season (where we stay during the weekend, sports activities). For first phase of suburbanization invasion of citizens just to some parts of countryside is tipical where they buy older houses or build new one. In massive phase investors build new neighbourhoods, new block of flats, population density arise, that is the time when settlement change it’s village character to urban. Decline of suburbanisation is connected with economic situation of each indivudual or mainly young couples in this case as we will see later. For better comparable understanding of Bratislava suburbanization Hardi explains the phenomenon in Hungary, speaking mainly about Budapest, and Győr. Lack of actual data (the last from 2001) regarding commuting to work between Budapest and Budaörs (suburb of Budapest) is connected with last counting of population. Nevertheless, it is not of central importance for the study, we understand it being there mainly for hungarian reader. Reading in slovak in some places we had difficulties understanding when he speaks about Hungary and when about Slovakia, translating it as by us, we, we have. Explaining reasons for choosing certain place for living, he takes into account neoclassicistic approach where two factors are important: expenses connected with job commuting (time, distance, way of transport) and living expenses. For behavioralistic approach also expectations of people are important while choosing new place for living. Prestigious one means rising on society scale. In conclusion author warns that the process shouldn’t be managed just by logic of capital but number of inhabitants, environmental sustainability and urban development plans have to be counterbalanced. The latter as we may see failed the exaim in Bratislava in recent years.
Contribution written by Devan Jagodic gives added value to the book as it looks on transborder residential mobility from european perspektive and as such is very welcomed in the case study research. Schengen agreement written in 1985 aboliting internal EU borders changed the understanding of borders. From then on they are not understandable just as barriers, but also as attraction and opportunity. Economic motives, cheaper estate, beter quality of live are the reasons why people from Netherlands moves to Germany. We should mention Bunde in Germany not far from Winschoten in Netherlands, Selfkant not far from Sittard, and Kranenburg where 20% of Dutch lives allready close to Nijmegen. Suggested term ‘elastic’ migration, (living somewhere in the middle between both countries, attached to one and another, daily commuting to city of your origin to work, visit friends and relatives, take children to school, spend free time, take advantage of public and privat services) is tipically also for german-french border region in Euroregion Pamina. Workers from french Alsace commute to Germany for work due to better earnings. Germans from Karlsruhe basin find their new housing across the border, however they work and maintain social connections in the country of origin. Thirth case we may find betwen Denmark and Sweden. People from København especially after 2000 when new bridge was opened connecting København and Malmö in Sweden move on the other side of the channel due to above mentioned reasons. Jogodic further explains two theories (suburbanization theory and transnational migration studies theory), starting point of his PhD research in which he deals with cross-border residential mobility on the italian-slovenian border. The phenomenon is examined in the context of suburbanization of Trieste.
Irén Szörényiné Kukorelli contribution is about changes and challenges of recreation and tourism in suburbanization area from normalisation period till nowadays. One project promoting tourism should be mentioned in the region between Bratislava and Wien: Project Hainburg–Šamorín 2012. However it doesn’t include hungarian partner (Project Hainburg–Šamorín 2012).
Gabriel Zubriczký orients on Bratislava, it’s growth of population, geographical development and suburbanization in last century. By the side should have been mentioned historical development of the city through centuries, parts where Jews, german and hungarian speaking population lived. None of authors mentioned Pozsony/Pressburg/Bratislava mixed culture and even language which was present in the city till second half of 20th century. Also Trianon and Munich agreement would help foreign reader to understand current situation. Historical and actual border shouldn’t be taken for granted and not being discussed as they have clear evidence in nowadays society. Article is not oriented just direction Hungary (as most of them) but takes into account also Pezinok, Senec, Modra, Devínska Nová Ves, Stupava, Chorvátsky Grob, other direction of suburbanization. Geographic and strategic position of Bratislava is well described; in the middle european context between Wien and Budapest close to border with two countries. Our main and probably the only big crytic of the volume is that it does not gives even an insight – which could be expected in one of the chapters of this article, but not necessary- to broader understanding of Bratislava suburbanization, meaning not only suburbanization in Slovakia, Hungary but also in third country Austria, which is unique in Europe. Many times mentioned EU accession year and entrance into Schengen area we have expected at least an article about pendulum migration to Austria and Wolfstahl, Hainburg an der Donau, Kittsee and other villages. It is far from being as massive as to Hungary due to geographical limits, prudance of austrian authorities, but nevertheless, speaking just about public transport city bus line was opened connecting Hainburg with Bratislava Nový most. Also commercial companies operate. The population structure is there even more mixed than in volume two research areas: Austrians, Croats, Serbs, Turks, Czechs, Slovaks (Statistik Austria, Stadtgemeinde Hainburg an der Donau). Newcomers have full support by authorities, children (not just Slovaks) learn in school slovak. Researching one phenomenon not taking into account both countries is not complete. Although this goes behind the frames of the research, we suggest three countries (over)view on the phenomenon. Growth of population, suburbanisation and below mentioned Centrope goals poses a question: will we in 20 years speak about small middleeuropean version of blue banana; e.g. red apple? Taking into accout mainly environment and urban planning, austrian authorities are very careful and strict, what about slovak and hungarian?
