MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
2/2015, Vol. 23
Socio-economic changes in the borderlands
of the Visegrad Group (V4) countries
Lucia MÁLIKOVÁ a *, Michal KLOBUČNÍK a, Vladimír BAČÍK a, Peter SPIŠIAK b
Abstract
Under the influence of globalization and state integration processes, the importance of a border as a barrier
is gradually decreasing. Borderlands are still perceived as specific phenomena, however, not only in terms of
historical development but especially in the context of their changing impact on the daily lives of their inhabitants.
Along with EU enlargement, the de-bordering process has also become significant in many countries where the
borderland played an important role in the past. These include the V4 countries, whose borderlands are the
object of this research. In this article we analyze these areas on the basis of selected socio-economic indicators,
with a focus on change in the period 2001–2011. As indicated by the Analysis of Variance, the results show the
significantly differentiated development of the borderlands, in terms of the individual values of indicators both
within the borderland of the EU member states, as well as along the external border of the EU.
Keywords: Border, borderland, periphery, indicators, the Visegrad Group (V4 countries: Czech Republic,
Slovakia, Poland and Hungary), Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
1. Introduction
Under the influence of globalization and multi-state
integration processes, the importance of a border as a
barrier is gradually decreasing, which can in many respects
evoke a world without limits, without borders (even if we
think about national boundaries only). Although the idea
of a borderless world is tempting, research on borders and
borderlands has emphasized that the boundaries still exist,
the significance of borders persists (Best, 2007), but their
meaning has become more complex (Paasi, 2012). This
phenomenon occurs in the social and cultural sphere as
well as along the national borders, as in the case of the EU,
where the introduction of the common market for goods,
capital, and services often resulted in narrowing their
importance only to the delimitation of the geographical
territory of independent states. As a result, the status
of many borders has changed significantly and is now
being reflected in the research literature. This indicates
a declining significance of bounded areas, in terms of the
rise of the ‘space of flows’ of capital, information and people
(Newman and Paasi, 1988; Anderson and O´Dowd, 1999),
and increased cross-border cooperation (Best, 2007; Bufon
and Markelj, 2010; Johnson et al., 2011).
EU policies and activities aimed at the mitigation of
borders as barriers can generally be described as processes
of de-bordering and political restructuring (Nelles and
Durand, 2012). Although globalization has challenged us
in a positive way and enabled the opening of boundaries
which had previously separated us, its impact affects only
some cross-border flows, and as Newman (2006) points
out, we need to realize the real existence of a hierarchical
world with existing borders (whether spatial or aspatial)
that are part of our daily lives. At the same time, we need
to accept that these borders do not necessarily correspond
with national borders; moreover, they often fail to coincide
with them (Anderson and O´Dowd, 1999). Such research
a
connotes the interactions and dichotomies between different
types of boundaries (e.g. physical, symbolic, political or socioeconomic), as well as an understanding of boundaries as such
(Jackson and Molokotos-Liederman, 2015).
Even today, however, we can find places where borders
still represent some form of a barrier (e.g. a military,
transportation or communication barrier), especially for
the territory on both sides of the border – the borderland.
Thus, from the perspective of economists, historians and
even geographers, the borderland is, due to various negative
barrier effects, often considered to be a periphery. And it
is not only from a geographical standpoint but also from
the perspective of national policies, as a supplement to
the already degraded socio-economic status of these areas
(Nelles and Durand, 2012), or as a result of the concentration
of economic activities in core regions instead (Paasi, 1999;
Xheneti et al., 2012). Moreover, in the borderland one finds
mostly rural areas which are already very often perceived
as peripheral. As many scholars point out, although
geographic location is still an important factor, with the
decreasing importance of the border as a barrier on the one
hand and increasing cross-border cooperation on the other,
the perception of any geometric aspects is shifting from
looking through the distance of an area to its accessibility.
Thus, in the borderland we can identify peripheral as well
as core areas (Jeřábek et al., 2004). An example of this is the
existence of the area across the Polish (PL), Czech (CZ) and
German (DE) borderland zone described by Johnson (2009)
as the region of prosperity. Similarly, the area between
Bratislava, Vienna and Győr (in a broader sense, Budapest)
is known as the ‘golden triangle’ (Rajčáková, 2005).
The analysis of changes in the meaning of borders and their
impact on the borderland is interesting to study, especially in
those countries whose borders have changed significantly in
the past; for example, as represented by an important line in
the formerly politically divided Europe (the so-called ‘Iron
Department of Human Geography and Demography, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University
in Bratislava, Slovakia (*corresponding author: L. Máliková, e-mail: malikova@fns.uniba.sk)
b
Institute of Geography, Faculty of Science, University of Pavol Jozef Šafárik in Košice, Košice, Slovakia
26
Vol. 23, 2/2015
Curtain’), and now part of the EU’s internal borders. This
includes, among others, the V4 countries (Slovakia (SK),
The Czech Republic (CZ), Poland (PL) and Hungary(HU)
whose borderlands are the object of this research. In fact,
we agree with Anderson and O´Dowd's (1999) reflection
on the relevance of borderland research – in terms of its
comparison and relations with other adjacent regions of the
neighbouring state(s).
First, a theoretical framework addresses the issue of
the border and borderland and its re-positioning within
European re-territorialization and restructuring processes,
as well as how the new regional geography1 adds emphasis
to work on borderlands, while focusing on the Central
European countries. This is followed by a section which
discusses the methodology for the delimitation of the
border, and the relevance of the indicators used in our
analysis. Building on this theoretical and methodological
background, attention is then given to the analysis of the
borderland of V4 countries, with emphasis on understanding
the ongoing socio-economic changes. In the last section
we summarize the most important aspects of borderland
research, in terms of the Central European space, and the
key findings of this research are presented.
