,

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHED TRANSPORT NETWORK IN HUNGARY AND SERBIA

A: , , , -. , , . , . , , ? ()? , . - () 9 ( C () C ). . , . , . . , . . , , .

: , , , , ,

Abstract: The actuality of this topic is constituted by the access to the Union of Serbia, since as a side effect of this fact, the role of Visegrd countries, routeways and transit zones to West-Europe has increased. The niveau of estabilshed transport network of the mentioned regions is very different, their development can result in positive regional effects, but these relationships are only partly known. The main purpose of the study is to demonstrate which factors have the most significant influence on the development of the types of transport? What are those changes which are necessary for transport to be able to have a positive influence on regional development? Which are the most important attachment opportunities between the types of transport? The study answers the questiont, how the different types of transport can sway the regional development, together and separately.As a tool of empirical analysis I used the complex transport network indicator (TRANS), furthermore nine social and economical figures (based on the accessible data in Annuals of Hungarian and Serbian Statistical Offices). The ratio makes the different the niveau of the different types of transport comparable. By the help of TRANS the territorial differences are more demonstrable and I could compare them with other regional figures. The analysis presents the regional development of transport networks in Hungary and Serbia and the directions and tightness of interdependencies. I used correlation analysis for exploring the interactions of social, economical and transport-based ratios. The similarly developed regions were grouped into clusters by the help of cluster-analysis. The cluster-analysis clearly demonstrated to the extent of regional differences between the two countries. The main conclusion of analyis is that those regions which are limited developed from the perspective of transport have not inevitably weak economical and social figures, however, those regions which are well-developed have in each case advanced transport network.

Key words: Hungary, Serbia, transport, regional effect, TRANS indicator

1.

. (rdosi, 2000., Fleischer, Klnoki, 2003., Nmeth, 2005., th, 2007. .), (Diamond, Spence 1984., Bryan at al.. 1997.). , , (Wng, 2002.). , , ( ) (Lengyel, 2003.), . , , , ? (Ingram, Liu 1999., Dargan, Gately 1999.). (), .2. ()

(-3) , . ()[footnoteRef:1] (Veres, 2004). , . [1: () (2004) .]

: - () %- (%) - () % - (%) - () - () 2012. 2013. C () . , . penstreet[footnoteRef:2] QGIS 2.4.0.3 [footnoteRef:3]. [2: http://download.geofabrik.de/europe.] [3: , : https://www.qgis.org/en/site/index.html.]

( () () ) . ( ), (Tncos, 1995, Veres, 2004) . :

: - , - (), - (100 2),- (1.000 ).

[footnoteRef:4], : [4: , . ( x) , (- ).]

: () - , - , X ()- , ()- .

1: () :

( 1.), ( 0,4179 0,4978) , ( , , ). ( 0,3796) , ( 0,4649). , 7 10. , . , . , , . -- ( 0,3554), --- ( - ). . -- . ( , -) , . , (Barta, 2002.). , .

3.

, , . , , (Balint, 2009). 1: ..

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9. ()

: 3.1.

1. : : ( 2.). , , . . . , .2. : , . , (, ), , () . 1,93%, , . ( ) ( ) , . ( ). 3. : 14 , () , , . , ( 3,6%) ( 92 ). . .[footnoteRef:5] [5: , , , , , () , , .]

4. : 4. 14 , , , . (90%). , .

2: () :

5. : , 17 (6 11 ). . , , . , . , . , , , , () .

4.

, , , , . , - . 2011. ( 1.).

2: ()(%)()(%)()()

0,3640,559-0,4600,4960,3530,473

0,4590,506-0,4600,6270,5710,390

-0,576

0,4500,619

0,4010,554

0,6040,372

0,4160,429

() -0,484

: .

, , , , (0,459), (0,364), (0,450) (0,401). ( ) ( 2.) . . . (_) (0,559) (0,506), (-0576). , , . (0,604) (0,416). , , , (/). (_%) ( (0,554)). (_) , (-0,460), (-0,460) (-0,484). , [footnoteRef:6] ( ) . , . . (_%) (0,496), (0,627) (0,619). (0,002) , . [6: .]

(_) ( , , .). (0,353), , (0,571). , . (_) , , , (. ). (0,473) (0,390) . (0,153), , . (0,429). , (0,372).

5.

() ( , , ) , . 45 , --, . , . . , . , . , ( ), . 60% , , ( ) . , , . , . . , . ( ) . . ( ) . , . , . , . , .

