Formal urbanisation in East-Central Europe


49Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.73.1.4 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 2024 (1)                               49–72.

Introduction

The term ‘formal urbanisation’ was initially 
adopted to describe a particular aspect of 
urban growth in Hungary during the late 20th 
and early 21st century. This was discussed by 
Pirisi, G. (2009), Pirisi, G. and Trócsányi, 

Formal urbanisation in East-Central Europe

András TRÓCSÁNYI1, Viola KARSAI2 and Gábor PIRISI1

Abstract

The East-Central European region has undergone a unique urbanisation process during socialist and post-
socialist periods. These peculiarities result from social and economic development delays, which the state 
has tried to remedy through massive interventions. One such intervention is urban reclassification, where the 
state promotes certain places it deems crucial, granting them urban status, often without actual development 
or urban characteristics. Due to its artificial character, this intervention is called formal urbanisation in our 
approach being a specific local feature of the urbanisation process. The visible result is the growth of the urban 
population, often only by administrative causes, with the reclassification of villages as towns. The emergence 
of numerous small towns, which we refer to as newest towns, has significantly influenced urbanisation, altered 
the concept of towns and cities3, and generated significant debates. In this paper, we compare the formal 
urbanisation of the socialist and post-socialist eras, trying to estimate the added value of formal urbanisation in 
the latter period. We compare the administrative backgrounds of formal urbanisation in selected ECE countries 
for similarities and differences. Throughout the research, we analyse their formal urbanisation involving 
approximately 800 municipalities promoted since 1990 in Poland, Czechia, Hungary, and Romania, trying 
to identify common and unique features in the processes. Based on historical determination, modernisation, 
and integration into new spatial processes, considering demographic and functional changes, we developed 
types of formal urbanisation. Our research has revealed several common factors in the reclassification process, 
such as local initiatives, while we have also identified disparities between principles and practices and varying 
levels of control from regional and national actors. The study has also led to a deeper understanding of formal 
urbanisation in the context of the urbanisation process as a whole.

Keywords: post-socialist urbanisation, formal urbanisation, urban reclassification, newest towns, types of 
reclassification

Received November 2023, accepted March 2024.

1 Department of Human Geography and Urban Studies, Faculty of Sciences, University of Pécs, Ifjúság útja 6. 
H-7624 Pécs, Hungary. E-mails: troand@gamma.ttk.pte.hu, pirisi.gabor@pte.hu

2 Doctoral School of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, University of Pécs, Ifjúság útja 6. H-7624 Pécs, Hungary. 
E-mail: vivi2799@gmail.com

3 As per the European literature, in this study, the term ‘town’ is used to refer to municipalities that are classi-
fied as urban but are relatively smaller in size and spatial importance as compared to a ‘city’. Therefore, the 
term ‘town’ is used exclusively when discussing urban reclassification, as new towns usually fall under the 
small-town category once they are granted urban status, even if they grow quite populous before or during 
the reclassification, apart from some exceptional cases such as suburbanisation.

A. (2009), and had previously been used 
by Kovács, Z. in a similar context. In our 
approach, formal urbanisation is a specific aspect 
of the urbanisation process. It means the growth 
of urban population by administrative causes 
only, with the reclassification (Kulcsár, J.L. and 
Brown, D. 2011) of former villages as towns, 

mailto:troand@gamma.ttk.pte.hu
mailto:pirisi.gabor@pte.hu
mailto:vivi2799@gmail.com


Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.50

by a legal act. While urbanisation, both the 
population growth and the functional and 
social transformation normally happens 
gradually, formal urbanisation is a single act 
that makes a settlement and its citizens urban, 
creating a visible and important threshold. 
The term ‘formal’ refers to its formality for 
the citizens involved: they became urban 
dwellers, but in the short term, nothing 
changes, unlike the caption on the official 
letters, coat of arms, and also on the facade 
of the refurbished town hall.

Because it is a legal act and also a political 
decision, it makes only sense to talk about 
formal urbanisation in countries where the 
reclassification is not an automatic, statistical 
process. The tradition, of giving privileges 
to selected communities, dates back to the 
Middle Ages or earlier, and even though 
the urban rank does not have the same 
advantages as before modernity, the highly 
selective nature of formal urbanisation 
has survived. Formal urbanisation therefore 
is always an attempt to intervene in the 
urbanisation process with political and legal 
acts. It could complete or replace other 
activities in regional and urban policies, 
without realising significant and expensive 
investments.

The term formal urbanisation is a bit more 
often used in another meaning, contrasting 
it with informal urbanisation, referring to 
processes in developing countries (Mabin, 
A. 1991; Zhu, Y. 1998). Hereby, within 
this paper, we apply formality not as the 
contrary of informa- lity but as the metaphor 
of the direct intervention of the state in the 
urbanisation process by reclassifying certain 
places.

Formal urbanisation is a specific part of 
the overall urbanisation process, however, 
there is no single and universal theory 
describing urbanisation itself. While some 
scholars focus on the transformation of 
the settlement network and the changing 
distribution of population, others investigate 
the development of urban spaces. According 
to Brenner, urbanisation involves processes 
of concentration and expansion (Brenner, 

N. 2013). However, for a long time, scholars 
mainly focused on the concentration and 
deconcentration processes, such as spatial 
distribution and migration of the population. 
The most influential theory is the urban cycles 
theory, which still provides a framework for 
many researchers (Klaassen, L.H. et al. 1981; 
Van den Berg, L. et al. 1982). This theory 
played an essential role in interpreting the 
urbanisation of ECE countries (Enyedi, Gy. 
2011). Understanding formal urbanisation 
requires examining the stages of relative 
and absolute deconcentration because the 
reclassification of towns mainly occurs in 
semi-peripheral, rural spaces, and partly in 
expanding urban agglomerations.

Since the 1990s, the model of differential 
urbanisation has offered an alternative 
interpretation of the processes of 
concentration and deconcentration. 
Geyer and Kontuly described three 
stages (primate, intermediate, and small 
city phases), out of which the third one 
could provide a background for formal 
urbanisation (Geyer, H.S. and Kontuly, T. 
1993). However, population growth does 
not necessarily occur in towns affected by 
formal urbanisation, but the idea is that the 
focus of urbanisation shifts towards spaces 
outside the urban cores and agglomeration, 
which is reflected in formal urbanisation 
as well. However, empirical results do not 
always confirm this theory (Geyer, H.S. and 
Kontuly, T. 1993), and applications for ECE 
countries are limited (Tammaru, T. 2003).

There are various theoretical approaches to 
describe the new trends of urbanisation that 
are happening outside the core cities. Initially, 
Berry introduced the concept of counter-
urbanisation which later developed into 
more complex theories (Berry, B.J.L. 1980). 
Richardson’s ideas about the deconcentration 
of industry (Richardson, H.W. 1980) that 
triggers polarisation reversal in regional 
and urban development formed the basis of 
theories of polycentric urbanisation (Davoudi, 
S. 2003). The discussion about the ‘borrowed 
size’ of smaller urban settlements claims that 
smaller towns outside of agglomerations 



51Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.

could grow larger by ‘borrowing’ resources 
and development impulses from networked 
primate cities (Burger, M.J. et al. 2015; 
Malý, J. 2016; Meijers, E.J. et al. 2016) and 
is also an aspect of urban decentralisation. 
It is challenging to differentiate between 
similar concepts. Follmann, for example, 
describes peri-urbanisation (Allen, A. 2003; 
Simon, D. 2020) as an ‘umbrella concept’ for 
similar approaches (Follmann, A. 2022). In 
his interpretation, peri-urbanisation could 
be both territorial and functional, and a 
transitional category for urbanising places, 
future towns, or semi-urban spaces. Due to its 
flexibility, this concept is relatively often used 
for ECE countries (Hirt, S. 2007a; Biegańska, 
J. and Szymańska, D. 2013). Efforts are being 
made not only to adopt the concept of peri-
urbanisation to the contemporary processes of 
ECE countries but also to integrate elements 
of theory into the still more commonly used 
model of urban cycles. While investigating 
similarities and differences between 
suburbanisation and peri-urbanisation 
in Poland, Zborowski and his co-authors 
concluded that a fifth state must be added 
to the classical four-state model of urban 
cycles. The new peri-urbanisation phase 
finds its place between suburbanisation and 
desurbanisation and could be characterised 
by decentralisation above centralisation 
and alongside slow counter-urbanisation 
(Zborowski, A. et al. 2012).

The polycentric urban development model 
suggests that small and medium-sized 
towns outside of the central agglomeration 
will experience population growth due 
to differential urbanisation and counter-
urbanisation. However, the overall population 
decline and significant outmigration in the 
ECE region make it difficult for even these 
transitional spaces beyond the metropolitan 
borders to experience local growth. This 
demographic situation creates a clear difference 
between the urbanisation of ECE countries 
and that of Western European countries 
(Steinführer, A. and Haase, A. 2007).

To gain a better understanding of urba-
nisation processes in countries beyond 

major cities, we should shift our focus 
from population changes and migrations 
to the social, functional, and symbolic 
transformations that occur. The concept 
of peri-urbanisation, which describes the 
areas outside of urban centres, can be used 
to help us understand these processes. 
In China, the term ‘semi-urbanisation’ is 
often used to describe the unique aspects 
of their urbanisation processes, which are 
characterised by an intermediate position 
between urban and rural areas (Chen, M. 
et al. 2019). This term not only applies to 
the population living in these areas but 
also to the landscapes that blur the lines 
between towns and villages (Liu, S. et al. 
2004). Similarities can be seen between 
China’s urbanisation processes and those 
of formal urbanisation, particularly in the 
nationwide rural settlement consolidation 
projects that have been conducted (Qianyi, 
W. et al. 2023). These processes have led to 
social transformations such as modernisation 
and changes in lifestyle and habitus, which 
are collectively referred to as ‘in situ 
urbanisation’ (Ginsburg, N.S. et al. 1991; Zhu, 
Y. 1998, 2002).

Urban reclassification reached such a 
scale in Hungary at the beginning of the 
21st century that, in addition to the intense 
interest in politics and public opinion, 
it attracted the professional attention of 
several disciplines. As one visible result of 
that scientific debate, the use of the term 
formal urbanisation itself dates back to this 
period. In this context, Kocsis reviewed the 
European practice of urban reclassification 
around the turn of the millennium, and 
it became clear from this study that post-
socialist Europe in its transition was 
following a fundamentally different path 
from the West (Kocsis, Zs. 2008). The 
question then became a focus of the authors’ 
interest (Trócsányi, A. and Pirisi, G. 2009.), 
and a closer look at the practices of post-
socialist countries followed. Our analysis 
showed that in this region it was still – or 
again – becoming a noteworthy practice, 
with varying degrees of intensity, to elevate 



Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.52

some constitutionally equal municipalities to 
a higher administrative level by individual 
and unquestionable decisions of central 
power (Konecka-Szydłowska, B. 2016; 
Veress, N.Cs. 2016; Konecka-Szydłowska, 
B. et al. 2018; Karsai, V. and Trócsányi, A. 
2019).

Our research is centred around five 
countries that form the core of a region that 
is difficult to define. This region is located 
between the current Russian border and 
the former Iron Curtain and overlaps with 
various historical and geographic regions 
of Europe. Despite the four decades of state 
socialism, these countries’ common roots 
and path dependencies go much deeper. 
We acknowledge Szűcs’s concept of East-
Central Europe (Szűcs, J. 1983, 1994), which 
recognizes the joint historical development 
of the region. It is a historic macroregion 
of Europe where local societies have 
successfully adapted norms and models 
from the core countries of Western Europe. 
Even though the later development of these 
societies was primarily influenced by the 
powers of the Eastern and South-Eastern 
peripheries of the continent, East-Central 
Europe retained its essential similarity to 
the core region and fundamental differences 
from the Eastern peripheries.