2. Theoretical framework
This section looks more deeply into the theoretical
issues related to the merits of research on borderlands
and transboundary space and its position within the new
regional geography, in the context of Central European
countries. As pointed out by Johnson (2009), Europe is an
interesting example of how border regions create a new
space for the government, cultural interaction and economic
development and, at the same time, it is the transboundary
space which helps to address many of the spatial queries
prompted by on-going globalization trends. Reflecting on
the importance and status of the borderland in theoretical
considerations, we must first think about its position within
the regional structure of national states. In particular, since
the borderland has become the spotlight of many studies
due to the spatial changes related to EU enlargement
(e.g. revision or changing the status of borders) (Xheneti
et al., 2012), border areas are put into a rather new situation,
as they are both marginal within the territorial structure of
individual states, while also central in consideration of the
EU integration processes (Bufon and Markelj, 2010). We can
therefore speak of the so-called conflict of territorial logics,
where borders are of vital importance for nation states
while at the same time undermine the unity and integration
promoted by the EU (Popescu, 2008).
On the other hand, former transition and transformation
processes and the current influences of globalization and
internationalization are redefining the European space,
through locational impact (recreating places from the subcontinental to the local level), and thus articulating a new
regional geography (Dingsdale, 1999). Existing links over the
national borders have created corridors of co-operation (ibid.),
which according to Johnson (2009) play an increasingly
important role in the changing territorial structure of the EU.
In this context, O´Dowd (2001) even speaks of ‘trans-frontier’
regions (or cross-border regions, Euroregions) as central
1
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
to European integration, as an alternative to a Europe of
sovereign states. Pikner (2008) adds that the implementation
of cross-border structures, such as Euroregions, is a partial
aspect of the institutional innovation and shifting territorial
configurations within the EU.
It should also be emphasized, that these borders, once
perceived as physical barriers, the dividing line between
states and geographic space, have been recently considered
not only as a geographical space but rather conceptualized
as “transformative and evolving processes that are
politically, economically and socially embedded” (Xheneti
et al., 2012: 317). It is the impact of the border on the
territory, i.e bordering and de-bordering processes, which
should be in the spotlight of current academic, social, and
political discourses (Newman, 2006).
These aspects are just some of the many issues which
highlight the apparently strong position of border and
borderland issues in the discussions within the new regional
geography. Many scholars, however, suggest that there is
still enough space for the study of borders and, in particular,
cross-border areas, within discussions of the territorial
restructuring of Europe (Perkmann, 2003). Supporting the
idea that boundaries are in fact parts of rescaling processes,
Paasi (2002) justifies the lack of attention paid to the border
and borderlands resulting from researchers whose field
adopted simplified visions of a borderless world and where
the importance of spatiality is underestimated.
Moreover, we can agree with Johnson’s (2009) critisism of
the emerging studies on restructuring and political rescaling
(based on the work of scholars such as Brenner, 2000, 2003
and Gualini, 2004), where the borders and the borderland
issues are not sufficiently addressed and often even neglected.
Even so, Brenner, highlighting the importance of ongoing
rescaling and restructuring processes within Europe, focuses
more on the fact that it is the centre or in fact “city-regions
that have become key geographical sites in which various
trends and counter-trends of state reorganization are being
articulated” (Brenner, 2003: 319). On the other hand,
Gualini (2004) argues that the omission of cross-border areas
in his research is made in order to simplify the interpretation
of results. Thus, Johnson’s (2009) criticism is justified since,
as he argues, transboundary regionalism is closely linked to
territorial restructuring processes across Europe, and there
are still many questions to be answered in this respect. For
instance, as emphasised by Varró (2014), criticisms of statecentrism in studies on cross-border regions have already
pointed out deficiencies in terms of a largely one-dimensional
perspective, focusing in particular on the territorial and
scalar aspects of cross-border regionalism.
We believe that Central European countries (V4
countries in this case), in particular, since they have
undergone not only economic transformation but territorial
transformation as well (Buffon, 2007), represent an
interesting ‘experimental’ field for the study of how former
transition and current globalization processes, transform
the status of their borderlands. Even more is this the case
when we consider that the fall of the Iron Curtain and EU
enlargement resulted, in fact, in some borders disappearing
while others were created (Häkli, 2008). As a result of the
above-mentioned processes, some parts of their borderlands
The ‘new regional geography’ is a term used by some geographers, mainly in the 1980s and 1990s, who were engaged in solving
the problem of the region by reframing the terms of the study itself. In this regard, region was seen as a medium and outcome
of social practices and power relations operating at multiple spatial scales, while serving as a kind of fix. Its critique focuses on
insufficiently spatialized social theory and political economy (see Gregory et al. [eds.], 2009).
27
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
have been transformed from peripheral areas to areas
of interest and economic growth (Stryjakiewicz, 1998),
while at the same time the peripheral position of other
border areas could have even been exacerbated. As already
highlighted, the EU enlargement process itself tended to
prioritize the development of central regions, leaving a
number of borderlands in vulnerable positions (Xheneti
et al., 2012). Moreover, the current spatial structure of these
countries (which is now being shaped by Europeanization
through the influence of the EU (Dingsdale, 1999)), often
does not correspond with the historical form of territorial
organization, while persistent cross-border regions (relations
and ties) tend to copy the former spatial framework and
often do not fit into the current spatial regionalization
(Buffon, 2007; Buffon and Markelj, 2010).
Thus, it seems that V4 countries might be a convenient
laboratory for analysis of the borderland, cross-border
linkages and the diversity/similarity of adjacent areas on
both sides of the border. Therefore, in this article we analyze
such areas on the basis of selected socio-economic indicators,
with an emphasis on the population characteristics of
those who live in the borderland. We attempt to somehow
connect conventional, traditional approaches accentuating
mostly the territorial aspects of peripherality (in terms
of geographical isolation, peripheral location – i.e. the
borderland), with unconventional perspectives emphasizing
aspatial peripherality (peripherality connected not
only with a physical space, but with the multiplicity of
social spaces which overlap the same geographical area
(McDonagh, 2002)).
Our work is based on the assumption that despite the
geographical proximity of the analyzed borderlands (Central
European countries, neighbouring countries), historical
circumstances (transformation processes) and their position
in relation to EU (accession to the EU in 2004), differences
in changes in indicator variables and also in the level of
development and current status between certain areas along
Type of delimitation
and across the border, can be observed. Thus, some parts of
the borderland can be considered as peripheral and others
as central; as barriers on the one hand and as gateways of
interaction on the other (Anderson and O´Dowd, 1999;
O´Dowd, 2001).