Blint Gy. (2009), Statisztika elmlet s gyakorlat. Kolozsvr, Scientia Kiad.Barta Gy. (2002), A magyar ipar terleti folyamatai, 1945-2000. Dialg Campus Kiad, Pcs-Budapest.Bryan, J., Hill, S., Munday, M. Roberts, A. (1997), Road infrastructure and economic development in the periphery: the case of A55 improvements in North Wales. In: Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 5 No. 4. pp. 227-237.Dargay, J. Dermot, G. (1999), Incomes effect on car and vehicle ownership, worldwide: 1960-2015. Transportation Research, A33:101-138.Diamond, D. Spence, N. (1984), Infrastructure and regional development theories. In: Built Environment, vol. 10, pp. 262-269.Erdsi F. (2000), Eurpa kzlekedse s a regionlis fejlds. Budapest-Pcs, Dialgus Campus Kiad.Fleischer T. (2003), Az infrastruktra-hlzatok s a gazdasg versenykpessge. Budapest: Pnzgyminisztrium Stratgiai Elemz nll Osztly. p. 50.Ingram, G. K. Liu, Z. (1998), Vehicles, Roads, and Road Use: Alternative Specifications. Working Paper 2036. World Bank.Klnoki Kis S. (2003), A gyorsforgalmi thlzat fejlesztsnek gazdasglnkt hatsa. Budapest, Klnoki Mszaki s Gazdasgi Tancsad Kft.Lengyel, I. (2003), Verseny s terleti fejlds: trsgek versenykpessge Magyarorszgon. JATEPress, Szeged, p. 454.Nmeth N. (2005), Az autplyahlzat trszerkezet alakt hatsai Magyarorszg esete. A hely s a fej., Munkapiac s regionalits Magyarorszgon. Szerk.: Fazekas K. Budapest MTA Kzgazdasgtudomnyi Intzet, pp. 139-179.Qunatum GIS - , : http://www.qgis.org/ (: 5, 2015)Tnczos L. (1995), A kzlekedsi externlik kltsgeinek internalizlsa. Kzlekedstudomnyi Szemle, 1994. november. pp. 281-289.Tth G. Kincses . (2007), Kzti elrhetsgi vizsglatok Eurpban. Statisztikai Szemle, 85. vf. 5. sz. pp. 432-463.Veres L. (2004), Kzlekedsi rendszerek a regionlis fejlesztsi stratgiban. Magyar Kzlekedsi Kzpont Budapest.Wang, Eric C. (2002), Public infrastructure and economic growth: a new approach applied to East Asian economies, in: Journal of Policy Modeling 24 (2002) 411-435 pp.pen street - , : http://download.geofabrik.de/europe/ (: 20, 2015)

RESUME

The complex transport network indicator (TRANS) is capable for measuring the different transport infrastructures (public road, train, shipping and air transport) in order to compare the transport systems in the regions of different countries.From the examined 45 regions in two countries rise those regions, which have more developed transport infrastructure, like Budapest, Gyr-Moson-Sopron county, Podunavlje and Belgrade. These regions are those areas which are excellent for the development of multimodal transport system. The next, middle-class group of regions are less developed compared to the mentioned ones. These moderately advanced regions have only one developed transport method;for instance in Hungary Pest, Fejr, Bcs-Kiskun, Borsod-Abaj-Zempln counties and in Serbia Kolubara, Zlatibor, Pinja districts. In these regions carrier firms can establish their warehouses and companies can gather and distribute their merchendise to build up a bridge between developed and underdeveloped regions. The rest of regions, the whole area of South-Transdanubia and Vojvodina (emphasized the whole area of Bnt, and disctricts of West-Backa) have undeveloped TRANS-ratio so their transport infrastructure must be developed. By the help of cluster analysis five different groups can be isolated ont he basis of the development level of transport methods (similarly to the development item number of TRANS-ratio). The first two groups were formed from the mostly advanced regions of the two cuntries, the area of capital cities (Budaest and Belgrade), since these cities have at least three more developed transport methods compared to other areas. The third cluster involves 60 % of Hungarian counties and Szermsg district from Serbia, where the proportion of highways system or the lenght of shipping ways is averagely higher than in the rest of regions. In the fourth cluster, the proportion of electric railways is averagely higher and in the last (fifth) cluster contains regions, which have better shipping ways and trains but only in a comparison with the fourth cluster. As a consequence we can state, by the increasing cluster ordinal number, social and economical figures decrease. The correlation analysis demonstrates the direction and tightness of connections between the different transport methods, social and economical ratios. The correlation analysis of TRANS ratio showed a moderate-level-connection between the TRANS-ratio and the extent of investments, motor-vehicle supply and built houses. Taking into consideration tourism, the highest correlation is between the lenght of train network and touristic figures (number of guests and number of guest nights at commercial accomodation places). The proportion of electric railroads didnt demonstrate any connection with social and economical figures. The lenght of public roads has a negativ (contrary) correlation with the development level of regions. The proportion of highways showed a moderate-level connection with the extent of investments, the number of employed people and the motor-vehicle supply of inhabitants. The length of shipping ways demonstrated a stronger connection with the investments, but lower with employment rate. Shipping ways have a weak correlation with touristic figures, but it is negligible. Those regions, which have air transport opportunity are well developed compared to those, which areas do not operate airport. The figures of air transport have moderate level connection with the employment rate and the extent of investments, furthermore, with the number of guest nights in commercial accomodation places.