In this paper, the authors try to explain 
the significance of formal urbanisation 
in selected East-Central European (ECE) 
countries, focusing on the post-socialist era. 
We will argue that formal urbanisation is an 
integrated part of the overall urbanisation 
process before and after the political and 
social transition of 1990. After the political 
transformation, formal urbanisation 
became a part of the urban deconcentration 
processes, overlapped the processes of sub- 
and counter-urbanisation and contributed 
to forming a peri-urban space. The authors 
think formal urbanisation has not yet been 
contextualised about socialist or post-
socialist urbanisation trends and models. In 
our work, we attempt:

1. to compare the formal urbanisation in 
the socialist and post-socialist era,

2. define the importance and calculate the 
added value of the formal urbanisation in the 
post-socialist era,

3. highlight similarities and differences 
in the administrative background of formal 
urbanisation in the selected countries,

4. describe different types of the newest 
towns generated by formal urbanisation.

The Hungarian Government ensures 
the actuality of the paper, the once largest 
creator of ‘newest towns’4 (Konecka-
Szydłowska, B. et al. 2018) silently decided to 
put a drastic end to the wave of promotion, 
and the number of towns has plateaued 
since (with only two new towns since 2013). 
It is not the end of formal urbanisation, but 
probably the beginning of the end, after 
years of being chroniclers of a contemporary 
process, that gives us a perfect chance to take 
a wider distance and scope and attempt to 
interpret formal urbanisation as a part of the 
overall urbanisation process of East-Central 
European countries. 

Data and methods

The paper analyses the formal urbanisation of 
five selected East-Central European countries: 
the four Visegrad countries completed with 
Romania. The selection was somewhat 
arbitrary. Formal urbanisation played an 
essential role in all these countries except 
Slovakia, creating a significant pool of the 
newest towns in the post-socialist era. The 
data needed for the most fundamental analysis 
were available for these countries, and some 
earlier results also helped the interpretation. 
The limitation of the research to these 
countries results from a compromise. One 
can find the newest towns in other European 
post-socialist countries, too. Still, the different 
historical backgrounds (Post-Soviet and Post-

4 In this paper, we use the term ‘newest town’ to 
distinguish them from previously physically newly 
developed or created counterparts, the new towns 
of the post-war period. Their novelty does not refer 
to their existence, but merely to their urbanity and 
legal classification.



53Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.

Yugoslav development) and difficulties in 
building up a comprehensive database guided 
the authors to narrow this selection. 

The study makes the difference between 
the socialist and post-socialist eras. Although 
1989–1990 (with the fall of the Iron Curtain) 
is widely accepted as the turning point 
in history, and by the end of 1990, every 
selected country had a democratic, elected 
government, we count post-socialist formal 
urbanisation with 1991 as a starting year. Data 
collection happened in 2022–2023, and the 
latest population data usually refer to 2022. 

The list of the newest towns and the year 
of their promotion has been compiled from 
various secondary sources: the official list of 
national statistical offices, with direct data 
service to the authors (Czechia, Hungary), 
publications (Krzysztofik, R. and Dymitrow, 
M. 2015), websites (Poland: Nadania…, 2023), 
and legal sources (Romania: LEGE nr.351; 
Lista orașelor...), and it reflects the status of 
the first half of 2023. Despite all the efforts, 
the database may contain minor mistakes 
in specific cases, but according to our 
knowledge, it represents the general view of 
formal urbanisation correctly.

This paper has used statistical data based 
solely on population numbers. These figures 
were sourced from various online databases, 
such as the 2021/2022 census or other yearly 
data services (INS 2021; CZSO 2022; Statistical 
Office of the SR 2022, Statistics Poland 2023).

Most countries use a multi-level concept 
of urbanity in their public administration. 
Differences between cities and towns 
(municipiu and oraș in Romania, cities with 
powiat rights in Poland, statutory cities in 
Czechia, etc.) or between towns and market 
towns (město and městys in Czechia) were 
not taken into account, and all of them was 
treated as urban places. 

Historical background: formal 
urbanisation during the socialist era

Is there a specific socialist urbanisation in the 
countries of East- and East-Central Europe? 

The existence of a ‘socialist city’ is usually not 
a matter of much doubt. Not only because 
urban planners of the Eastern bloc used this 
term to describe their efforts and struggle 
to create the utopistic spatial framework of 
the socialist society. But the phrase has also 
been used widely by researchers from both 
East and West (Turnock, D. 1974; French, 
R.A. and Hamilton, I. 1979; Demko, G.J. 
and Regulska, J. 1987a; Hausladen, G. 
1987) while the socialist city, not only in 
prototypical, ‘green field’ form but the more 
standard version of transformed cities were 
doubtless existing realities, the question of 
their urbanisation is much more complicated. 
Was there a unique ‘socialist urbanisation’ 
or just an ‘urbanisation under socialism’? In 
their famous paper, Konrád and Szelényi 
published the theory of ‘under-urbanisation’ 
and became one of the most cited authors 
of socialist urbanisation (Konrád, Gy. 
and Szelényi, I. 1974). Later, more papers 
confirmed the concept of underurbanisation 
and emphasised the unique nature of 
socialist urbanisation (Kansky, K.J. 1976; 
Fuchs, R.J. and Demko, G.J. 1979; Fuchs, R.J. 
1980).

Enyedi, however, somewhat later 
interpreted the process much more like 
urbanisation during socialism as an integral 
part of the global urbanisation model 
(Enyedi, Gy. 1990, 1996). Therefore, the stages 
of the global urbanisation process (Van den 
Berg, L. et al. 1982) would also appear in this 
region – only with an unavoidable delay 
and asynchronous even among the ECE 
countries.

What was the role of formal urbanisation 
in this era and region? Its significance is 
clear by numbers only. According to the 
data given by Kovács, Z. (2010), during 
the socialism until 1990, the number of 
officially classified towns tripled in Hungary, 
increased 2,5 times in Bulgaria and had 
spectacular growth in Romania (70%), 
Slovakia (64%) and Poland (20%). Exceptions 
were the historically most developed and 
urbanised regions of the Eastern Bloc: the 
(contemporary) Czechia and the (late) GDR. 



Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.54

Many of these newly recognised towns are 
matter-of-fact new towns, products of central 
planning and design. The number of new 
towns founded in the era could exceed 200 
in the ECE countries excluding the Soviet 
Union (Szirmai, V. 2017), but these are still 
the lesser part of the growth concerning 
the urban ‘stock’ (which is about 450 units 
between 1945 and 1990).

In the mid of the 1970s, Konrád and 
Szelényi interpreted the gap between the 
non-agricultural employees and the urban 
residents as a sign of under-urbanisation, 
highlighting the enormously increased 
number of commuters, who are not to 
be confused with the subjects of the later 
suburbanisation (Konrád, Gy. and Szelényi, 
I. 1974). Living in rural places and working in 
the urban industry: Szelényi described this 
group as the new working class (Szelényi, 
I. 1981). Therefore, both the decrease of the 
rural and the growth of the urban population 
were slower than expected, and even the 
‘changing definition of urban areas’ (in our 
words: formal urbanisation) took a part in 
it (Fuchs, R.J. 1980). The original concept of 
underurbanisation emphasised limited rural-
urban migration and moderate population 
growth; however, from the 1970s, the 
discrepancy between the rank and function 
of certain places became more and more 
visible in Hungary (Tóth, J. 1980, 2008; 
Beluszky, P. and Győri, R. 1999). Under-
urbanisation, therefore, gained a partly 
different, new meaning, too: the lack of 
officially recognised, ‘urban-ranked’ places 
compared to places with central functions 
and dominantly urban, non-agricultural 
populations. In the 1980s, these functionally 
urban places became beneficiaries of the 
accelerating reclassification process and were 
gradually promoted to towns.

However, with all these connections to 
under-urbanisation, formal urbanisation 
in these decades let itself be interpreted 
according to Enyedi’s abovementioned 
approach. If we focus on the two identified 
major groups affected by formal urbanisation, 
the type of socialist cities, more accurately 

socialist small towns5 and the functionally 
and economically strengthened more 
traditional small towns, they not only 
symbolise two different stages in the 
spatial planning of socialist countries but 
also could be connected to two different 
stages of the urbanisation model. The first 
group is connected to a decent rural-urban 
migration with intensive concertation of 
people, mainly the industrial workforce. It, 
therefore, could be interpreted as part of the 
first stage of urbanisation. The second group 
could be linked with the second phase of 
urbanisation: the relative deconcentration, 
where Enyedi emphasised in his approach 
that the deconcentration is not equal to 
suburbanisation but affects the less urbanised, 
rural hinterlands, wherever secondary cities 
and small towns became local poles of urban 
growth (Enyedi, Gy. 2011). Similarly, the 
theory of ‘differential urbanisation’ (Geyer, 
H. and Kontuly, T. 1993) highlighted the role 
of intermediate and small cities in the later 
stages of urbanisation. In our case, a typically 
moderate migration from surrounding 
ruralities to the small centres/towns occurs, 
and a minor but essential migration of white-
collar workers and intellectuals from cities to 
towns (Szelényi, I. 1981). Comparing the two 
groups, formal urbanisation is a collateral 
effect in the first case when the town was 
built around an investment; the rank had 
secondary importance: a milestone and a 
reason for a celebration, but not the key to 
further development. In the second case, 
however, the positive correlation between 
rank and development, as described above, 
could be crucial. 

5 A list of new or socialist towns could be cited from 
the block like Komló (gained town rank in 1951), 
Várpalota (1951) Kazincbarcika (1954) in Hungary; 
Partizánske (1948), Detva (1965) Nová Dubnica 
(1960) in Slovakia; Tychy (1951) in Poland; Victoria 
(1954) in Romania, etc. In fact, in the years of gaining 
the town rank, the majority of promoted settlements 
were rather rural, although the later (industrial, 
infrastructural and housing development projects 
granted them rapid (urban) growth.



55Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.

The post-socialist urbanisation

Even if 34 years have passed after the political 
changes in the forerunner countries of East-
Central Europe, and even if a significant 
number of papers are published on this field, 
the research of the post-socialist urbanisation 
remained imbalanced both geographically 
– ECE countries dominate the discourse – 
and thematically, thus, case-study bases 
approaches dominate the analyses (Sýkora, 
L. and Bouzarovski, S. 2012; Frost, I. 2018). 

The earliest case studies focused on capital 
cities: Prague (Sýkora, L. 1999; Temelova, 
J. 2007), Warsaw (Bourdeau-Lepage, L. and 
Huriot, J.M. 2002; Weclawowicz, G. 2005), 
and Budapest (Kovács, Z. 1998, 2009a,b) are 
pretty overrepresented in scientific literature, 
and later other capital cities (Bucharest, 
Belgrade, Sofia) joined this analysis (Vujović, 
S. and Petrović, M. 2007; Hirt, S. 2007b, 2008; 
Light, D. and Young, C. 2010; Marcińczak, 
Sz. et al. 2014). Much less attention was given 
to smaller cities (Young, C. and Kaczmarek, 
S. 2008; Haase, A. and Rink, D. 2015). The 
transformation was conceptualised mainly 
based on the processes and problems of 
the capital cities (Kovács, Z. 1999; Sailer-
Fliege, U. 1999; Tosics, I. 2005; Stanilov, 
K. 2007; Hirt, S. 2013; Berki, M. 2014; 
Farkas, R. and Klobucnic, M. 2021). The 
transformation of the housing market, the 
effects of privatisation, the changing role and 
practice of planning, the change of public 
and symbolic spaces and the switching 
patterns of urban land use are the main 
elements of the theoretical concepts of post-
socialist urban development (Egedy, T. and 
Ságvári, B. 2021). The overall transformation 
of the urban system including the emergence 
of new towns of reclassification got much 
less attention (Pirisi, G. and Trócsányi, A. 
2012; Szilágyi, F. 2012; Mitrică, B. et al. 2014; 
Bocheński, T. 2023).