Based on this general hypothesis, we attempt to answer
questions related to the intensity and extent of changes in
the selected socio-economic indicators. In particular, we
focus on both changes along the border (within the country)
and changes between neighbouring areas on both sides of
the border (cross-border relations). Since border areas are
often at the interface of different economies, environments
and cultures, borders can act as barriers resulting in
different development paths on both sides of the border
(Krätke, 1999; Johnson, 2009). Bearing this in mind,
despite the dual functions of the borders, and a frequent
weakening status of the border as a physical barrier, there
is a kind of imaginary barrier that exists between these
countries, which causes differences, and in some areas still
represents a dividing line.
3. Methodology
The borderland represents an interesting research space
not only from the geographical perspective, but also from
the perspective of historians and economists. Although
‘borderland’ is a common research subject in these
disciplines, its delimitation is far from being uniform. In
academic research we can find a variety of views, procedures
and criteria used to define the borderland. As Jeřábek et al.
(2004) point out, an exact definition or universal delimitation
of the borderland does not exist, since every single discipline
studies this phenomenom from a different perspective and
the final delimitation of a borderland is adjusted to reach
different research objectives. But, in general, we can identify
the most commonly-used types of borderland definition,
based on prevailing criteria (see Tab. 1).
Criterion and characteristics
Administrative
Delimitation based on administrative subdivision (municipalities, districts along the
border, Euroregions in EU). Practical delimitation due to data availability.
Geometric / distances perspective
Delimitation based on the distance from the border area, often using the administrative
criterion.
– 15 km – definition of the borderland for the purpose of questionnaire surveys
(Jeřábek et al., 2004)
– 20 km – zone defined on the basis of national legislation (Arnold-Palussiére (1983) in
Jeřábek et al., 2004)
– 25 km – definiton in various international acts upon adoption of bilateral agreements
on the regulation of cross-border movement of goods and people (Bufon, 2007).
Historical
Delimitation based on common historical development features (e.g. relict boundaries
– now non-existent).
Cultural / ethnic dimension
Delimitation of the borderland as a culturally or ethnically homogeneous area (usually
according to share of ethnic minorities).
Political and economic
For example delimitation based on EU requirements on the possibility of drawing
support for the borderland (borderland as territory with population of 1 million and
more).
Physical-geographical aspect
Definition based on delimitation by natural barriers (e.g. mountains). This aspect is
currently receding into the background due to technical progress.
Perceptual dimension
Delimitation based on a subjective identification of people with the borderland. This
approach emphasizes ‘bottom-up’ delimitation (useful especially in identifying and
building the identity of the borderland).
Objective
Subjective
2/2015, Vol. 23
Tab. 1: Types of borderland delimitation. Sources: Jeřábek et al., 2004; Bufon, 2007; edited by authors
28
Vol. 23, 2/2015
Some authors focus on issues of border and borderland
without its explicit delimitation, emphasizing its
dependence on the definition of the type and nature of the
border, especially in terms of the openness and permeability
of the border (Džupinová et al., 2008; Jeřábek et al., 2004),
or from the perspective of those from one side of the
border (Xheneti et al., 2012). Other scholars highlight
the problem of spatial scales of boundary construction,
which not only plays an important role in the delimitation
of the borderland (Johnson, 2009) but also represents
one of the major themes in border studies (Newman and
Paasi, 1998). Such studies are mostly dedicated to the
processes of deterritorialization and re-bordering, generally
recognized as rescaling examples (Häkli, 2008), although,
as highlighted in the previous section by Johnson´s (2009)
criticism, there is still a call for a greater implementation of
scale within the border issues.
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
•
so-called Iron Curtain). We also bear in mind the different
ways in which these particular historical changes impact
on the diverse and contradictory dimensions of borders
(Anderson and O´Dowd, 1999);
in 2004, these countries joined the EU (as a part of the
EU enlargement process) and their eastern borders have
become part of the external border of the EU. Xheneti
et al. (2012) argue that the EU enlargement could only
have minimal impact on the socio-cultural basis of
these border areas since historical, social and cultural
dimensions of these boundaries were stable over time.
As recognized in another part of their work, however,
the nature of the borderland has changed significantly
(the eastern boundary is seen as a periphery, the western
boundary as a space for cooperation). It is therefore
interesting to see whether and how the EU territorial
transformation is reflected in the socio-economic status
of these borderlands; and
Based on the empirical findings of a case study in the
Czech Republic, Vaishar et al. (2011) and Vaishar et
al. (2013) point out quite interesting results, that the
influence of a state (national) border is the most significant
in the first village (municipality) at the border and at the
first town (centre) which provides services of a higher
rank. For these authors, such territory can be classified as
borderland. We may argue that this statement, although
it applies to a certain area in the Czech Republic, can not
be generalized. At the same time we need to acknowledge
that such understanding of the borderland is limiting to a
certain extent and with current globalization influence it
can hardly be recognized as unambiguous. As mentioned
in the previous section, attention is now shifting from
the distance of a certain place to its accessibility (Jeřábek
et al., 2004). Thus, a distant area with better accessibility
(e.g. transport connectivity) to the border may be more
affected by the presence of the border itself.
•
In the context of EU enlargement processes as well as the
increasing importance of EU policies (devoted among others
also to border regions and borderlands), several scholars
have paid attention to borderland research in terms of the
formation of new structures: Euroregions (Perkmann, 2003;
Johnson, 2009; Nelles and Durand, 2012; and with regard to
the analyzed area, for example, Dołzbłasz, 2013; Tokes and
Lenkey, 2013); areas allocated on the basis of different levels
of NUTS (Wieckowski et al., 2012); and even administrative
units of the countries (Kladivo et al., 2012). In general, we
can agree with a borderland being interpreted as “the region
or area in relative close proximity to the border within which
the dynamics of change and daily life practices are affected
by the very presence of the border” (Newman, 2006: 150)
or, in other words as, “areas in which both economic and
social lives are directly influenced by the proximity of an
international border” (Bufon, 2007: 4).
Given the diversity of borderland interpretations, as
well as the various foci of studies, this research requires a
variety of methodologies (Bufon, 2007). In our study we used
a relatively simple but sufficient zoning method, buffering,
based on the definition of direct air distance from the selected
object (state border). This delimitation is based on geometric
aspects using the administrative criterion as a zone of
municipalities located along the borders. With respect to
differences within the analyzed countries (area, length, and
width), in the first phase of the borderland delimitation we
used several distance zones and spatial relations (Fig. 1).
