The Contribution of Former Market Towns to Regional Development (EN) by Ede Petras, Great Plain Research Institute - Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary
Abstract
South Great Plain is a region of peripherical location and quite unfavourable socio-economical conditions. However, regarding the basic regional indicators, it stands out that this backward region is strikingly the most urbanised one in Hungary. Its settlement system consists mostly of former market towns – i. e. small and middle towns with a long historical tradition of a specific peasant embourgeoisement based on self-organisation and a widespread local autonomy. Some elements of this tradition, such as a relatively high level of infrastructure, civic involvement and social solidarity, an adventurous but adaptive economic attitude and a long and fruitful cooperation between some of the towns are still present in most of the former market towns, being a significant innovative factor in the region. The features of market town traditions and their contribution to regional development is demonstrated by case studies on two towns from the region.
1. A brief introduction to South Great Plain Region
South Great Plain Region is situated in the southeastern part of Hungary. It has a peripherical location within the EU, and its socio-economical conditions are quite unfavourable in comparison with the rest of Hungarian regions (Figure 1). However, regarding the basic regional indicators, it stands out that this backward region is strikingly the most urbanised one among Hungarian regions (Figure 2).
The high proportion of urban citizens not accompanied by the rest of socio-economic indicators is related to the specific geographical and political conditions of South Great Plain Region. Before the river regulations of the 19th century, Hungarian Great Plain[1] used to be a land of forests and swamps, dominated by the far-flung arms of River Tisza (Figure 3).
This swampy woodland was very suitable for semi-nomadic cattle husbandry, and on the other hand, it generated a permanent challenge for the authorities, providing any outlaw people with a perfect shelter. Due to its geographical conditions, a feudal villein system could never evolve fully in the region. During the 150-year Turkish occupation (16th to 17th centuries), local autonomies and semi-nomadic cattle husbandry became the dominant features of The Great Plain. Though most of its settlements were depopulated, those surviving wars and sackings were making up a unique formation – that of a rich, quasi free urbanised peasant community containing many elements of western-style civil liberties, with the ability of organising itself, of governing its territory, and that of developing its economy according to market demands (BELUSZKY 2006).
Since the 18th century, the ’uniqueness’ of the region was slowly diminishing, due to the rise of the centralised monarchy, the increase in crop production at the expense of cattle husbandry and the drainage of the huge flooded area in the heart of The Great Plain. Despite the change in the geo-political conditions and the foundation of many new settlements, the region is still dominated by former, quasi free peasant towns originating from the Turkish era, preserving a vivid tradition of innovation and self-government.
Nowadays, the region is facing several ecological, economical and social problems. The dynamical balance of the Great Plain’s water system has been disintegrated by the regulation of River Tisza, followed by the great extension of croplands. Lack of water is getting a day by day more serious problem for the region once so rich in this vital element. This endogene desiccation is also heightened by the global warming process (CSATÁRI et al 1994).
Apart from a number of dynamic areas, the economy of South Great Plain Region has been in a depression since the early 1990s, caused by the crucial situation of agriculture and the collapse of the communist industry located in the region, mostly based on an outworn, second-class technology, compared to that of the central and Western part of Hungary. The simultaneous recession of industry and agriculture led to a widespread unemployment and impoverishment of the population, generating significant emigration, principally towards the central and northwestern parts of Hungary.
A specific feature of the region is the appearance of several prosperous towns, emerging from their environment as islands of economical and demographical stability (KISS 2003). Besides the county seats, the towns of relatively favourable conditions – like Szarvas, Hódmezővásárhely or Szentes – possess a vigorous tradition of urbanised peasant community.
2. Market towns: typical settlements of the region
2. 1. Dawn and heyday of a specific kind of local communities
The symbol and real scene of the ’uniqueness’ of the Great Plain society is the network of market towns surrounded by hundreds of homesteads (i. e. scattered farms) owned and cultivated by peasants – full members of the urban community. The oldest market towns grew up in the 12th century, and they began to flourish in the 15th century. By that time, market towns of the region had had nearly the same economical and social structures as the first-class royal cities of Hungary (KUBINYI 1990). However, this equalising process was held up by the Turkish occupation of the region in the 16th century, creating a radically different political background for Great Plain market towns.
Due to the permanent menace of raids of military troops and tax collectors, the majority of the population flocked together to the so-called ’khas-towns’ being under the direct control of the Turkish Emperor. This migration led to a huge depopulation of the region, but in the same time to the appearance and enrichment of populous market towns surrounded by enourmous bleak areas.
The development of market towns was based economically on the mass exportation of cattles bred in the great, depopulated forests and meadows. Its most characteistic features were the early evolution of goods production and a powerful local autonomy. ’Khas towns’ were completely independent from Turkish authorities, as far as they paid the taxes reguralry to the Emperor’s Treasury. Though this system was generally favourable for market towns, it is worth mentioning that the privileged position of several market towns was question of permanent negotiations between towns and different political actors, thus the well-being and development of market towns strongly depended on the political talent of their magistrates throughout the Turkish era.
This kind of early capitalistic development had many common features with that of other peripheral areas of Europe (e. g. Scandinavia or Switzerland), where relatively autonomous peasant communities were getting through a specific embourgoisment process in the same century. In the case of both the Great Plain and the other European areas mentioned, the cultural bases of this process were local, bottom-up organised Protestant congregations. Besides organising local life, Protestant congregations played an essential role in maintaining national culture in the course of the whole Turkish era. Furthermore, Protestant school centres and their dense network of partner institutions were the root of many long and fruitful town-to-town cooperations, some of which are still live today.