Exceptions are papers focusing on internal 
migration, population concentration, and 
deconcentration. Especially in Hungary 
(Brown, D.L. et al. 2005) and Poland 
(Zborowski, A. et al. 2012), these processes 

are well described and analysed. Results are 
similar in both countries: the surplus in the 
migration balance was significant in the 1970s 
for the major cities and entirely disappeared 
by the end of the 1980s. Deconcentration of 
the population has started, and the rural 
settlements have become net gainers of 
the restructuring. The crisis of the cities, 
especially some industrial and/or artificial, 
planned new towns, is among the reasons 
moving back to rural areas was a possible 
reaction of the lower classes to the economic 
distress (Brown, D.L. et al. 2005). But mainly, 
it is ‘classical’ suburbanisation which was 
to be observed all over the ECE countries 
and was responsible for the – relative – 
deconcentration of the population (Kok, H. 
and Kovács, Z. 1999; Timár, J. and Váradi, 
M.M. 2001; Hirt, S. 2007a; Sławomir, K.  
et al. 2015; Ouředníček, M. et al. 2019). Also, 
especially after 2010, there was evidence 
of counter-urbanisation as part of the 
rural restructuring processes (Šimon, M. 
2014; Csurgó, B. et al. 2018). However, the 
deconcentration processes did not affect 
all rural areas, not even many small towns, 
where shrinking was typical in Hungary 
(Pirisi, G. and Trócsányi, A. 2014) and 
occurred in Poland, too (Bartosiewicz, B.  
et al. 2019). Also, deconcentration did not last 
too long: in Hungary, the migration balance 
of Budapest (and the other cities’ and towns’ 
aggregated value, too) turned to positive 
in 2006, and in 2016, it became slightly 
negative once again – probably affected 
by the government’s specific decision in 
its new housing policy. Reurbanisation 
(and gentrification) in the whole region 
became a spectacular and scientifically 
well-represented phenomenon, not only 
in capital cities but in regional centres, 
too (Kovács, Z. et al. 2013; Haase, A.  
et al. 2017; Kurek, S. and Wójtowicz, M. 2018; 
Sławomir, K. and Wójtowicz, M. 2018).

Suburbanisation, counter-urbanisation 
and reurbanisation – processes that 
represent stages of the Western European 
urbanisation. Is there anything unique in 
the local processes at the scale of the urban 



Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.56

system? As we have seen, most of the 
research focuses ‘explicitly’ on post-socialist 
urbanisation, selecting the scale of the (large) 
city and finding a sort of regional peculiarity 
as a result of multiple transformations 
(Sýkora, L. and Bouzarovski, S. 2012). Other 
approaches emphasise the hybrid nature of 
ECE-urbanisation (Taubenböck, H. et al. 
2019), and some researchers reject the post-
socialist context and emphasise the global 
nature of the post-socialist processes using 
the uneven development approach (Timár, 
J. 2007; Smith, A. and Timár, J. 2010). This 
debate affects the heart of the modernisation 
of the region. The adaption of competing 
approaches of traditional, homogenising 
modernisation, multiple modernities 
defined by path dependencies and entangled 
modernity give various possibilities of 
different interpretations (Wiest, K. 2012). 

If we accept that the East-Central European 
countries’ modernisation path was somewhat 
different from the Western European 
countries and their current urbanisation 
has some unique features, we may also 
accept the term post-socialist development 
and urbanisation. It is unnecessary because 
all the contemporary phenomena need to 
be interpreted as a consequence of the era 
between 1945 and 1989: path dependencies 
may go deeper into the history of the semi-
peripheries of Europe. Formal urbanisation, 
as we interpret it, also preserved some archaic 
features. However, formal urbanisation 
was part of both socialist and post-socialist 
development. In many ways, the post-
socialist formal urbanisation is closely related 

to the era of socialist development. Therefore, 
in this case, we believe the term post-
socialist urbanisation is the best framework 
for the analysis – at least at the stage that 
followed but not necessarily derived from 
the urbanisation of the socialist era. 

The role of formal urbanisation in the post-
socialist era has been affected by the changing 
demographic conditions, which have not been 
favourable for urban growth. According to 
Sobotka, T. and Fürnkranz-Prskawetz, A. 
(2020), the natural population decrease has 
become the most important factor in Hungary, 
Romania, and Poland, and this has been 
accompanied by significant outmigration, 
especially after the EU integration in some 
of these countries. Table 1 provides more 
information on this trend.

The comparison of the total and urban 
population change reveals some differences 
among the selected countries. In Hungary, 
the urban population figure grew, even 
with a 6 percent natural decrease in the 
population, while in Slovakia, we found a 
decreasing urban population in a growing 
population figure. The rate of urbanisation 
moderately decreased in Poland and 
Czechia, somewhat more in Slovakia, while 
Romania was able to realise a minimal and 
in Hungary a significant increase. 

This visible divergence in the countries’ 
urbanisation (with Czechia, Poland and 
Slovakia on the one, Hungary and Romania 
on the other hand) has to be reasoned at 
the ‘lower end’ of the urban hierarchy: 
the population change of the large and 
middle-sized cities is very similar, except 

Table 1. Demographic aspects of post-socialist urbanisation in selected countries, 1990–2020)

Selected 
countries

Ratio, 2020/1990 Rate of urbanisation, %
Total 

population
Urban 

population
Population of cities/
towns over 20,000 1990 2020

Czechia
Hungary
Poland
Romania
Slovakia

1.01
0.94
0.99
0.83
1.03

1.02
1.03
0.97
0.85
0.98

0.92
0.95
0.80
0.97
0.97

75.2
65.8
61.3
53.2
56.5

74.1
71.9
60.0
54.2
53.8

Source: Based on authors’ calculation. Total population data: Eurostat database, urban population data UN 
World Urbanization Prospects – definition of urban hereby refers to national classifications. Population of 
cities/towns over 20,000 – limitation refers to 2020, data taken from citypopulation.de. 



57Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.

Poland. Therefore, looking at the effects 
of formal urbanisation, it may be visible 
in the gap between the change in the rate 
of urbanisation and the conversion in the 
population of major cities and towns. 

Slightly more than three decades after the 
political transition, more than 800 settlements 
have been reclassified as towns in the five 
investigated ECE countries (Table 2). These 
808 newest towns had more than 2.87 million 
inhabitants in 2022, which exceeds 5.8 
percent of the total urban population of these 
countries. Therefore, formal urbanisation 
became the primary source of growth that 
replaced the traditional urban population 
increase after 1990. The case of Hungary 
is emergent, but there is a significant 
contribution in Czechia and Romania, 
too. These nearly three million new urban 
residents created by formal urbanisation 
halved the decrease of the urban population 
in the region. Even though differences 
between countries are apparent, the average 
population size of the newest towns varies 
from 1,671 (CZE) to 8,120 (ROM). 

Similarities and differences in the regulation of 
formal urbanisation

In addition to the countries analysed above, 
formal urbanisation can be found in almost 

the entire post-socialist region. Its formal 
nature means that it is defined by a legal 
framework, which we have tried to explore 
through an attempt to understand the 
practice in a dozen countries6. Its formal 
nature means that it is defined by a legal 
framework, which we have attempted to 
explore through an attempt to understand 
the practice in a dozen countries. For reasons 
of geographical proximity, we also looked 
at Austria’s administrative system and the 
regulation of urbanisation, which showed 
markedly different characteristics, thus, 
confirming the phenomenon’s post-socialist 
nature. The following conclusions can be 
drawn after studying the formal urbanisation 
frameworks of the countries under study.

One of the significant demands of the 
political changes around 1990 was the 
abolition of central regulation of spatial 
processes, the demand for territorial 
decentralisation in general, and the increase 
of municipal autonomy, which was enacted 
into law in almost all countries until 1995, 
sometimes linked to the constitution (e.g., 
in Hungary, the fundamental rights of 
settlements are equal), sometimes within 
the framework of a comprehensive law on 

6 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, 
Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Serbia,  
Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine.

Table 2. Formal urbanisation after 1990 in selected ECE countries

Selected 
countries

Total number 
of urban 

settlements

Reclassified settlements 
between 1991 and 2022 Population of reclassified settlements

1990* 2022 Number Share to urban 
settlements, % Total Share to urban 

population in 2022, %
Average 

size
Czechia
Hungary
Poland
Romania
Slovakia

434
164
824
259
135

837
348
979
319
141

403
184
155
60
6

48.15
52.80
15.83
18.80
4.25

673,258
1,211,246

468,222
487,196
29,217

8.82
17.63
2.05
5.30
1.05

1,671
6,582
3,020
8,120
4,869

Total 1,816 2,624 808 30.79 2,869,139 5.83 3,551
*Including towns promoted in 1990. Source: Authors’ calculation, based on the national statistical offices’ 
data services. Urban population is calculated as the sum of the population of settlements with urban rank. 
In the case of Czechia, all types of urban settlements (statutarní mesto / statuary cities, mesto / towns, 
městys / market towns) were considered. 



Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.58

local governments, in other cases supported 
by sectoral regulations, but generally with 
a permissive attitude to make up for the 
earlier shortfall and with a nomenclature 
adapted to international urban concepts or 
the spatial development system in the spirit 
of EU harmonisation. A common feature is 
that, although the decision to award the town 
rank is taken at the highest level (president, 
parliament, ministries), the right and the 
possibility to take the initiative rests with 
the municipality/settlement/community 
concerned. In some countries studied, the 
town rank confers privileges (differentiated 
state support, a share of tax revenue, state 
institutions, the right to self-government 
or other authorities) and responsibilities. 
Still, the scope of these advantages seems 
to be generally thinning, and the rank is 
increasingly becoming just a title.

Each of these regulations considers 
the town a complex phenomenon, so in 
addition to size, it usually prescribes/assesses 
development, dynamism, infrastructure, 
spatial structure and, finally, additional 
specific characteristics. In Hungary, there 
is – in theory – no minimum population 
threshold; in Lithuania 500, in Bulgaria 1,000 
for holiday resorts and 3,500 otherwise, in 
Poland 2,000, in Lithuania and Slovenia 
3,000, in Czechia 3,500, in Romania and 
Slovakia 5,000, while in Croatia, for example, 
a population of 10,000 is required. Despite 
this, one can find tiny, small towns in the 
region7, and even some of the newest ones of 
the post-socialist period (Pálháza, H – 1,048, 
Kiten, BG – 1,131, Přebuz, CZ – 73, Wiślica, 
PL – 477, Opatowiec, PL – 313 inhabitants). 

Development is usually measured in 
terms of infrastructure (percentage of 

7 Quite small towns (villages with urban status) can 
be found in many places in Europe, from Germany 
to Croatia, from the Netherlands to Bulgaria, and 
from France to Czechia. A fundamental post-social-
ist feature, however, is that while the less populous 
towns of the West have sometimes dwindled over 
the centuries, retaining their former status, their tiny 
counterparts in the East have recently gained their 
urban status due to modern developments.

paved roads, sewerage connections, rate of 
fully comfortable housing units) and less 
and less in terms of population (education, 
employment), but it is also usually measured 
in terms of institutional facilities (hospital, 
high school, police station, commercial 
accommodation, etc.). In connection with 
geographical concepts of the towns and 
cities, the regulations usually require a 
spatial organisation function that extends 
beyond the municipality’s boundaries. 
This can be reflected in the organisation 
of public administration (regional centres, 
town centres), institutions (hospitals, 
decentralised public institutions, etc.) and 
employment (commuters’ share). Tourism, 
which is difficult to define but often appears 
as a significant regional role, is subject to 
differentiated regulation and/or permissive 
practices in the countries studied. Partly 
linked to tourism, heritage elements are 
a link between present practices and the 
(glorious) historical past. An even stronger 
connection is the fact that no country takes 
the title/rank away – not any downgraded 
municipalities for non-compliance with the 
law8 – from settlements that have lost much 
of their role, economic power and not least 
their population, so that it is possible that 
Melnik in Bulgaria, for example, with its 234 
inhabitants, is still a (museum) town today. 
A specific (post-)socialist (or East-Central 
European) feature is that there are defined 
exceptions everywhere in the legislation (for 
historical, political, economic, territorial, 
geographic, and territorial-political reasons). 
Still, the criteria are generally so soft or 
flexible that even with fixed thresholds, the 
decision-makers on the award of the town 
rank have sufficient leeway. In this way, 
formal urbanisation has also become a scene 
for political games. Although the urban title 
is worth less and less in practice, not all 

8 The only example in the region in Romania is Bănea-
sa in Constanța county, which reclaimed its munic-
ipal village status 13 years after being reclassified to 
a town. It held the town rank between 10 April 2004 
and 17 January 2019, when it was reclassified (back) 
following a local referendum held on 11 June 2017.



59Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.

players realise this, and many municipalities 
are still making considerable sacrifices to be 
reclassified.

Types of formal urbanisation

The range of settlements that have been 
promoted to urban status by formal 
urbanisation is sufficiently numerous to 
attempt to identify internal characteristics 
and structural types. This is attempted below 
(Table 3).

During the socialist development, 
modernisation through industrialisation 
was the primary driving factor for formal 
urbanisation, however, it was not the only 
driving factor. The development paths of 
the newly promoted towns were convergent 
but not identical. On the other hand, post-
socialist formal urbanisation is characterised 
by a high level of heterogeneity in the 
settlements involved, and their development 
is also divergent. The region has a unique 
position, transitioning from a sort of 
socialism to a form of global capitalism while 
integrating into the European Union. It is 
part of the global core but still considered 
the periphery of this centre, demonstrating 
a real semi-peripheric nature The formal 
urbanisation of the area reveals delayed 
development, anachronistic attitudes, 
vulnerability and resilience amidst deep 
structural crises, and successful adaptation 
to global challenges. Despite the complexity 
and chaos of this process, we have identified 

three types of formal urbanisation: a 
historically determined path, a type resulting 
from delayed modernisation, and a type of 
new spatial polarisation. 

Historical determined formal urbanisation

In the countries under investigation, 
modernisation was closely tied to the struggle 
for a nation-state during the 19th and partly  
20th centuries. In the 20th century, only a few 
regions of the investigated area (Hungary 
and the historical Romanian regions of 
Oltenia, Muntenia and Moldova) belonged 
to the same country for the entirety of the 
century. The frequent changes in government 
led to ongoing administrative reforms, 
which sometimes resulted in the revision of 
urban ranks and privileges. This meant that 
towns and cities were sometimes stripped of 
their urban status. For instance, in Poland, 
many towns were demoted in 1869–1870, 
widely interpreted as the Imperial Russian 
authorities’ repression of local autonomy 
(Sokołowski, D. 2014). More towns were 
downgraded in 1934, and some were stripped 
of their status shortly after World War II. Out 
of the 828 towns that were once degraded 
in Poland, 240 were restituted until 2015 
(Krzysztofik, R. and Dymitrow, M. 2015), 
and 56 have been restituted since then. In 
other words, our calculations show that over 
80 percent of newly promoted Polish towns 
have a restitutional background. Restitution is 
sometimes part of administrative changes, 

Table 3. Types of post-socialist formal urbanisation

Indicators Historical determined Delayed modernisation New spatial polarisation

Population change Low and shrinking Stagnating or shrinking Growing, even booming

Functional changes
Lack of general central 
functions except in some 
exceptional cases

Conserved functions with 
growing microregional im-
portance

Improving central functions 
in particular, but not every 
aspect

Subtypes

Restitutional towns Small rural towns Suburban towns

Heritage/Image towns – Recreation towns 

Ghost towns – New company towns



Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.60

where former amalgamations have been 
dissolved, and new, independent towns 
have been promoted. Restitution in Poland 
has resulted in the smallest new towns in 
the region: Opatowiec, with its population 
of 313, can be compared with smaller 
villages; however, a dozen other small 
towns population from this category are not 
reaching the population of 1,000. 

Restitution is a well-discussed issue among 
urban geographers in Poland, and the 
process is documented in detail. However, 
in Czechia, there is hardly any analysis 
available on formal urbanisation and 
restitutions. Even though historical reasons 
could also play a significant role in the 
Czech formal urbanisation. The category of 
‘městys’ (market towns) is unique and seems 
to be a fitting category. Individual town 
histories refer in almost every case to the 
administrative change as the place ‘regained 
its town status’. These places typically have 
low population figures, even lower than the 
Polish average. A representative example is 
Lipnice nad Sázavou, a market town with 
less than 700 inhabitants in Kraj Vysočina. 
It has a spectacular castle founded around 
1310, and the town rights were granted in 
1370. Later, however, it remained a small 
rural town completely burned down with 
a castle in 1869 and lost all town rights. Its 
market town status was regained in 2019 
based on historical foundations. In Slovakia, 
four of the six promoted towns had some 
historical urban privileges until the end 
of the 19th century, but it seems it was not 
the primary factor. In Hungary, restitution 
has never been an explicit goal in formal 
urbanisation. However, town candidates 
must describe in their applications their roles 
in the administration throughout history. 
This may refer to the fact that historically, 
there was a significant cut among the 
places with urban privileges in 1871/1886. 
Therefore, there is a relatively high but never 
specified ratio among the newly promoted 
towns with an urban past.

Historical paths play a significant role in 
determining formal urbanisation beyond 

just the restitution process. In Hungary, 
heritage sites such as Visegrád (former 
royal castles) or Pannonhalma (first abbey 
founded in 996) have become towns that 
refer to their historical heritage. In Romania, 
where restitution was unimportant, regional 
policy goals determined formal urbanisation, 
resulting in many towns with important 
historical heritage or past cultural functions, 
such as Tismana9 and Săliște. Additionally, 
recent history can also influence 
urbanisation. For instance, some villages in 
the socialist era were industrialised but not 
formally urbanised. Promotion in these cases 
happened after the collapse of local heavy 
industries as a form of compensation or an 
attempt to break the negative trends. Such 
towns, mixed in society, spatial structure, 
and retaining some elements of their bright 
past, are unique elements of the urban 
network. Examples of this type include 
Bélapátfalva (former cement industry), 
Sajóbábony (chemical industry, explosives) 
in Hungary, Tułowice (porcelain factory 
closed, city status granted later in 2018), and 
Wojkowice (promotion preceded the collapse 
of mining and cement industry) in Poland. 

It is perhaps an exaggeration to call ghost 
towns the settlements experiencing the most 
intense depopulation, yet they are probably 

9 Tismana represent a specific historic route of urban 
development. During the Byzantine era, Nicodemus 
of Tismana built a monastery in the 1300s, which 
made it an important religious centre. Tismana 
boasts traditional craftsmanship and a beautiful 
natural setting, with some of its areas belonging to 
the Domogled-Valea Cernei National Park and also 
bordering the Retyezat National Park. In 1973, the 
Minister of Tourism declared Tismana a ‘tourism 
village’ to repair the degradation of its status as a 
climatic locality at the village level. However, until 
that order, Tismana was not open to foreign tourists 
due to the Securitate’s prohibition against accom-
modating them in private homes. Nonetheless, the 
‘tourism village’ title enabled slow development, 
with the preservation of the historical heritage, even 
during the Ceaușescu era, providing a good foun-
dation for the subsequent development. Tismana 
gained the town rank in 2004, and now administers 
ten villages and is home to 1,903 people, with a total 
population of 5,027 people.



61Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.

the ones that most clearly mark the dichotomy 
of glorious past and decaying present. There 
are no classic ghost towns at the municipal 
level among the newest towns, but there 
are some among the new ones. Pripyat is a 
clear example of the broader region, with a 
population that once approached 50,000 but 
has now officially fallen to zero, making the 
once thriving industrial town an emblematic 
abandoned city. However, in each of the 
countries in the region under study, there are 
sectors of settlements, usually far from the 
centre, in well-isolated, hidden, defensible 
areas and where, for example, the former 
Soviet army has established mini towns 
(military barracks, airfields, ammunition 
depots etc.). After the withdrawal of the 
Soviet military, these formerly artificially 
kept alive settlements became deserted ghost 
towns. Perhaps the most typical example of 
this type is Kłomino in Poland, once home to 
5,000 people, now with around 12, according 
to statistics.

Even though some places have lost 
and regained old privileges due to 
turbulent history or late compensation for 
interrupted urbanisation, the historical type 
characteristically implies low population 
figures. Many of these towns do not qualify 
as a relative concentration of population in 
rural areas. Moreover, if formal urbanisation 
is based on historical merits or traditions, 
new towns usually decline in population. In 
Poland, between 2011 and 2021, 77 percent of 
the newest towns that were restituted had a 
decline in their population. Non-restitutional 
new towns had a small, aggregated 
population growth, while the restitutional 
ones had a slight aggregated loss.

Formal urbanisation and delayed modernisation

The second type of formal urbanisation 
is essentially a later iteration of socialist 
urbanisation that was extended into the 
1990s and beyond. As mentioned, formal 
urbanisation in the planned economy era 
was not restricted to new industrial towns. 

Small rural centres could also undergo urban 
reclassification in the second half of this 
period.

After the political changes, the trend 
towards formal urbanisation continued, 
but the reasons behind it became more 
complex. In Hungary and Romania, 
regional development policies encouraged 
the establishment of further newest towns, 
but the justifications for doing so varied. 
In Romania, the goal was to increase the 
rate of urbanisation to meet EU standards 
(Benedek, J. 2006). This led to a wave of 
formal urbanisation in 2004, with more 
than half of the newest towns in the country 
being promoted as part of the preparation 
for European integration (Săgeată, R. 2010). 
Hungary had a similar situation, with around 
one-third of the newest towns belonging 
to this type. Examples of these new towns 
include Bátaszék, Enying, Csákvár, and 
Gyönk, which typically serve as the centre 
of their micro-region, performing various 
administrative, educational, or retail 
functions (Trócsányi, A. et al. 2018). These 
places are functionally weak and socially 
mixed, combining rural and urban attitudes 
and values (Veress, N.Cs. 2016). There is still 
much debate about the level of urbanity and 
the taxonomy of these official urban places 
(Dövényi, Z. 2005).

There is a significant overlap between this 
type and the historical one above. This is 
because the restitutional towns in Czechia 
and Poland also serve as rural centres despite 
having a limited population (Konecka-
Szydłowska, B. 2016). Like many larger 
Hungarian rural centres, the newest towns 
with restitutional backgrounds sometimes 
have a more (inherited) urban-built character. 

These semi-urban places sometimes face 
the problem of shrinking (Bartosiewicz, B.  
et al. 2019), and they do not serve even 
as small-scale centres of population 
concentration. However, it does not imply 
that the newest towns classified under this 
type are entirely unsuccessful. In 2008–2009, 
the European Union’s regional development 
sources became available in larger quantities, 



Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.62

which helped some towns to improve their 
spatial position by investing in renewing 
public institutions and infrastructure and 
creating a more urban character (Vaishar, A. 
et al. 2015; Horeczki, R. and Egyed, I. 2021). 
Although these investments were typically 
insufficient to prevent the towns from 
shrinking, they did help to stabilise their 
positions in terms of public services and other 
tertiary functions. Moreover, these newest 
towns are the most resilient elements of the 
rural landscape and can sustain most of the 
social structures and urban functions, while 
the surrounding villages are depopulating 
and becoming isolated, resembling urban 
mesas in the eroding rural wasteland (Máté, 
É. 2017; Alpek, B.L. et al. 2022).

The urbanisation of the new spatial polarisation

Restitution based on past development and 
small rural centres also represents a concept 
of 20th-century urbanisation. The political 
transformation coincided with globalisation, 
which fundamentally transformed the 
framework and possibilities of urbanisation, 
too. Authors sometimes defined it as a new 
stage of the urbanisation cycle (Enyedi, Gy. 
2011) and emphasised the dominance of 
the global processes and globalised core-
periphery relations over the post-socialist 
roots (Nagy, E. 2005; Nagy, G. et al. 2012), 
furthermore, interpreted these processes 
based on the theory of uneven development 
(Timár, J. and Váradi, M.M. 2001; Smith, A. 
and Timár, J. 2010).

The primary and most spectacular process 
has been the relative deconcentration of 
the population around the major cities. 
Suburbanisation created new types of urban spaces 
including the newest towns. Suburbanisation 
in the ECE countries did not begin after the 
political transformation but was somewhat 
constrained and suppressed during the 
decades of socialism. As a result, a ‘suburban 
revolution’ (Stanilov, K. and Sýkora, L. 
2014) emerged after 1990 and was powerful 
enough to create numerous suburban places, 

leading to the reclassification of some of the 
newly emerged places – which was only an 
exceptional phenomenon before 1989.