4. Study area
For our analysis we chose Central European countries,
expecially the V4 countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland
and Hungary). This study area was not chosen randomly but
rather influenced by several factors:
•
these neighbouring countries are located in Central
Europe, which combines proximity to the socio-economic
situation and particularly historical development.
Boundaries as well as the borderland of these countries
had been changed considerably in the past (e.g. by
forming boundaries of a politically-divided Europe, the
several authors have carried out their research within the
issue of borders and borderlands in the Central European
space, highlighting various aspects. The work of Xheneti
et al. (2012) examines the impact of EU enlargement
on changes in the spatial characteristics of the border
regions related to the redirection of the economy and
market flow to the west, resulting in peripheralization of
eastern boundaries. In comparison, Turnock (2002) and
Perkmann (2003) analyze the creation of CBC regions
(cross-border cooperation) as a result of the declining
importance of borders and increasing regional initiatives,
and Wieckowski et al. (2012) focus their attention on
the more closely specified area of transport accessibility
and tourism development in the PL/SK borderland. The
diversity of these studies shows that borders and the
borderlands have become important objects of research,
and not only in the Central European space.
Using 30 and 50 km distances proved to be inadequate,
especially because of the small territorial size of Slovakia (the
shortest width of the country reaches less than 80 km). When
using a given distance 30 and 50 km, the final delimitation
of the research would comprise 1,857 or 2,696 municipalities
respectively, representing 63% or 90% of all municipalities
of the country. Such delimitation of the borderland would
significantly affect our interpretation of the results obtained
from the research. Moreover, it was also necessary to take
into account differences in the size of territorial units
(municipalities, districts) or administrative units (NUTS)
within the analyzed countries.
After selecting a 20 km distance zone as the most
convenient, it was necessary to select the appropriate spatial
operation to obtain the final selection of municipalities and so
define the borderland. For this purpose we have chosen the
position of the centroid of the spatial unit, which appears to
be a suitable approximation of its position for its integration
into the distance zone. We excluded another spatial operator,
29
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
2/2015, Vol. 23
Fig. 1: Distance zones used in making the final selection of analyzed municipalities. Source: authors
Fig. 2: Basic statistical indicators of the V4 countries borderlands. Source: authors
30
Vol. 23, 2/2015
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
‘intersect’, because of the potential inclusion of a large
number of municipalities in the final selection. Moreover, in
many cases this would be a very small part of the unit without
any built-up area and thus, in most cases, uninhabited
places. We are aware of the fact that when using the centroid
position some possible limitation of the final selection of
municipalities must be taken into account. Despite this, it
seems to be the most appropriate method in terms of number
of municipalities and spatial integrity of the analyzed area.
Figure 2 shows the basic statistical characteristics of
the resulting set of municipalities that were analyzed in
the empirical part of this paper. The final delimitation
covers 24% of the total area of all municipalities in every
country and 22% of their total population. Municipalities
within the borderland represent 29% of the total number of
municipalities in these countries.
5. Data analysis
As the borderland is usually examined at a small
scale, such as border areas within a single state (Vaishar
et al. 2011, 2013), or the cross-border areas of two or three
countries (Kladivo et al., 2012; Wieckowski et al., 2012),
or most recently borderland in terms of Euroregions
(Turnock, 2002; Pikner, 2008; Popescu, 2008), it is then
possible to use a broader scope of indicators for a more
detailed analysis. In our case, we looked at the borderland
in an unconventional way, and applied a smaller number of
indicators, in the relatively large border areas of V4 countries,
because of the significance of mutual comparison of these
borderlands demonstrated by the Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) (see below). Although the scope of the indicators
that we used does not encompass the full complexity of the
changes and processes occurring in the borderland, detailed
data of different economic and demographic variables
reflect the key element of the borderland – population and
its characteristics. Moreover, these data are recorded at the
lowest hierarchical level, municipalities, which enable us to
reveal the changes taking place in specific locations within
the borderland and compare these changes with the localities
on the opposite side of the border.
In addition to the common spatial level (municipalities)
within all four countries, it was necessary to consolidate
data for the same time period. Finally, we have chosen the
years 2001 and 2011 for our analysis. First of all, a population
census in all V4 countries took place in these years which
means that data were also available at the lowest local level.
At the same time, this period is interesting from the position
of these countries with respect to the EU. While in 2001 none
of them was a member of the EU, in 2004 all of these
countries joined the EU as a part of the EU enlargement
processes. Thus, 2011 is the first census year after joining
the EU, providing a great possibility for analysis of several
socio-economic parameters, as well as the impact of the
integration of these countries into the European space.
Country
Poland
The main variables that we used to calculate a number of
other indicators were data relating to the population, population
age structure, unemployment rate and net migration. We
focused on the analysis of the changes that have occurred in
the individual indicators in the period 2001–2011. The final
selection of the variables in the period is shown in Tab. 2.
With the population data, we analyzed: the population
growth rate in the period 2001–2011; and data on the age
structure were used to calculate the economic dependency
ratio of the countries – the young age dependency ratio and
old age dependency ratio, as well as the ageing index. Last
but not least, the unemployment rate and crude rate of net
migration were analyzed. For all indicators, we focused on
the change in the period from 2001 to 2011.
Data on three variables (population, age structure and
unemployment rate) were available for years 2001 and 2011 in
all countries except for Poland, where data on unemployment
(local level) were statistically recorded only since 2003. Data
on net migration were analyzed for every single year in the
period 2001–2011, except for Hungary, where the initial data
were available from 2002 only. Table 3 shows the indicators
and the corresponding relations used between them.
The data of all indicators have undergone tests of differences
in group means (using the Analysis of Variance: ANOVA)
in order to determine their statistical significance, using
Tukey‘s HSD Test in a One-Way ANOVA which enables us
to determine similarity or difference of changes in individual
indicators between each of the V4 countries. The detailed
methodology of ANOVA can be found in Rogerson (2001) or
Miller and Haden (2006). It should be stressed that we tested
the data of indicators for all territorial units (municipalities)
in the sample of V4 countries, as well as particularly for
selected units (municipalities within the borderland). Our
task was to test the following hypotheses:
•
•
The change of a particular indicator in the period 2001–
2011 was the same or very similar in the borderland of
V4 countries (null hypothesis);
The change of a particular indicator in the period 2001–
2011, with respect to the borderland of V4 countries,
varies from state to state (an alternative hypothesis).