The relatively favourable conditions of the Turkish regime were changed by the Habsburg occupation of the late 17th century. Market towns suffered great casualties, and many of them were even ravaged during the long-lasting war period. In the new era, urbanised peasant communities found themselves in a minority position within Habsburg Monarchy, regarding both religion and nationality. Furthermore, their self-governing privileges were restricted by the establishment of a centralised monarchy, and Protestant churches by that time defending local autonomies were debilitated by a violent anti-Protestant campaign (MÁRKUS 1991).
Despite all negative conditions, most of market towns could realise an economic development after the end of the war period. The reason for their success is the evolution of a homestead system, perfectly adequate to the geographical conditions and the new demand of the market for wheat production instead of cattles. In 18th century market towns, each citizen had his own share of the huge lands belonging to his town. A great part of this share was located far away from the town, in the outer belt of its land. These remote estates became the places of mass wheat production, being the main source of riches for market towns for two centuries. Creation of this land use system was an innovation based totally on local resources, as a response of market town communities to the challenge of new, unfavourable conditions (Figure 4).
The uniqueness of this process was that farmers did not migrate to their estate, founding new villages or separate farms (as ’mas’-s in Bretagne or Aquitaine) in the depopulated areas. Instead, they built homesteads in the centre of their shares, making for temporary shelter. Although they often spent quite a long time there according to the seasonal works, they kept on being members of the town community, considering the town as their home, keeping house and family in town, cultivating their inner estates (i. e. gardens and stables) and bearing communal offices if delegated (Figure 5).
In the late 19th century, market town communities constituted a specific sort of local communities within the modern civil state. Their most important distinguishing feature was peasant embourgoisment – i. e. the urbanised lifestyle of a mostly agricultural population, together with the decisive role of the wealthiest farmers. Within such a community, the attitude of a conscious and active local citizen was created by the experience of private business (i. e. farming) and local autonomy.
Such a social environment proved to be an excellent scene for civil organisations and bottom-up communities, flourishing in late 19th century Hungary. According to a recently fulfilled research, market towns of the Great Plain had a civil society dominated by social clubs and casinos, with a relatively great proportion of benevolent and mutual associations compared to other parts of the country, often having hundreds or sometimes even thousands of members (VADÁSZ 1998). These facts reflect my above statements on peasant embourgoisment, and the self-governing and self-managing character of market towns.
2. 2. The decline and perdition of market towns
Once flourishing urbanised peasant communities have been almost totally destroyed by the successive tragical events of the last century. Since the late 19th century, market towns have been facing a constant employment crisis caused by over-population, boosted by the fact that they have lost a predominant part of their traditional inland market, due to the drastic changes in the boundaries of Hungary after World War I. A further disadvantage was suffered by a remarkable proportion of market towns due to the new boundaries running across the whole territory of the Great Plain. Namely, the economical and cultural centres of the region (Arad, Nagyvárad/Oradea and Szabadka/Subotica) got out of Hungary, leaving their nearby market towns in a peripheral situation.
The adversities counted above were followed by the damages of World War II and the anti-farmer policy of the communist regime, overwhelming local elites, destroying thousands of homesteads and banning any discourse concerning local affairs for decades. This policy is brightly reflected by the fact that settlements of the Great Plain had a very poor share in state investments and financing compared to both its area and population through the communist era (SZELÉNYI 1983). This long-lasting 'war' between state and society had a really harmful effect on traditionally self-governing and self-managing urbanised peasant communities.
Communist modernisation of market towns consisted mainly of the location of industrial subsidies applying second-class technology, and the architectural demolition of historical town centres. Due to the above events and processes, a great proportion of towns are now declining, suffering a serious socio-economical crisis. However, a few towns (e. g. Szarvas or Orosháza) have relatively good conditions, based on both agricultural and industrial production (Figure 6).
2. 3. Former market towns as a regional innovative factor
Though market towns no longer exist as a specific kind of settlement and way of life, some elements of its traditions, such as a relatively high level of infrastructure, civic involvement and social solidarity, an adventurous but adaptive economic attitude and a long and fruitful cooperation between some of the towns are still present among former market towns, what is potentially a significant innovative factor for the whole region.
Former market towns have been important scenes of the country-wide localisation process beginning in the late 70s and culminating in the early 90s, after the collapse of the communist regime. According to the experiences of a field research in a former market town, "small town mentality defended itself by a by-pass way of thinking, preserving not only the spirit of bourgeois, but that of citoyen as well" (A. GERGELY 1996:16). A sociography on another former market town claims that the reactions of individuals to external conditions and historical processes are strongly determined by one's family preserving and transmitting local traditions (MÁRKUS 1979). The same opinion is reflected by a study on the town network of the Great Plain, namely that local patriotism can be an important innovative factor in former market towns, as many elements of their traditional community are still present in most of them (TÓTH 1988:93) (Figure 7).
Besides its negative socio-ecomical aftermaths, the collapse of the communist regime had a few favourable effects on localities, such as the growing importance of local conditions or the restoration of local self-governments. The development of settlements is no longer question of their declared status and its network of informal relationships, but it depends on many different factors. Thus nowadays, even the most remote or backward settlements can follow any alternative way of development, based on local resources – in case they could find one.
In our global era, localities have practically no voice in global politics. In addition, localities in Hungary are hardly able to have any influence on the decisions respecting themselves because of the overcentralised structure of government and especially financing (BEKE 2001:169). On the other hand, regional development policy has some serious faults regarding planning (FARAGÓ 2005), as well as financing (PÁLMAI 2006) and administration (PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS 2001). Therefore an 'alternative' development based on local resources can be a unique opportunity for many local communities (ENYEDI 1998), especially in South Great Plain Region being situated far away from the main Hungarian centres of investments and innovation (RECHNITZER 2000).