Like the industrial towns of the 1950s 
and 60s, suburban types are the most 
typical elements of the post-socialist era. 
The population growth resulting from the 
migration is extreme, at least on the ECE 
scale. Among the newest towns, for example, 
Veresegyház in Budapest agglomeration has 
grown from 6,300 (in 1990) to 20,600 (2021); 
Gyömrő from 11,500 to 20,500; Halásztelek 
from 6,200 to 12,000. Králův Dvůr (in the 
vicinity of Prague) from 5,600 to 10,000; 
Siechnice (next to Wróclaw) from 4,000 
(2002) to 10,000 (2021); Popești-Leordeni 
(Bucharest-South) from 15,000 (2002) 
to 53,000 (2021). Despite the advance of 
formal urbanisation and rapid population 
growth, some settlements have resisted 
reclassification or have not gained the central 
government’s support; therefore, the largest 
villages10 in the study area are primarily over 
10,000 inhabitants and dominantly belong 
to the suburban type. A striking example 
is Florești (Cluj-Napoca agglomeration), 
with its population of over 50,000 and a 
poorly managed mix of urban and rural 
characteristics. 

Although suburban-type newest towns 
appear in every researched country, in 
Hungary and Romania are considered the 
most typical countries for this type of formal 
urbanisation. This is not necessarily an 
indication of the intensity of suburbanisation 
itself in these countries but instead reflects 
the structure of their suburban space and 
also their national practices of formal 
urbanisation. For example, the number of 
suburban newest towns can also depend 
on previous reclassification, as only a few 
settlements in Hungary and Romania had 
town status before 1990. Additionally, there 
are well-studied cases where suburbanisation 
occurs within the city limits and does 
10 Florești in Romania – 52,735 (2021), Kozy in Po-

land – 13,024 (2017), Solymár in Hungary – 10,951 
(2022), Smižany in Slovakia – 8,838 (2021), Bystřice 
in Czechia – 5,291 habitants (2023).



63Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.

not result in suburban towns (Kubeš, J. 
and Nováček, A. 2019; Szmytkie, R. 2021; 
Vasárus, G.L. and Lennert, J. 2022). It is 
important to note that suburban areas are not 
limited to the capitals but can also be found 
in less complex agglomerations around 
second-tier cities, such as Świątniki Górne 
next to Kraków, Modřice South of Brno, or 
Kozármisleny next to Pécs.

Several of the latest suburban towns have 
relatively diminutive, traditional rural cores, 
with the former villages nearly vanishing 
into the vast expanse of new residential 
areas. Conversely, some towns possessed or 
still possess small urban centres before their 
suburbanisation growth. Although these 
communities experience growth, success and 
affluence theoretically, they often encounter 
difficulties rectifying their unbalanced 
development, addressing environmental 
issues (Kovács, Z. et al. 2020), enhancing their 
infrastructural capabilities, and improving 
their urban functions.

The second typical form of the urbanisation 
of the new polarisation involves the 
development of recreational functions. 
Recreation and tourism have had a complex 
role in urbanisation, as tourist attractions 
and recreational opportunities in rural 
areas can drive economic growth and create 
employment (Leśniewska-Napierała, K. 
and Napierała, T. 2017). This can help 
make tourism-affected communities more 
resilient to demographic decline. However, 
this does not necessarily mean that these 
holiday resorts become the subject of intense 
population concentration due to rural-to-
urban migration. Property prices in these 
towns are often high, indicating a permanent 
demand from urban residents. The trend 
typically begins with summer or second 
homes (Hoogendoorn, G. and Visser, J. 
2010; Leetmaa, K. et al. 2012), followed by 
permanent migration (Makowska-Iskierka, 
M. 2015) and gentrification of these towns 
(Donaldson, R. 2009). However, the 
incoming population is usually much 
older than the traditional demographic 
composition. This type of urbanisation, 

which places the focus on the well-being 
of citizens, seems to be an emerging trend 
in overall small-town development (Ježek, 
J. 2011; Kwiatek-Sołtys, A. and Mainet, H. 
2014; Fertner, C. et al. 2015; Majewska, A. 
et al. 2022). The relative population growth 
might have been quick after the transition, 
but these towns are still small (Harkány with 
a population of 5,060; and Zalakaros 2,234 in 
Hungary, Krynica Morska 1,183 in Poland; 
Geoagiu 5,000 in Romania; Lázně Toušeň 
1,400 in Czechia) – partly, because larger 
spa towns gained urban rank before 1990, 
especially in Czechia. 

Spa towns are great examples of in 
situ urbanisation from three different 
perspectives. Firstly, tourists and seasonal 
residents demand services not usually 
available in smaller settlements, such as 
middle-sized supermarkets, specialised 
health and beauty services, real estate 
agencies, and better transport accessibility. 
Even though these services may be driven 
by seasonal demand, they are also available 
in the winter and serve permanent residents. 
Secondly, local governments invest in 
physical upgrades to improve the appearance 
of towns and create new public spaces and 
parks, which are visible signs of urbanisation 
or the desired urban image. Thirdly, the 
involvement of local citizens in the tourism 
industry as employees or entrepreneurs 
accelerates the spread of urban habits and 
lifestyles, leading to improvements in the 
private built environment, language skills, 
business experiences, and personal contacts 
with foreigners. Spa towns used to be 
pioneers of the private economy during the 
socialist era and have remained outposts of 
urbanisation in rural areas even after the 
transition.

The reindustrialisation of the region 
characterizes the third sub-type. This process 
of spatial restructuring has been a significant 
part of the region’s economic transformation 
(Gorzelak, G. 1996), resulting in the 
emergence of new types of core-periphery 
relations (Pavlínek, P. 2004; Pénzes, J. 
2013). During the reindustrialisation 



Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.64

process that began in the mid-1990s, some 
places emerged as winners of this structural 
change. While the tertiary sector dominates 
significant cities, these newest towns gained 
new functions as industrial hubs (Nagy, Cs. 
et al. 2020), and a few even have become 
part of the most industrialised settlements. 
The sudden increase in economic activity 
and employment, therefore increased 
tax revenues, accompanied by essential 
infrastructure development, has brought 
rapid and specific modernisation to these 
places. There is a significant overlap 
between the suburban newest towns and the 
industrial ones, with many of the suburban 
towns becoming economic centres, primarily 
in transport and logistics, sometimes in the 
assembly industry. A notable example is the 
town of Göd, Northeast of Budapest, which 
gained town rank in 1999 and currently hosts 
one of the largest plants in Hungary’s rapidly 
expanding EV battery industry. 

Location, i.e., proximity to large cities 
or dynamic economic regions and access 
to the highway network and/or regional 
airports, is a significant factor contributing 
to this development type’s success. In 
Hungary, examples of such successful 
types include Újhartyán and Jánossomorja; 
in Romania, Ghimbav (near Brașov) and 
Tăuții-Măgherăuș (near Baie Mare); and in 
Poland, Rzgów (near Łódz). Additionally, 
smaller-scale examples like Nesvady 
(near Nitra) in Slovakia demonstrate this 
type’s effectiveness. Apart from location, 
successfully mobilising local resources and 
endogenous social capital has also played a 
crucial role in the economic development of 
specific areas, such as Bóly in South-Western 
Hungary (Horeczki, R. 2014).

Industrial newest towns experience a 
gradual increase in population and undergo 
changes in the labour market. In the past, 
residents used to commute to larger cities for 
industrial jobs, but now, these towns attract 
not only commuters but also temporary 
residents. As a result, these towns face the 
challenge of integrating newcomers into 
their closed society shortly. This issue is 

not limited to people from different regions 
but also from distant countries since the 
domestic labour market is fully utilised due 
to well-known demographic trends. 

Discussion

This paper attempts to analyse formal 
urbanisation as an integral component of 
post-socialist urbanisation. By highlighting 
certain aspects of pre-1989 development, 
we argue that formal urbanisation has 
deep roots in the region’s history. Due to 
a delayed economic and social progression 
and a semi-peripheral position in Europe, 
modernisation has been (and may still be) 
imperative for the countries between the 
Baltic and the Black Sea. Historical events 
have interrupted and slowed urbanisation, 
and in some cases (in Poland), it even 
reversed. Central governments have used 
formal urbanisation as a tool to regulate and 
fine-tune spatial processes in their efforts 
to modernise11. The process of socialist 
urbanisation was both overdue and forced, 
and these characteristics are reflected in 
formal urbanisation as well. In some cases, 
particularly in Hungary, formal urbanisation 
was a subsequent development, where awarding 
the urban rank was a late recognition of 
urban development. In the post-socialist 
period, this appeared in the form of the 
restitutional type. However, in the socialist 
era, concurrent and pre-emptive approaches 
also appeared, and they were fulfilled in the 
post-socialist decades. The concurrent formal 
urbanisation closely follows the trends 

11 The semi-peripheral nature of formal urbanisation is 
confirmed by the fact that trends in Portugal are very 
similar to those in Romania and Hungary. Portugal, 
which is easily comparable in size and development 
to Hungary, has 581 municipalities with urban sta-
tus, of which nearly 300 were granted the rank after 
accession to the EC, while until then the process was 
relatively modest. The Portuguese urban reclassifica-
tion legislation is also very similar to the practice in 
the countries investigated in that it includes the free-
dom of the final decision-maker and the possibility 
of flexible interpretation and exceptions.



65Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.

of general urbanisation, which involves 
population, economic growth, and societal 
transformation. The types connected with the 
new spatial polarisation could be interpreted 
as recognising current processes among the 
post-socialist models. In this case, gaining 
the town rank is both a recognition of recent 
development and a designation of the further 
path. Pre-emptive action spans the period 
before and after the changes of 1990, and 
in both eras, it is seen by the governments 
as an opportunity for development. Before 
1990, it meant a spatial focus for domestic 
socialist development objectives, while after 
the changes of 1990, it has opened the way 
for channelling EU funds, mainly in Romania 
and Hungary.

From a central perspective, both 
subsequent and concurrent formal 
urbanisation represent minimal interventions 
in spatial development, as they only serve to 
reinforce and recognise existing processes. 
However, political choices regarding 
selecting potential new towns can be 
instrumental in influencing the central 
government’s approach to urbanisation. 
This involves deciding which communities 
should be promoted and supported and 
which should not. The practice in Eastern 
Europe shows that even if there are strong 
professional governmental ideas about the 
role and importance of urbanisation, these 
are often overridden by current political 
processes, which makes it very difficult 
for the researcher to explore the essence of 
urbanisation policies.

Pre-emptive formal urbanisation paves 
the way for a more substantial intervention 
in spatial development. It was a common 
practice in the era of socialist new towns 
and has recently been found useful as a 
tool for development, too. In this case, 
the newly acquired status itself should create 
urbanity. Promoting rural communities with 
limited central functions does not recognise 
successful development but rather the 
lack of it. It does not simply support overall 
urbanisation, but sometimes the formal changes 
are the only visible signs of it.

The creation of the newest towns, even 
if it is unofficially suspended in Hungary, 
cannot come to an end and perhaps remains 
part of political discussion in the future, 
too. Besides the antagonistic interests of the 
stakeholders involved in the process, it is also 
a theoretical issue, which makes socialist and 
post-socialist formal urbanisation different. 
During the decades of socialist urbanisation, 
there was a significant and explicit difference 
between urban and rural spaces. The 
post-socialist transformation resulted in 
deconcentration of the urbanity in all aspects, 
significantly washing out sharp differences, 
and smoothing the once definite step between 
urban and rural spaces into a gentle slope.

Formal urbanisation has a connection with 
the urban deconcentration process through 
suburbanisation and peri-urbanisation. The 
polycentric development of post-suburban 
spaces, including emerging edge cities, is 
part of the suburbanisation process (Szabó, 
T. et al. 2014; Kovács, Z. et al. 2019). As Kubeš 
and Ouředníček highlighted, suburbs in ECE 
countries usually have a mixed character and 
could be described as “village-core suburbs” 
(Kubeš, J. and Ouředníček, M. 2022). In these 
places, formal urbanisation speeds up certain 
places’ transformation into semi-suburban or 
suburban small towns. Formal urbanisation 
also leads to the formation of peri-urban 
spaces, which Follmann interprets as a 
transitional category or rural-urban transition 
zone (Follmann, A. 2022). Although these 
newly urbanised towns may not be able to 
concentrate enough population to avoid 
their shrinking, they are catalysts of the social 
transformation of rural spaces (Halamska, 
M. and Stanny, M. 2021; Heffner, K. and 
Twardzik, M. 2022), and they spread the 
urban habitus (Jóvér, V. 2023).