Table 4 demonstrates that the analysis (single-factor
ANOVA model) shows very low probability values of all
indicators (P values < 0.01). Therefore, the general null
hypothesis can be rejected and we can accept the alternative
hypothesis. Since the V4 countries have different mean values
of specific indicators (in terms of change in the period 2001–
2011), they are statistically significant and it is therefore
appropriate to subject them to a deeper spatial analysis.
6. Results
The most significant results of our borderland analysis
with a focus on the changes in the selected indicators in the
period 2001–2011 are discussed in this section. For the purposes
Variables
Population
Net migration
Age structure
Unemployment rate
2001, 2011
2001–2011
2001, 2011
2003, 2011
Czech Republic
2001, 2011
2001–2011
2001, 2011
2001, 2011
Slovakia
2001, 2011
2001–2011
2001, 2011
2001, 2011
Hungary
2001, 2011
2002–2011
2001, 2011
2001, 2011
Tab. 2: Variables analyzed at a local level (municipalities) and the available years. Source: authors
31
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
2/2015, Vol. 23
Summary and explanation of the relations
Variables
Indicator
Relation
Notes
Population
Population growth rate
P(t2) – population at the end of the period
P(t1) – population at the beginning of the period
Net migration
Crude rate of net migration
Pi – number of immigrants
Pe – number of emigrants
Pm – mid-year population
Ageing index
P14 – population in pre-productive age
P65+ – population in post-productive age
Economic dependency ratio
P14 – population in pre-productive age
P15–64 – population in productive age
P65+ – population in post-productive age
Young age dependency ratio
P14 – population in pre-productive age
P15–64 – population in productive age
Old age dependency ratio
P15–64 – population in productive age
P65+ – population in post-productive age
Age structure
Unemployment
Data available in the databases of Statistical Offices of Slovakia, Czech Republic,
Poland and Hungary*
Unemployment rate
Tab. 3: Indicators and the corresponding relations used in the analysis of borderlands (Note: * Links to the websites
of the Statistical Offices are listed in the References)
Source: Jurčová (2005), edited by authors
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) – single factor
All units in V4 countries
The borderland of V4 countries
p-value
p-value
1.0265E-297
1.4024E-115
Indicator (change between 2001–2011)
Population growth rate
Crude rate of net migration
5.2461E-305
1.68487E-67
Ageing index
3.94077E-18
0.000102459
Economic dependency ratio
1.7662E-138
8.2863E-22
Young age dependency ratio
6.7398E-298
3.38553E-40
Old age dependency ratio
4.01265E-28
6.82028E-11
Unemployment rate
1.58971E-23
0.009808922
Tab. 4: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of individual indicators. Source: edited by authors
of our research, we analyzed seven socio-economic indicators
(see Tab. 3) which demonstrate dissimilar development of
the borderland. One of the key research questions was to
determine differences and similarities in the development of
geographically differentiated borderlands (along the internal
as well as external border of the EU), as well as to answer the
questions whether certain changes along the border (within
the country) and changes between neighbouring areas on
the both sides of the border (cross-border relations), tend
to overlap and to what extent. Moreover, we try to examine
where the situation has improved and where, on the contrary,
the values of indicators have become even worse.
The ANOVA results demonstrated the significance of
the selected indicators and their relevance to the study
of the borderlands of the V4 countries. Using the Tukey
HSD Test in the analysis, we were able to distinguish the
differences in the mean values of indicators between each
32
pair of states within the V4 countries. From Table 5 we
can clearly see that in all indicators, except the Young age
dependency ratio (whether we consider all units or only the
borderland of V4 countries), at least one pair of states is
characterized by similar mean values of the change in the
specific indicator. Moreover, with the exception of Population
growth rate, both similarities and differences in the change
of specific indicators (whether we consider all units or only
the borderland of V4 countries) are subject to change. These
results provide sufficient reason to have these borderland
areas cartographically analyzed in detail.
The first indicator was the Population growth rate (Fig. 3),
referring to the extent to which the population of a certain
area (in this case municipality) increases or decreases. The
most significant change was along the Hungarian borderland,
where there was a decline in population. An exception is the
northwestern part of the SK/HU borderland, especially the
Vol. 23, 2/2015
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
Pair-Wise Comparisons via Tukey HSD Test
Indicator
(change between 2001–2011)
All units inV4 countries
Population growth rate
CZ
HU
PL
SK
P < .01
P < .01
P < .01
CZ
P < .01
P < .01
HU
n/s
PL
HU
PL
Crude rate of net migration
CZ
HU
PL
SR
n/s
P < .01
P < .05
CZ
n/s
HU
P < .01
PL
HU
P < .01
PL
Ageing index
CZ
HU
PL
SR
P < .01
n/s
n/s
CZ
P < .01
P < .01
HU
n/s
PL
HU
PL
Economic dependency ratio
CZ
HU
PL
SR
P < .01
P < .01
P < .01
CZ
P < .01
P < .01
HU
n/s
PL
HU
PL
Young age dependency ratio
CZ
HU
PL
SR
P < .01
P < .01
P < .01
CZ
P < .01
P < .01
HU
P < .01
PL
HU
PL
Old age dependency ratio
CZ
HU
PL
SR
P < .05
P < .01
P < .01
CZ
n/s
P < .01
HU
P < .01
PL
HU
PL
Unemployment rate
CZ
The borderland of V4 countries
HU
PL
SR
P < .01
P < .01
P < .01
CZ
P < .01
HU
P < .01
PL
HU
PL
n/s
HU
PL
SK
P < .01
P < .01
P < .01
P < .01
P < .01
n/s
HU
PL
SR
P < .01
P < .01
n/s
n/s
P < .01
P < .01
HU
PL
SR
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
P < .01
n/s
HU
PL
SR
P < .01
P < .01
P < .01
n/s
P < .01
n/s
HU
PL
SR
P < .01
P < .01
P < .01
P < .01
P < .01
P < .01
HU
PL
SR
P < .01
n/s
P < .01
n/s
n/s
P < .01
HU
PL
SR
n/s
P < .01
n/s
P < .05
P < .01
P < .01
Tab. 5: Pair-wise comparisons using Tukey’s HSD Test in One-Way ANOVA model (Note: n/s = non-significant)
Source: edited by authors
area between Bratislava and Budapest, where there are
mostly stationary or progressive types of municipalities.