Zuzana Mészárosová-Lamlpová study offers us statistical data. There are differences between suburbanization in Žitny ostrov and Hungary, but for this purpose we can take average. Majority of imigrants have middle or high education, 81% of them are Slovaks, 41 is average age, 43% of men and 57% of women, 2/3 are married, 74% have children. Most of them work in private sector, public sector follows. Before moving 62% of respondents had their own appartments in Bratislava, now 77% possess their own house. Majority of them commute every day to Bratislava for work, with car, they found new neighbours and local population very helpful, quality of live has changed positively. Respondents find living together with other nation almost without any problem, they have diffulcities with quality and accessibility of medical assistance, services and shops. Those living in Hungary give their children mainly to kindergadens and primary schools in Hungary, those in Slovakia tend to drive them to local school. Generally they don’ t intend to involve into community social live although they have enough information about programs. 31% in Hungary and 42% of respondents in Slovakia don’t speak hungarian at all or don’t learn it. More than 95% feel here like at home. A lot of them have permanent residence still in previous housing. One qestion poses us here: was questionnaire (Project Agglonet) made just for the purpouse of this research or was allready used in any of above mentioned european cases, and as such giving a chance for comparison with them. If not, we recommend to do so in further research to find common things and better understand phenomenon of border regions from comparable perspective. How Bratislava city authorities look on the phenomenon? We suppose they are indifferent (taxes are still payed in Slovakia). Were the credits taken at slovak or hungarian banks (meaning in Slovakia or Hungary)?
Edit Somlyódyné Pfeil writes about opportunities and legislative challenges of institutionalised cooperation of suburban autonomies. Similar Zoltán Csizmadia tries to show the process of building cross-border networking of public services. Three settlements on each side of the border took part in the project. István Prileszky points on the problems of public transport (mainly because of financial sources) in cross-border agglomeration. European examples of good cooperation on border regions are mentioned. Gábor Lelkes writes about economy situation in Wien – Bratislava – Budapest triangle. He listed all successful companies, one think important however is not included: Centrope initiative. It encompass Slovakia, Hungary, Austria and Czech Republic and has its geographic centre in the research region. With an enormous density of universities, research facilities and technology-oriented companies, cross-border co-operation in science and innovation is destined to become one of the top hallmarks of the Central European Region as stated in one of the newsletters (Centrope project) Contribution by Gabriella Baj focuses on conversion of estate use; from agricultural land to building estate. Andrienn Reisinger deals with challenges hungarian schools in Hungary and Slovakia are facing with due to suburbanisation, and state of medical assistance.
Borders deviding Europe before 1989 could be described as barriers. To overcome european east-west devide, help to each other, exchange experiences, because of the common goal ‘return back to Europe’, Visegrad group was founded. Countries cared about their partial interests instead of collaborating. Time has come when once competitive neighbours and also ‘old’ and ‘new’ EU members can benefit tremendously with cross-border collaboration (leaving out Die Oder-Partnerschaft/ Partnerstwo-Odra which is at the beginning of it’s existance, and slovene-italian in some parts). Agglonet is just the beginning envolving two countries, broader perspecitve to this region gives Centrope project or EU Strategy for the Danube region. But all researches and expertises financed by whoever from top will not be realized if there is no readiness from the bottom. We believe fruits of the research collected in readable and understandable volume will find fertile ground by local, regional and national policy makers, academics, interested public and local population.

Sources:

Project Hainburg-Šamorín 2012: http://www.hs2012.eu/sl/2/projekt (02.11.2011)
Stadtgemeinde Hainburg an der Donau: http://www.hainburg.at/system/web/default.aspx (02.11.2011)
Centrope project: http://www.centrope.com/sk (03.11.2011)
Statistik Austria: http://www.statistik.at/blickgem/gemDetail.do?gemnr=30710 (03.11.2011)
Project Agglonet: http://agglonet.foruminst.sk/ (03.11.2011)
Tamás Hardi (2010): Cities, regions and transborder mobility along and across the border. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies of Hungarian Academy of Sciences /Discussion Papers No.82./