When we evaluate formal urbanisation as 
a spatial development tool, we can observe that 
it has become a less effective intervention. 
Formal urbanisation played a crucial role 
in counterbalancing the overall decline of 
towns during the transition period and was 
responsible for the significant growth of the 
urban population, particularly in Hungary and 



Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.66

Romania. Earlier implementations of formal 
urbanisation also helped to slow down the 
outmigration from small towns and perhaps 
contributed to reducing the concentration of 
population in major urban regions, although it 
is challenging to prove this hypothesis. Upon 
reflecting on the uncertain effects on regional 
development, it is necessary to reconsider two 
further factors when seeking the true meaning 
of formal urbanisation.

Firstly, from the perspective of central 
governments, formal urbanisation may not 
be considered a powerful, but rather a cost-
effective tool in regional policy. Upgrading 
villages to towns does not usually impose 
a significant financial burden on them 
(Karsai, V. and Trócsányi, A. 2019). It is 
important to note that formal urbanisation, 
in normal circumstances, could serve as a 
tool for spatial development. Still, it should 
not be relied upon as the sole solution, as it 
happened in some instances.

Secondly, formal urbanisation has been a 
significant field of local initiatives, even during 
the era of centralisation, beyond the goals and 
possibilities of central governments. After 1990, 
formal urbanisation accelerated significantly 
because local governments were provided 
more political freedom. This interpretation 
suggests that formal urbanisation is a bottom-
up process, and the right question to ask is 
not ‘Why does the country need more and 
more towns?’ but ‘Why do local communities 
initiate an often-unsuccessful process of 
assessing their development at a national level 
through the urban reclassification process?’ 
As governments shifted their attitudes from 
subsequent to concurrent and pre-emptive 
urbanisation, the role of local communities 
also changed from passive to active and later 
to proactive approaches.

Our preliminary research shows that local 
communities do not always see a significant 
net financial gain after promotional efforts. 
While individual political ambitions may 
sometimes be a factor, the popularity 
of achieving town rank suggests more 
profound influences at play. It is possible that 
collective memories from the socialist era, 

when town rank could impact its finances 
and development, as well as historical 
experiences with proximity to power, may 
contribute to these attitudes. Achieving town 
rank places communities on the map, secures 
them a seat at the table with government 
representatives, and opens up new avenues 
for public investment. By maintaining close 
ties with the central government, these 
communities in East-Central Europe can 
increase their resilience.

Conclusions

Urbanisation in East-Central Europe was 
once delayed, resulting in a less urbanised 
spatial structure and society than Western 
Europe’s benchmarks. This relative lack of 
urban centres is linked to overall weaknesses 
in spatial development, which persisted 
throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. The 
artificial acceleration of urbanisation was a tool 
used in central planning and spatial policies 
during both the socialist and post-socialist 
eras. Formal urbanisation, which involves 
the reclassification of settlements and their 
promotion to towns, can be interpreted as a 
kind of in situ urbanisation that leads to an 
increase in the urban population without 
migration or natural growth. Although not 
exclusively, this phenomenon is typically 
seen in East-Central Europe and carries some 
anachronism. During the planned economies 
era, formal urbanisation was strictly controlled 
by the state and was mostly limited to the 
rise of socialist new towns in most countries. 
After the transformation of 1989/1990, formal 
urbanisation was liberalised and gained a 
different focus, creating many more newest 
towns than expected.

Formal urbanisation became the primary 
driving factor of urban population growth 
in Romania and Hungary due to a decrease 
in overall population or a slow increase in 
other countries, as well as the emergence of 
suburbanisation, which caused larger cities 
to decline. In the five studied countries, 
over 2.87 million people and 800 settlements 



67Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.

were involved in this process, resulting in a 
30 percent increase in the number of urban 
settlements. This means formal urbanisation 
has had an even more significant impact on the 
region than during the socialist era, leaving a 
lasting mark.

Our research has discovered several 
common factors in the reclassification process, 
such as local initiatives, disparities between 
principles and practices, and varying levels 
of control from regional and national actors. 
Furthermore, we have identified characteristic 
types of formal urbanisation through 
qualitative analysis of motives, goals, and 
parameters. These types reflect different stages 
and challenges of urbanisation in the region. 
We believe promoting so-called restitutional 
towns, heritage, or image towns is a post-fact 
correction of the former urbanisation process. 
This is because many of the newest towns are 
historically determined. In the second type of 
delayed modernisation, reclassification tries 
to extend and complete the efforts of spatial 
policies of the planning economy based on 
the development of central places. Finally, 
new spatial polarisation is evident in formal 
urbanisation through the reclassification of 
certain places that are increasingly connected 
to new economic structures.

In recent times, there has been a shift in 
the approach towards formal urbanisation. 
Previously, the central government regulated 
and controlled it as part of the overall spatial 
policy. However, now, it is more locally 
governed and tends to precede or replace 
direct spatial policy. Although the effectiveness 
of the entire formal urbanisation process can be 
debated, its significance is more prominent at 
the local than at the national level.

REFERENCES

Allen, A. 2003. Environmental planning and 
management of the peri-urban interface: 
Perspectives on an emerging field. Environmental 
Planning and Management 15. (1): 135–148. https://
doi.org/10.1177/095624780301500103

Alpek, B.L., Pirisi, G., Tésits, R., Trócsányi, A., Máté, 
É. and Németh, Á. 2022. Examining a theoretical 

concept – (im)mobility as a factor of perforation in 
a rural Hungarian context. Geographica Pannonica 
26. (4): 319–333. https://doi.org/10.5937/gp26-38880

Bartosiewicz, B., Kwiatek-Sołtys, A. and Kurek, S. 
2019. Does the process of shrinking concern also 
small towns? Lessons from Poland. Quaestiones 
Geographicae 38. (4): 91–105. https://doi.org/10.2478/
quageo-2019-0039

Beluszky, P. and Győri, R. 1999. A magyarországi 
városhálózat és az EU -csatlakozás (Hungarian 
urban network and the EU accession). Tér és 
Társadalom 13. (1–2): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.17649/
TET.13.1-2.510

Benedek, J. 2006. Urban policy and urbanisation in 
the transition Romania. Romanian Review of Regional 
Studies 11. (1): 51–64.

Berry, B.J.L. 1980. Urbanization and counter-
urbanization in the United States. The Annals of the 
American Academy of Political and Social Science 451. (1): 
13–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271628045100103

Berki, M. 2014. Return to the road of capitalism: 
Recapitulating the post-socialist urban transition. 
Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 63. (3): 319–334. 
https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.63.3.6

Biegańska, J. and Szymańska, D. 2013. The scale and 
the dynamics of permanent migration in rural 
and peri-urban areas in Poland – some problems. 
Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series 21. (1): 
21–30. https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2013-0017

Bocheński, T. 2023. Polycentricity of the settlement 
system – Example of an urban network in Poland. 
European Research Studies Journal 16. (3): 612–623. 
https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/3236

Bourdeau-Lepage, L. and Huriot, J.M. 2002. 
Metropolisation in Warsaw: Economic change and 
urban growth. Canadian Journal of Regional Science 
25. (3): 423–446.

Brenner, N. 2013. Theses on urbanization. Public Culture 
25. (1): 85–114. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-
1890477

Brown, D.L., Kulcsár, J.L., Kulcsár, L. and 
Obádovics, Cs. 2005. Post-socialist restructuring 
and population redistribution in Hungary. 
Rural Sociology 70. (3): 336–359. https://doi.
org/10.1526/0036011054831170

Burger, M.J., Meijers, E.J., Hoogerbrugge, M.M. and 
Tresserra, J.M. 2015. Borrowed size, agglomeration 
shadows and cultural amenities in North-West 
Europe. European Planning Studies 23. (6): 1090–
1109. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2014.905002

Chen, M., Ye, C., Lu, D., Sui, Y. and Guo, S. 2019. 
Cognition and construction of the theoretical 
connotations of new urbanization with Chinese 
characteristics. Journal of Geographical Sciences 29. 
(10): 1681–1698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-
019-1685-z

Csurgó, B., Kovách, I. and Megyesi, B. 2018. After 
a long march: the results of two decades of rural 

https://doi.org/10.1177/095624780301500103
https://doi.org/10.1177/095624780301500103
https://doi.org/10.5937/gp26-38880
https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2019-0039
https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2019-0039
https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.13.1-2.510
https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.13.1-2.510
https://doi.org/10.1177/000271628045100103
https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.63.3.6
https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2013-0017
https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/3236
https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-1890477
https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-1890477
https://doi.org/10.1526/0036011054831170
https://doi.org/10.1526/0036011054831170
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2014.905002
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-019-1685-z
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-019-1685-z


Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.68

restructuring in Hungary. Eastern European 
Countryside 24. (1): 81–109. https://doi.org/10.2478/
eec-2018-0005

Davoudi, S. 2003. Polycentricity in European spatial 
planning: From an analytical tool to a normative 
agenda. European Planning Studies 11. (8): 979–999. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431032000146169

Demko, G.J. and Regulska, J. 1987a. Socialism 
and its impact on urban processes and the city. 
Urban Geography 8. (4): 289–292. https://doi.
org/10.2747/0272-3638.8.4.289

Donaldson, R. 2009. The making of a tourism-
gentrified town: Greyton, South Africa. Geography 
94. (2): 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167487.20
09.12094259

Dövényi, Z. 2005. Város az, ami magát annak nevezi. 
Tűnődések Tóth József tanulmánya kapcsán (A 
town is what it calls itself a town. Reflections on the 
study by József Tóth). Területi Statisztika 12. (1): 3–7.

Egedy, T. and Ságvári, B. 2021. Urban geographical 
patterns of the relationship between mobile 
communication, social networks and economic 
development – the case of Hungary. Hungarian 
Geographical Bulletin 70. (2): 129–148. https://doi.
org/10.15201/hungeobull.70.2.3

Enyedi, Gy. 1990. Specific urbanization in East-Central 
Europe. Geoforum 21. (2): 163–172. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0016-7185(90)90035-5

Enyedi, Gy. 1996. Urbanization under socialism. 
In Cities After Socialism: Urban and Regional 
Change and Conflict in Post-Socialist Societies. Eds.: 
Andrusz, G., Harloe, M. and Szelényi, I., New 
Jersey, Wiley-Blackwell, 100–118. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9780470712733.ch4

Enyedi, Gy. 2011. A városnövekedés szakaszai 
– újragondolva (Stages of urban growth – 
revisited). Tér és Társadalom 25. (1): 5–19. https://
doi.org/10.17649/TET.25.1.1770

Farkas, R. and Klobučník, M. 2021. Residential 
suburbanisation in the hinterland of Bratislava 
– a case study of municipalities in the Austrian 
border area. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 70. (4): 
311–323. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.70.4.2

Fertner, C., Groth, N.B., Herslund, L. and 
Carstensen, T.A. 2015. Small towns resisting urban 
decay through residential attractiveness. Findings 
from Denmark. Geografisk Tidsskrift / Danish Journal 
of Geography 115. (2): 119–132. https://doi.org/10.10
80/00167223.2015.1060863

Follmann, A. 2022. Geographies of peri-urbanization 
in the global South. Geography Compass 16. (7): 1–20. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12650

French, R.A. and Hamilton, I. 1979. The Socialist City. 
London, John Wiley and Sons.

Frost, I. 2018. Exploring varieties of (post)Soviet 
urbanization: Reconciling the general and particular 
in post-socialist urban studies. Europa Regional 25. 
(2): 2–14.

Fuchs, R.J. and Demko, G.J. 1979. Geographic 
inequality under socialism. Annals of the Association 
of American Geographers 69. (2): 304–318. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1979.tb01259.x

Fuchs, R.J. 1980. Urban change in Eastern Europe: The 
limits to planning. Urban Geography 1. (1): 81–95. 
https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.1.1.81

Geyer, H.S. and Kontuly, T. 1993. A theoretical 
foundation for the concept of differential urbanization. 
International Regional Science Review 15. (2): 157–177. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/016001769301500202

Ginsburg, N.S., Koppel, B. and McGee, T.G. 1991. The 
Extended Metropolis: Settlement Transition in Asia. 
Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press. https://doi.
org/10.1515/9780824841904

Gorzelak, G. 1996. The Regional Dimension of 
Transformation in Central Europe. London, Routledge. 