One of the reasons could be the existence of the suburban
zone in the hinterland of these capitals but it can also be
affected by other unspecified factors. Significantly regressive
areas can be found also along the eastern PL borderland and
northeastern SK borderland. On the other hand, a significant
cluster of progressive municipalities is concentrated along
the SK/PL borderland.
Results of this analysis illustrated that the borderland
has demonstrated high variability and diversity in all
V4 countries. Only values between Slovakia and Poland
(hence within the PL/SK borderland) show some similarity;
however, distributions within specific areas or regions within
the borderland differ from each other. Thus, while in certain
parts of the borderland a cluster of stationary, regressive or
progressive municipalities occur, ultimately, their overall
average appears to be quite similar.
Since the development of the population is also affected
by migration processes, the Crude rate of net migration
(Fig. 4) was another variable in our analysis. The analysis
revealed that the borderland can have a significant impact
in terms of this indicator. While in all units (understood as
all municipalities of the V4 countries), the mean values of
the indicator were similar only between the Czech Republic
and Hungary and between Hungary and Slovakia, this
similarity disappeared when analyzing the borderland of
these countries. Conversely, while in all units there was a
slightly differentiated change in the mean values of this
indicator (e.g. between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, or
Poland and Hungary), in the borderland of these countries
the values of the indicator were relatively similar. Their
spatial differentiation is further demonstrated in Figure 4.
Basically, the entire borderland along the eastern (external)
border of the EU recorded a decline in net migration, with
the exception of the SK/HU borderland with minor changes
only. Similarly, a downward trend can be seen in some areas
of the PL borderland, especially in the eastern borderland,
the eastern part of the PL/CZ and PL/SK borderland. Central
parts of the PL/SK borderland and the southeastern SK/HU
borderland, however, are characterized by greater stability
in terms of this indicator. On the other hand, in localities
near Bratislava there was even an increase in net migration
resulting partially from labour migration into this region.
33
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
2/2015, Vol. 23
population is getting younger with the ‘bottom-up’ approach.
In fact, it is the ageing process that can be considered as
the most significant and, nowadays, also the most critical
consequence of the current population processes that can be
also recognised in the borderland.
The other four indicators are based on age structure. The
first one is the Ageing index (Fig. 5), which increased during
the period 2001–2011, resulting in population ageing in most
of the analyzed borderland. The exception is the southern,
eastern and northeastern SK borderland where, in contrast,
the majority of municipalities experienced the opposite
trend. One of the reasons could be a higher concentration
of the Roma ethnic group in this area, characterized by a
higher birth rate and lower average age, meaning that the
Other indicators which use data on age structure are the
Economic dependency ratio (Fig. 6), Young age dependency
ratio and Old age dependency ratio. In the period 2001–
2011 there was a slight increase of burden on the working
Fig. 3: Population growth rate. Source: authors
Fig. 4: Crude rate of net migration. Source: authors
Fig. 5: Ageing index. Source: authors
Fig. 6: Economic dependency ratio. Source: authors
34
Vol. 23, 2/2015
population (productive age group) almost all over the CZ
borderland and in the northwestern and southeastern parts
of the HU borderland. In Bratislava and its surroundings
the situation has evolved similarly, and the values of the
economic dependency ratio have also increased compared
to 2001 (a similar trend was also recorded in other
capitals and the major cities of Poland and Hungary). As
a consequence of the reduction in the natural increase
across the borderland, the young age dependency ratio also
decreased, while the influence of population ageing was
reflected in the increase of the old age dependency ratio,
especially in the CZ borderland, south parts of the HU
borderland, and northeastern SK/HU borderland.
In relation to the indicators of age structure, this analysis
shows that with the exception of Hungary and Slovakia, the
mean values of Ageing index between each pair of states
within the V4 countries were very similar. On the other hand,
in the values of the Young age dependency ratio significantly
different values were recorded (see Tab. 5 above). Moreover,
as is clear from Figure 6, the analysis also showed that the
changes in the value of the Economic dependency ratio in
the borderland of Poland and Slovakia are relatively similar.
Last but not least, we analyzed the change in
Unemployment rate (Fig. 7). The most positive change of
this indicator was in almost all of the entire PL borderland
as well as the SK borderland, except for the area located
in its southeastern part where unemployment remained
at the same level as 10 years previously or even declined.
A slight increase was recorded along the CZ borderland,
except for the northwestern part of CZ/DE borderland and
the northeastern CZ/PL/SK borderland, and at the same
time in the HU/AT (Austrian) borderland and the HU/SK
borderland. The most significant rise of unemployment rate
was in the central parts of the HU/SK borderland.
Resulting from the analysis of Unemployment rate, it is
possible to follow a similar trend as in the Crude rate of net
migration. While in all units the mean values of the indicator
Fig. 7: Unemployment rate. Source: authors
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
were similar only between Poland and Hungary, greater
differences appeared when analysing the borderland of
these countries. Conversely, the values of the indicator were
relatively similar between the Czech Republic and Hungary,
as well as between the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
7. Concluding discussion
Despite de-bordering processes, as we pointed out in our
study, borders and the borderland remain to play an important
role in academic research. Thus, a number of authors are
devoted to this phenomenon from different aspects. As
already emphasized in the earlier work of Anderson and
O´Dowd (1999), the importance of borders and borderland,
as well as their geographic location, is changing significantly
in space and time. Such diversity is well expressed in
their statement that “they (meaning borders) are at once
gateways and barriers to the ‘outside world’, protective and
imprisoning areas of opportunity and/or insecurity, zones of
contact and/or conflict, of co-operation and/or competition,
of ambivalent identities and/or the aggressive assertion of
difference” (Anderson and O´Dowd, 1999: 595).
Moreover, under the influence of globalization processes,
the borderland becomes a particularly interesting area for
research. Globalization becomes an argument that points
to a kind of borderless and deterritorialized world, and thus
allows the opening of borders that divided us previously
(Newman, 2006).
