Is Budapest all there is to Hungary?

By Blaire Brandt, Thrid Year Law

For a country barely over 1000 years old, Hungary has a very dense and intense history. However, whenever I talk to anyone about Hungary, the number one reaction is always “Oh, Budapest, right? I’ve been interrailing there!” This made me question whether Budapest is all there is to Hungary in the eyes of people from other countries, and if so, whether it is a uniquely Hungarian thing. It turns out, there are a lot of factors contributing to the Budapest-centricity of the country - and this goes way beyond the perception of foreigners. This article will explore the historical reasons behind the cultural and economic divide between Budapest and the rest of Hungary.

Budapest, as it is today, was born on the 17th of November, 1873. The Hungarian Parliament voted on merging the three smaller (but not equally big) cities, Óbuda, Buda, and Pest, along the Danube, as well as the biggest island in the area, as an attempt to create a capital city capable of keeping up with Western development. Although what we call Budapest today has served as the administrative centre of the country for centuries, there have been developments since the unification that have caused the divide to be as significant as it is today.

How significant, exactly? ¼ of all Hungarians work or live in Budapest, with the GDP of the city contributing to 40% of the overall GDP of the country. The best universities, the most globally well-connected institutions, and the most successful companies are almost all located in the City. However, when looking at population density, numbers do not differ significantly from other Central European countries - and if we look closely, the only thing that does differ is that Hungary lacks another big city that is culturally and economically significant. The second, third and fourth biggest cities (in terms of population)[1] do not have the infrastructure, GDP or cultural significance of a regular mid-sized city. They are, essentially, nothing more than densely populated areas. Why is this? What caused Budapest to be the only real city in Hungary? 

The first possible answer is, of course, the Treaty of Trianon, in 1920. As a losing party in World War I, Hungary was forced to be reduced to its borders established by the ceasefire lines. This meant losing more than ⅔ of its territory to neighbouring countries, along with seven out of the eleven main geographical and economic centres,[2] and the circuit railroad system, which was the infrastructural connector of the entire country. This made it so that all railroads effectively lead out of the country, and the remaining system lacked the links between the remaining centres. All routes of transportation now had to go through Budapest, regardless of the actual distance between source and destination. Although the Treaty of Trianon was probably a big contributor to why the situation is as it is today, there may be links to earlier developments of Budapest that prove it was not the only reason.

In the Austro-Hungarian Empire, formed in 1867 and ended by the above-mentioned treaty in 1918, the unique system of a dual monarchy called for multiple things to be duplicated. Although the joint states of Austria and Hungary conducted foreign affairs (including military and relevant finance matters) jointly, they were separate in their governmental functions, and thus maintained separate parliaments. Hungary had the challenge of being slightly smaller than Austria in population as well as a share of economic resources, and this divide applied to Vienna and Budapest too. Although both cities were named capitals, Vienna was bigger and more prosperous. It was also the centre and source of Austrian rule prior to the Austro-Hungarian Compromise in 1867, and thus the formation of a developmental race between the two cities is not a surprise. Budapest was constantly trying to measure up to Vienna, and simultaneously that of the rest of the Western world and it’s capitals. This cannot be said for other important cities in the country, which were cut off as a result of Trianon - thus, a developmental difference had already begun even before World War I.

A diagram from the publication Justice For Hungary! produced by Hungarian publishers to show British populations the cruelty of the treaty. Lord Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail was sympathetic to the cause and republished the messages from the book into his newspapers.

After Trianon, Hungary was in a constant state of attempting to return to its former glory. As mentioned before, infrastructure was lost, the vibrant culture and the population now separated and divided by borders – these all presented issues that had to be addressed by the government. Some success was found, especially in infrastructure building, but the chaos of the 20th century that followed was not a beneficial environment for such development - especially as Hungary found itself on the losing side of World War II as well. The socialist leadership of what was then the Hungarian People’s Republic (from 20 August 1949 to 23 October 1989) struggled to keep up with the developments of the Western European countries benefiting from the Marshall Plan.[3] It was only in the 1980s that the newly introduced New Economic Mechanism started to produce results - mainly due to loans, which led to mountains of debt for the country. All in all, the country’s development staggered in the 20th century, and the Trianon-formed differences between the capital and non-capital cities remained. 

Since the 1990s, these differences have largely remained due to geographical reasons: the agglomeration of Budapest has only grown, and thus cities close to Budapest (Székesfehérvár, Kecskemét, Szolnok) are blocked from development and growth. Additionally, the country is not big enough to house another capital of the same or similar size, and thus other cities that are not close to Budapest but are close to the borders (Debrecen, Szeged, Győr) are overpowered by more developed cities in neighbouring countries. 

Although capital-centricity is not only a Hungarian phenomenon,[4] the growth and disproportionality of Budapest compared to the rest of the country has its own unique reasons. The issues caused by this affect people all over the country; however, it is difficult to determine how to successfully counter the effects - especially since attempts to develop rural areas fall through, are never executed, or are not well-planned enough to work.[5] One thing is for certain, though: although Budapest is beautiful and rich in sights, cultural hubs (and cheap beer!), it’s not all there is to Hungary. If you ever visit, make sure you venture out of the capital!

Sources

-       https://fenteslent.blog.hu/2014/01/28/miert_vizfeju_magyarorszag

-       https://www.portfolio.hu/gazdasag/20160811/kitalalod-mennyire-vizfeju-magyarorszag-235903

-       https://www.iwkoeln.de/en/press/iwd/henry-goecke-the-capital-city-effect.html

-       https://www.budapesttimes.hu/hungary/hungary-population-9-6-million-census-shows/

-       https://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xstadat/xstadat_evkozi/e_munkforg9_05_02_05.html

[1] Szeged, Debrecen, Pécs

[2] The cities lost were: Pozsony, Kassa, Temesvár, Arad, Nagyvárad, Kolozsvár, és Zágráb

[3] Maddison, Angus (2006). The world economy. OECD Publishing. ISBN 92-64-02261-9. p.185.

[4] See this article explaining the ‘capital city effect’: https://www.iwkoeln.de/en/press/iwd/henry-goecke-the-capital-city-effect.html

[5] See for example this “sidewalk” built from money received in the ‘Hungarian Village Programme’: https://piacesprofit.hu/cikkek/gazdasag/ilyet-meg-nem-lathattunk-ami-a-magyar-falu-programban-epult.html