Haase, A. and Rink, D. 2015. Inner-city transformation 
between reurbanization and gentrification: 
Leipzig, Eastern Germany. Geografie-Sbornik 
CGS 120. (2): 226–250. https://doi.org/10.37040/
geografie2015120020226

Haase, A., Wolff, M., Špačková, M. and Radzimski, 
P. 2017. Reurbanisation in post-socialist Europe – a 
comparative view of Eastern Germany, Poland, and 
the Czech Republic. Comparative Population Studies 
42. 353–389. https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2018-02

Halamska, M. and Stanny, M. 2021. Temporal and 
spatial diversification of rural social structure: The 
case of Poland. Sociologia Ruralis 61. (3): 578–601. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12341

Hausladen, G. 1987. Planning the development of the 
socialist city: The case of Dubna new town. Geoforum 
18. (1): 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-
7185(87)90024-8

Heffner, K. and Twardzik, M. 2022. Rural areas in 
Poland – changes since joining the European Union. 
European Countryside 14. (2): 420–438. https://doi.
org/10.2478/euco-2022-0021

Hirt, S. 2007a. Suburbanizing Sofia: Characteristics of 
post-socialist peri-urban change. Urban Geography 
28. (8): 755–780. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-
3638.28.8.755

Hirt, S. 2007b. The compact versus the dispersed city: 
History of planning ideas on Sofia’s urban form. 
Journal of Planning History 6. (2): 138–165. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1538513206301327

Hirt, S. 2008. Landscapes of postmodernity: changes 
in the built fabric of Belgrade and Sofia since the 
end of socialism. Urban Geography 29. (8): 785–810. 
https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.29.8.785

Hirt, S. 2013. Whatever happened to the (post)socialist 
city? Cities 32. 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cities.2013.04.010

Hoogendoorn, G. and Visser, G. 2010. The economic 
impact of second home development in small-town 
South Africa. Tourism Recreation Research 35. (1): 55–
66. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2010.11081619

https://doi.org/10.2478/eec-2018-0005
https://doi.org/10.2478/eec-2018-0005
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431032000146169
https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.8.4.289
https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.8.4.289
https://doi.org/10.1080/00167487.2009.12094259
https://doi.org/10.1080/00167487.2009.12094259
https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.70.2.3
https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.70.2.3
https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(90)90035-5
https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(90)90035-5
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712733.ch4
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712733.ch4
https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.25.1.1770
https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.25.1.1770
https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.70.4.2
https://doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2015.1060863
https://doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2015.1060863
https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12650
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1979.tb01259.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1979.tb01259.x
https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.1.1.81
https://doi.org/10.1177/016001769301500202
https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824841904
https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824841904
https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2015120020226
https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2015120020226
https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2018-02
https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12341
https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(87)90024-8
https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(87)90024-8
https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2022-0021
https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2022-0021
https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.28.8.755
https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.28.8.755
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538513206301327
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538513206301327
https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.29.8.785
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.010
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.010
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2010.11081619


69Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.

Horeczki, R. 2014. A kisvárosok ipari átalakulása a 
XX. században (Industrial transformation of small 
towns in the 20th century). Köztes-Európa 6. (1): 
135–1142.

Horeczki, R. and Egyed, I. 2021. Small town 
development in peripheral areas. Deturope – The 
Central European Journal of Regional Development 
and Tourism 13. (2): 52–65. https://doi.org/10.32725/
det.2021.013

Ježek, J. 2011. Small towns attractiveness for living, 
working and doing business. Case study the 
Czech Republic. In Competitiveness and Sustainable 
Development of the Small Towns and Rural Regions 
in Europe. Eds.: Ježek, J. and Kaňka, L., Pilsen, CZ, 
Centre of Regional Research, University of West 
Bohemia in Pilsen, 4–11.

Jóvér, V. 2023. A new way to understand urban-rural 
relations: Habitus studies of rural places. Hungarian 
Geographical Bulletin 72. (1): 75–85. https://doi.
org/10.15201/hungeobull.72.1.5

Kansky, K.J. 1976. Urbanization under socialism in 
Czechoslovakia. Ekistics 42. (249): 121–129.

Karsai, V. and Trócsányi, A. 2019. Aki kimarad(t), 
lemarad(t)? – A település sikeressége és a városi 
cím (Missed opportunity, lost chance? Settlement 
success in the light of possessing town rank). 
Földrajzi Közlemények 143. (4): 339–357. https://doi.
org/10.32643/fk.143.4.4

Klaassen, L.H., Molle, W. and Paelinck, J.H. 1981. 
Dynamics of Urban Development: Proceedings of an 
international conference held on the occasion of the 50th 
anniversary of the Netherlands Economic Institute in 
Rotterdam. Gower, University of Michigan.

Kocsis, Zs. 2008. Várossá válás Európában (Becoming 
towns in Europe). Területi Statisztika 48. (6): 713–723.

Kok, H. and Kovács, Z. 1999. The process of 
suburbanization in the agglomeration of Budapest. 
Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built 
Environment 14. (2): 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02496818

Konecka-Szydłowska, B. 2016. Significance of 
small towns in the process of urbanisation of the 
Wielkopolska Region (Poland). European Countryside 
8. (4): 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1515/euco-2016-
0030 

Konecka-Szydłowska, B., Trócsányi, A. and Pirisi, G. 
2018. Urbanisation in a formal way? The different 
characteristics of the ‘newest towns’ in Poland and 
Hungary. Regional Statistics 8. (2): 135–153. https://
doi.org/10.15196/RS080202

Konrád, Gy. and Szelényi, I. 1974. Social conflicts of 
under-urbanization. In Urban and Social Economics 
in Market and Planned Economies. Eds.: Brown, A.A., 
Licardi, J.A. and Neuberger, E., New York, Praeger.

Kovács, Z. 1998. Ghettoization or gentrification? Post-
socialist scenarios for Budapest. Netherlands Journal 
of Housing and the Built Environment 13. (1): 63–81. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496934

Kovács, Z. 1999. Cities from state-socialism to global 
capitalism: An introduction. GeoJournal 49. (1): 1–6. 
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007048819606

Kovács, Z. 2009a. Urbanizáció és átalakuló 
v á r o s h á l ó z a t  K e l e t - K ö z é p - E u r ó p á b a n . 
(Urbanisation and transforming urban network in 
East-Central Europe). Közép-európai Közlemények 2. 
(4–5): 175–182.

Kovács, Z. 2009b. Social and economic transformation 
of historical neighbourhoods in Budapest. Tijdschrift 
voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 100. (4): 399–416. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2009.00549.x

Kovács, Z. 2010. A szocialista és posztszocialista 
urbanizáció értelmezése (The interpretation of 
socialist and post-socialist urbanisation). In A 
területi kutatások csomópontjai. Eds.: Barta, Gy., 
Beluszky, P., Földi, Zs. and Kovács, K., Pécs, MTA 
Regionális Kutatások Központja, 141–157.

Kovács, Z., Wiessner, R. and Zischner, R. 2013. Urban 
renewal in the inner city of Budapest: Gentrification 
from a post-socialist perspective. Urban Studies 50. 
(1): 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012453856

Kovács, Z., Farkas, Z.J., Egedy, T., Kondor, A.Cs., 
Szabó, B., Lennert, J., Baka, D. and Kohán, B. 2019. 
Urban sprawl and land conversion in post-socialist 
cities: The case of metropolitan Budapest. Cities 92. 
71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.018

Kovács, Z., Harangozó, G., Szigeti, C., Koppány, 
K., Kondor, A.Cs. and Szabó, B. 2020. Measuring 
the impacts of suburbanization with ecological 
footprint calculations. Cities 101. 102715. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102715

Krzysztofik, R. and Dymitrow, M. (eds.) 2015. 
Degraded and Restituted Towns in Poland: Origins, 
Development, Problems. Gothenburg, Sweden, 
University of Gothenburg.

Kubeš, J. and Nováček, A. 2019. Suburbs around 
the Czech provincial city of České Budějovice – 
Territorial arrangement and problems. Hungarian 
Geographical Bulletin 68. (1): 65–78. https://doi.
org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.1.5

Kubeš, J. and Ouředníček, M. 2022. Functional types 
of suburban settlements around two differently 
sized Czech cities. Cities 127. 103742. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103742

Kulcsár, J.L. and Brown, D.L. 2011. The political 
economy of urban reclassification in post-socialist 
Hungary. Regional Studies 45. (4): 479–490. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00343400903496378

Kurek, S. and Wójtowicz, M. 2018. Reurbanisation 
in a post-socialist city: Spatial differentiation of the 
population in the Kraków area (Poland). Geographia 
Polonica 91. (4): 449–468. https://doi.org/10.7163/
GPol.0130

Kwiatek-Sołtys, A. and Mainet, H. 2014. Quality of life 
and attractiveness of small towns: a comparison of 
France and Poland. Quaestiones Geographicae 33. (2): 
103–113. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2014-0019

https://doi.org/10.32725/det.2021.013
https://doi.org/10.32725/det.2021.013
https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.72.1.5
https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.72.1.5
https://doi.org/10.32643/fk.143.4.4
https://doi.org/10.32643/fk.143.4.4
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496818
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496818
https://doi.org/10.1515/euco-2016-0030
https://doi.org/10.1515/euco-2016-0030
https://doi.org/10.15196/RS080202
https://doi.org/10.15196/RS080202
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496934
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007048819606
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2009.00549.x
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012453856
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102715
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102715
https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.1.5
https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.1.5
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103742
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103742
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903496378
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903496378
https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0130
https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0130
https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2014-0019


Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.70

Leetmaa, K., Brade, I., Anniste, K. and Nuga, M. 2012. 
Socialist summer-home settlements in post-socialist 
suburbanisation. Urban Studies 49. (1): 3–21. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0042098010397399

Leśniewska-Napierała, K. and Napierała, T. 2017. 
The function of hotels in revitalizing rural areas: 
Case studies in Pomerania province. Turyzm / 
Tourism 27. (2): 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/
tour-2017-0014

Light, D. and Young, C. 2010. Refiguring socialist 
urban landscapes: The ‘left-over’ spaces of state 
socialism in Bucharest. Journal of Studies and 
Research in Human Geography 4. (1): 5–16.

Liu, S., Chen, T. and Cai, J. 2004. Peri-urbanization 
in China and its major research issues. Acta 
Geographica Sinica 59. (7): 101–108.

Mabin, A. 1991. A quarter century of urbanisation, 
1965–1990. Stads- en Streeksbeplanning / Town- and 
Regional Planning 31. 4–9.

Majewska, A., Denis, M., Krzysztofik, S. and Cysek, 
P.M. 2022. The development of small towns and 
towns of well-being: Current trends, 30 years after 
the change in the political system, based on the 
Warsaw suburban area. Land Use Policy 115. 105998. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.105998

Makowska-Iskierka, M. 2015. The role of the 
inhabitants of Łódz in the urbanisation of its 
surrounding area. Turyzm / Tourism 25. (2): 137–146. 
https://doi.org/10.1515/tour-2015-0013

Malý, J. 2016. Small towns in the context of “borrowed 
size” and “agglomeration shadow” debates: 
The case of the South Moravian Region (Czech 
Republic). European Countryside 8. (4): 333–350. 
https://doi.org/10.1515/euco-2016-0024

Marcińczak, Sz., Gentile, M., Rufat, S. and Chelcea, 
L. 2014. Urban geographies of hesitant transition: 
tracing socio-economic segregation in post-
Ceauşescu Bucharest. International Journal of Urban 
and Regional Research 38. (4): 1399–1417. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1468-2427.12073

Máté, É. 2017. Perforált régiók? – Izolálódó térségek 
a Dél-Dunántúlon (Perforated regions? – Isolating 
spaces in Southern Transdanubia). Földrajzi 
Közlemények 141. (2): 164–178.