Even now, the presence of boundaries can have a different
influence on the area in the vicinity of the borders, the
borderland. The borderlands differ from each other in their
status so much that we can even recognize several types
of borderland. This is especially the case if we take into
account the change in the nature of the borderland, caused
by the EU enlargement process, which brought together
countries with different levels of economic development
and integration, resulting in increased regional disparities.
Spatial characteristics of the borderland of the EU have
changed so much that many of these areas have become
peripheral. This is particularly a problem of the eastern
(external) borderland of the EU, while the western
borderland represents, due to mitigation of its borders, a
rather open space for cooperation in the area on both sides
of the border (Xheneti et al., 2012).
In our reasearch, we have focused on the analysis of
the V4 countries, whose borders and borderlands have
played an important role not only in the past (the Iron
Curtain), but also today (as the eastern, external border
of the EU). We were interested in how the borderlands
of these countries have developed over time, especially in
relation to the selected group of indicators. In particular,
we focused on both changes along the border (within the
country) and changes between neighbouring areas on
both sides of the border (cross-border relations). Using an
Analysis of Variance model, we have shown the significance
of selected indicators and their relevance to the study
of the borderland of V4 countries, and thus we were able
to determine similarities and differences in the changes
of individual indicators within each of them. It is crucial,
however, to highlight that although the analysis revealed
homogeneity or heterogeneity of certain sets of indicators,
this must still be regarded as a global analysis, which means
that for detailed analysis of the adjacent regions across the
border, further cartographic visualization and analysis of
the indicators is required.
35
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
2/2015, Vol. 23
Further results from the analysis showed that
geographically different borderlands have undertaken
several paths in their development, and that the change
of a particular indicator in the period 2001–2011 varied
from state to state. A negative change of values of almost
all monitored indicators occurred in the north-eastern CZ/
PL borderland (on the Czech side), the central part of HU/
SK borderland (on the Hungarian side), the southern part
of the HU borderland, and the northern part of the eastern
borderland of PL. In these areas in the period 2001–2011,
the growth index declined and, in contrast, other indicators
such as the ageing index, unemployment rate and the
economic dependency ratio increased. Thus, these areas
can be described as rather peripheral in relation to their
situation in the group of selected indicators. Several
authors have come to a similar conclusion, especially
when talking about the CZ/PL borderland. For instance,
Kladivo et al. (2012) described certain areas of the CZ/PL
borderland as peripheral (especially mountainous rural
areas with a population decline and an absence of major
transport infrastructure and urban centers). On the
other hand, the stronger peripheral position of the South
Moravian borderland, as stressed by Vaishar et al. (2013),
was not reflected in our analysis, although it is quite
understandable since both studies are based on different
delimitation criteria of the borderland.
References:
In general, the most favorable changes in the value of
indicators were recorded along the PL and SK borderland.
Moreover, some areas within the borderland of these
countries were identified by Johnson (2009) as the regions
of prosperity (the triangle between PL/CZ/DE) or zone
of active cross-border cooperation (especially the PL/SK
borderland) by Wieckowski et al. (2012).
CZECH STATISTICAL OFFICE [online]. [cit. 15.06.2014]
Available at: www.czso.cz
The general peripheralization of the eastern (external)
border of the EU was neither fully confirmed nor rejected
in our analysis, since only two of the four negative-evolving
areas were identified along the HU/RS (Serbia) and partially
PL/BY (Belarus) borderland. It would be interesting to
follow the development of these and other indicators on
the opposite side of the external border of the EU, in the
borderland of non-EU countries such as Belarus and
Ukraine, as well as along the northern borderland of Serbia
and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Would such an analysis confirm
the pronounced peripherialization of the external border
of the EU? At this point in time, we can only argue about
these and similar conclusions, especially due to current data
availability. But a detailed analysis of the borderland is of
vital importance and deserves more research attention. This
would enrich the current research in the field of borders and
borderlands and allow us to answer questions that have not
yet been answered.
Acknowledgements
The paper was prepared as a part of research project
APVV- 0018-12 “Human geography and demography
interactions, nodes and contradictions in time-space network”
as well as with a support of the project VEGA 1/0391/15
"Urban agglomerations in the Slovak Republic“. We would
like to express our very great appreciation to Mrs. Catherine
Dimmock-Benko, external teacher at the Department of
Languages, for her willingness to provide the linguistic
correction of this article, and also wish to thank the
anonymous referees for their inspiring comments and
suggestions on an earlier draft of this article.
36
ANDERSON, J., O´DOWD, L. (1999): Borders, Border
Regions and Territoriality: Contradictory Meanings,
Changing Significance. Regional Studies, 33(7): 593–604.
BEST, U. (2007): Transgression as a Rule: German−Polish
Cross-border Co-operation, Border Discourse and EUenlargement. Münster: Lit-Verlag.
BRENNER, N. (2000): Building ´Euro-regions´: Locational
Politics and the Political Geography of Neoliberalism
in Post-unification Germany. European Urban and
Regional Studies, 7(4): 319–345.
BRENNER, N. (2003): Metropolitan Institutional Reform
and the Rescaling of State Space in Contemporary
Western Europe’, European Urban and Regional Studies,
10(4): 297–324.
BUFON, M. (2007): Border regions in a re-integrated Europe.
Moravian Geographical Reports. 15(1): 2–13.
BUFON, M., MARKELJ, V. (2010): Regional policies and
cross-border cooperation: new challenges and new
development models in Central Europe. Romanian
Review of Political Geography, 12(1): 18–28.
CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE OF POLAND [online].
[cit. 15.06.2014] Available at: www.stat.gov.pl
DINGSDALE, A. (1999): Redefining Eastern Europe: A
New Regional Geography of Post-Socialist Europe?
Geography, 84(3): 204–221.
DOŁZBŁASZ, S. (2013): Cross-border co-operation in the
Euroregions at the Polish-Czech and Polish-Slovak
borders. European Countryside, 5(2): 102–114.
DŽUPINOVÁ, E. et al. (2008): Periférnosť a priestorová
polarizácia na území Slovenska. Bratislava, Geografika.
GUALINI, E. (2004): Integration, Diversity, Plurality:
Territorial Governance and the Reconstruction of
Legitimacy in a European ´Postnational´ State,
Geopolitics, 9(3): 542–563.
GREGORY, D. [ed.] (2009): The Dictionary of Human
Geography. 5th Edition.
HÄKLI, J. (2008): Re-bordering spaces. The Sage handbook
of political geography.
HUNGARIAN CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE [online].
[cit. 15.06.2014] Available at: www.ksh.hu
JACKSON, J., MOLOKOTOS-LIEDERMAN, L. [eds.]
(2015): Nationalism, ethnicity and boundaries:
conceptualising and understanding identity through
boundary approaches. Routledge.
JEŘÁBEK, M., DOKOUPIL, J., HAVLÍČEK, T. (2004):
České pohraničí-bariéra nebo prostor zprostředkování?
Praha, Academia.
JOHNSON, C. M. (2009): Cross-border regions and
territorial restructuring in central Europe room for more
transboundary SPACE. European Urban and Regional
Studies, 16(2): 177–191.
JOHNSON, C., JONES, R., PAASI, A., AMOORE, L.,
MOUNTZ, A., SALTER, M., RUMFORD, C. (2011):
Interventions on rethinking ‘the border’ in border
studies.Political Geography, 30(2): 61–69.
Vol. 23, 2/2015
JURČOVÁ, D. (2005): Slovník demografických pojmov.
INFOSTAT, Bratislava.
KLADIVO, P., PTÁČEK, P. ROUBÍNEK, P., ZIENER, K.
(2012): The Czech-Polish and Austrian-Slovenian
borderlands – similarities and differences in the
development and typology of regions. Moravian
Geographical Reports, 20(3): 22–37.
MORAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL REPORTS
PERKMANN, M. (2003): Cross-Border Regions in Europe
Significance and Drivers of Regional Cross-Border
Co-Operation. European Urban and regional studies,
10(2): 153–171).
PIKNER, T. (2008): Reorganizing Cross-Border Governance
Capacity The Case of the Helsinki-Tallinn Euregio.
European Urban and Regional Studies, 15(3): 211–227.
KRÄTKE, S. (1999): Regional Integration or Fragmentation?
The German-Polish Border: Region in a New Europe.
Regional Studies, 33(7): 631–641.
POPESCU, G. (2008): The conflicting logics of cross-border
reterritorialization: Geopolitics of Euroregions in
Eastern Europe. Political Geography, 27(4): 418–438.
MCDONAGH, J. (2002). Peripherality and the West of Ireland:
The Need for Reevaluation? In: MCDONAGH, J. [ed.]:
Economy, society, and peripherality: experiences from the
West of Ireland (pp. 97–112). Galway, Arlen House.
RAJČÁKOVÁ, E. (2005): Bratislava-Trnava Region. Within
the Golden Triangle Vienna-Bratislava-Győr. Adult
Education in European Border Regions (pp. 104–108).
Research Society Burgenland, Eisenstad.
MILLER, J., HADEN, P. (2006): Statistical Analysis with the
General Linear Model. Creative Commons Attribution.
ROGERSON, P. (2001): Statistical methods for geography. Sage.
NELLES, J., DURAND, F. (2012): Political rescaling and
metropolitan governance in cross-border regions:
comparing the cross-border metropolitan areas of
Lille and Luxembourg. European Urban and Regional
Studies, 21(1): 104–122.
NEWMAN, D. (2006): The lines that continue to separate
us: Borders in a ‘borderless’ world. Progress in Human
Geography. 30(1): 143–161.
NEWMAN, D., PAASI, A. (1998): Fences and neighbours
in the postmodern world: boundary narratives in
political geography. Progress in human geography,
22(2): 186–207.
O´DOWD, L. (2001): State borders, border regions band
the construction of European identity. In: KOHLI, M.,
NOVAK, M. [eds.]: Will Europe work?: integration,
employment and the social order (pp. 95–110).
Routledge.
PAASI, A. (1999): Boundaries as Social Practice and
Discourse: the Finnish–Russian Border. Regional
Studies, 33(7): 669–680.
PAASI, A. (2002): Regional Transformation in the European
Context: Notes on Regions, Boundaries and Identity.
Space and Polity, 6(2): 197–201.
PAASI, A. (2012): Border studies reanimated: going beyond
the territorial/relational divide. Environment and
Planning A, 44(10): 2303–2309.
STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC
[online]. [cit. 15.06.2014] Available at: www.statistics.sk
STRYJAKIEWICZ, T. (1998): The changing role of border
zones in the transforming economies of East-Central
Europe: The case of Poland. GeoJournal, 44(3): 203–213.
TOKES, T., LENKEY, G. (2013): Role of Euroregions in
the Development of Border Peripheries. Annals of
the University of Oradea, Geography Series/Analele
Universitatii din Oradea, Seria Geografie, 23(2): 229–235.
TURNOCK, D. (2002): Cross-border cooperation: A major
element in regional policy in East Central Europe. The
Scottish Geographical Magazine, 118(1): 19–40.
VAISHAR, A. et al. (2011): Současný stav a vývojové tendence
jihomoravského venkova. Brno, Mendelova univerzita.
VAISHAR, A. et al. (2013): South-Moravian Rural
Borderland. European Countryside, 5(2): 115–132.
VARRÓ, K. (2014): Spatial Imaginaries of the Dutch - German
– Belgian Borderlands: A Multidimensional Analysis of
Cross-Border Regional Governance. International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research, 38(6): 2235–2255.
WIECKOWSKI, M. et al. (2012): Poľsko-slovenské pohraničie
z hľadiska dopravnej dostupnosti a rozvoja cestovného
ruchu. Warszawa-Bratislava: IGiPZ PAN.
XHENETI, M., SMALLBONE, D., WELTER, F. (2012):
EU enlargement effects on cross-border informal
entrepreneurial activities. European Urban and Regional
Studies, 20(3): 314–328.
Initial submission 8 September 2014, final acceptance 6 March 2015
Please cite this article as:
MÁLIKOVÁ, L., KLOBUČNÍK, M., BAČÍK, V., SPIŠIAK, P. (2015): Socio-economic changes in the borderlands of the Visegrad Group (V4)
countries. Moravian Geographical Reports, 23(2): 26–37. DOI: 10.1515/mgr-2015-0008.
37