Meijers, E.J., Burger, M.J. and Hoogerbrugge, M.M. 
2016. Borrowing size in networks of cities: City size, 
network connectivity and metropolitan functions in 
Europe. Papers in Regional Science 95. (1): 181–198. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12181

Mitrică, B., Săgeată, R. and Grigorescu, I. 2014. The 
Romanian urban system – An overview of the post-
communist period. Forum geografic. Studii și cercetări 
de geografie și protecția mediului 13. (2): 230–241. 
https://doi.org/10.5775/fg.2067-4635.2014.179.d

Nagy, Cs., Molnár, E. and Kiss, É. 2020. Industry 
4.0 in a dualistic manufacturing sector–
qualitative experiences from enterprises and 
their environment, Eastern Hungary. Hungarian 

Geographical Bulletin 69. (2): 157–174. https://doi.
org/10.15201/hungeobull.69.2.5

Nagy, E. 2005. Urban development in post-transition 
Hungary: emerging social conflicts as a constrains of 
a locality. Geographica Polonica 78. (1): 23–37.

Nagy, G., Nagy, E. and Timár J. 2012. The changing 
meaning of core–periphery relations in a non-
metropolitan “urban region” at the Hungarian–
Romanian border. disP – The Planning Review 48. (2): 
93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2012.721613

Ouředníček, M., Klsák, A. and Špačková, P. 2019. 
In between city and village: The development of 
spatial patterns of Czech suburbanisation 1997–2016. 
Demografie 61. (4): 299–308. 

Pavlínek, P. 2004. Regional development implications 
of foreign direct investment in Central Europe. 
European Urban and Regional Studies 11. (1): 47–70. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776404039142

Pénzes, J. 2013. The dimensions of peripheral areas 
and their restructuring in Central Europe. Hungarian 
Geographical Bulletin 62. (4): 373–386. 

Pirisi, G. 2009. Város vagy nem város? Dilemmák a 
formális és a funkcionális városfogalom kettőssége 
kapcsán (Town or not a town? Dilemmas about the 
duality of the formal and the functional concept of 
towns). Területi Statisztika 12. (2): 129–136.

Pirisi, G. and Trócsányi, A. 2009. Így készül a magyar 
város (This is how towns are made in Hungary). 
Területi Statisztika 12. (2): 137–147.

Pirisi, G. and Trócsányi, A. 2012. The development 
of the Hungarian settlement network since 1990. In 
Development of the Settlement Network in the Central 
European Countries. Eds.: Csapó, T. and Balogh, 
A., Berlin–Heidelberg, Springer, 63–73. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-642-20314-5_5

Pirisi, G. and Trócsányi, A. 2014. Shrinking small 
towns in Hungary: The factors behind the urban 
decline in “small scale”. Acta Geographica Universitatis 
Comenianae 58. (2): 131–147.

Qianyi, W., Yurui, L., Xuanchang, Z. and Yu, R. 2023. 
Semi-urbanization identity formation through 
role creation theory: The dynamic villagers’ 
perspectives. Applied Geography 158. 103029. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.103029

Richardson, H.W. 1980. Polarization reversal in 
developing countries. Papers of the Regional Science 
Association 45. (1): 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF01934655

Săgeată, R. 2010. The role of political factors in the 
urbanisation and regional development of Romania. 
Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis 2. (1): 81–88. 
https://doi.org/10.37043/JURA.2010.2.1.6

Sailer-Fliege, U. 1999. Characteristics of post-
socialist urban transformation in East-Central 
Europe. GeoJournal 49. (1): 7–16. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1006905405818

Šimon, M. 2014. Exploring counter-urbanisation 
in a post-socialist context: The case of the Czech 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010397399
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010397399
https://doi.org/10.1515/tour-2017-0014
https://doi.org/10.1515/tour-2017-0014
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.105998
https://doi.org/10.1515/tour-2015-0013
https://doi.org/10.1515/euco-2016-0024
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12073
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12073
https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12181
https://doi.org/10.5775/fg.2067-4635.2014.179.d
https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.69.2.5
https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.69.2.5
https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2012.721613
https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776404039142
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20314-5_5
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20314-5_5
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.103029
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.103029
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01934655
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01934655
https://doi.org/10.37043/JURA.2010.2.1.6
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006905405818
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006905405818


71Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.

Republic. Sociologia Ruralis 54. (2): 117–142. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2012.00576.x

Simon, D. 2020. Peri-urbanization. In The Palgrave 
Encyclopaedia of Urban and Regional Futures. Ed.: 
Bears, R.C., Palgrave Macmillan, 1–5. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-51812-7_192-1

Sławomir, K., Wójtowicz, M. and Gałka, J. 2015. The 
changing role of migration and natural increase in 
suburban population growth: The case of a non-
capital post-socialist city (The Krakow Metropolitan 
Area, Poland). Moravian Geographical Reports 23. (4): 
59–70. https://doi.org/10.1515/mgr-2015-0025

Sławomir, K. and Wójtowicz, M. 2018. Reurbanisation 
in a post-socialist city: Spatial differentiation of the 
population in the Kraków Area (Poland). Geographia 
Polonica 91. (4): 449–468. https://doi.org/10.7163/
GPol.0130

Smith, A. and Timár, J. 2010. Uneven transformations: 
Space, economy and society 20 years after the 
collapse of state socialism. European Urban and 
Regional Studies 17. (2): 115–125. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0969776409358245

Sobotka, T. and Fürnkranz-Prskawetz, A. 2020. 
Demographic change in Central, Eastern and 
South-eastern Europe: Trends, determinants 
and challenges.  In 30 Years of  Transit ion 
in Europe. Eds.: Holzmann, R., Ritzberger-
Grünwald, D. and Schuberth, H., Cheltenham, 
Edward Elgar Publishing, 196–222. https://doi.
org/10.4337/9781839109508.00027

Sokołowski, D. 2014. New towns in Poland. Bulletin 
of Geography. Socio-economic Series 23. (23): 149–160. 
https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2014-0010

Stanilov, K. 2007. The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form 
and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern 
Europe after Socialism. The GeoJournal Library 92. 
Cham, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4020-6053-3

Stanilov, K. and Sýkora, L. 2014. Post-socialist 
suburbanization patterns and dynamics: 
A comparative perspective. In Confronting 
Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Post-
Socialist Central and Eastern Europe. Eds.: Stanilov, 
K. and Sýkora, L., New Jersey, John Wiley and Sons, 
256–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118295861.ch9

Steinführer, A. and Haase, A. 2007. Demographic 
change as a future challenge for cities in East-
Central Europe. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human 
Geography 89. (2): 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1468-0467.2007.00247.x

Sýkora, L.  1999.  Processes of socio-spatial 
differentiation in post-communist Prague. 
Housing Studies 14. (5): 679–701. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02673039982678

Sýkora, L. and Bouzarovski, S. 2012. Multiple 
transformations conceptualising the post-
communist urban transition. Urban Studies 49. (1): 
43–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010397402

Szabó, T., Szabó, B. and Kovács, Z. 2014. Polycentric 
urban development in post-socialist context: 
The case of the Budapest Metropolitan Region. 
Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 63. (3): 287–301. 
https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.63.3.4

Szelényi, I. 1981. Urban development and regional 
management in Eastern Europe. Theory and Society 
10. (2): 169–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139891

Szilágyi, F. 2012. Changes in the urban system 
of Romania, and their possible effect on the 
future administrative reform of the country. In: 
Development of the Settlement Network in the Central 
European Countries. Eds.: Csapó, T. and Balogh, 
A., Berlin–Heidelberg, Springer, 25–39. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-642-20314-5_3

Szirmai, V. 2017. Az új városi urbanizációs modell 
szocialista és/vagy globális természete (The socialist 
and/or global nature of the new town urbanization 
model). Tér és Társadalom 31. (3): 25–43. https://doi.
org/10.17649/TET.31.3.2861

Szmytkie, R. 2021. Suburbanisation processes within 
and outside the city: the development of intra-urban 
suburbs in Wrocław, Poland. Moravian Geographical 
Reports 29. (2): 149–165. https://doi.org/10.2478/
mgr-2021-0012

Szűcs, J. 1983. The three historical regions of Europe: 
An outline. Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum 
Hungaricae 29. (2): 131–184.

Szűcs, J. 1994. Die drei historischen Regionen Europas: 
Eine Studie. Frankfurt, Verlag Neue Kritik.

Tammaru, T. 2003. Urban and rural population 
change in Estonia: Patterns of differentiated and 
undifferentiated urbanisation. Tijdschrift voor 
Economische en Sociale Geografie 94. (1): 112–123. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00241

Taubenböck,  H. ,  Gerten,  C. ,  Rusche ,  K. , 
Siedentop, S. and Wurm, M. 2019. Patterns of 
Eastern European urbanisation in the mirror of 
Western trends – convergent, unique or hybrid? 
Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics 
and City Science 46. (7): 1206–1225. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2399808319846902

Temelova, J. 2007. Flagship developments and the 
physical upgrading of the post-socialist inner city: 
The golden angel project in Prague. Geografiska 
Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 89B. (2): 169–181. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00246.x

Timár, J. and Váradi, M.M. 2001. The uneven 
development of  suburbanizat ion during 
transition in Hungary. European Urban and 
Regional Studies 8. (4): 349–360. https://doi.
org/10.1177/096977640100800407

Timár, J. 2007. Different scales of uneven development 
– in a (no longer) post-socialist Hungary. Treballs de 
la Societat Catalana de Geografia 64. 103–128.

Tosics, I. 2005. City development in Central and 
Eastern Europe since 1990: The impact of internal 
forces. In Transformation of Cities in Central 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2012.00576.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2012.00576.x
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51812-7_192-1
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51812-7_192-1
https://doi.org/10.1515/mgr-2015-0025
https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0130
https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0130
https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776409358245
https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776409358245
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839109508.00027
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839109508.00027
https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2014-0010
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6053-3
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6053-3
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118295861.ch9
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00247.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00247.x
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673039982678
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673039982678
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010397402
https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.63.3.4
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139891
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20314-5_3
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20314-5_3
https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.31.3.2861
https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.31.3.2861
https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2021-0012
https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2021-0012
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00241
https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808319846902
https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808319846902
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00246.x
https://doi.org/10.1177/096977640100800407
https://doi.org/10.1177/096977640100800407


Trócsányi, A. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (1) 49–72.72

and Eastern Europe: Towards Globalization. Eds.: 
Hamilton, K., Dimitrowska-Andrews, I. and 
Pichler-Milanović, N., Tokyo, The United Nations 
University Press, 44–78. 

Tóth, J. 1980. Mezőberény, a helyét kereső kisváros 
(Mezőberény, a small town searching for its status). 
Békéscsaba, Békés Megyei Tanács V. B. Tudományos-
Koordinációs Szakbizottsága. 

Tóth, J. 2008. Meditáció a városokról és a várossá 
nyilvánítás hazai gyakorlatáról. Vitairat (A 
meditation on towns and the Hungarian practice 
of urban reclassification. Discussion paper). Területi 
Statisztika 11. (3): 237–244.

Trócsányi, A. and Pirisi, G. 2009. The transformation of 
villages into towns: A quantitative way of Hungarian 
urbanisation. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai 
Geographia 54. (1): 75–82. 

Trócsányi, A., Pirisi, G. and Máté, É. 2018. An 
interpretation attempt of Hungarian small towns’ 
shrinking in a post-socialist transformation context. 
Chasopys Socialno-Ekonomichnoyi Heohrafiyi / Journal 
of Human Geography 24. (1): 5–20. https://doi.
org/10.26565/2076-1333-2018-24-01

Turnock, D. 1974. Urban development in a socialist city: 
Bucharest. Geography 59. (4): 344–348.

Vaishar, A., Štastná, M. and Stonawská, K. 2015. 
Small towns – engines of rural development 
in the South-Moravian Region (Czechia): An 
analysis of the demographic development. Acta 
Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae 
Brunensis 63. (4): 1395–1405. https://doi.org/10.11118/
actaun201563041395

Van den Berg, L., Drewett, R., Klaasen, L.H., Rossi, 
A. and Vijverberg, C.H. 1982. Urban Europe: A Study 
of Growth and Decline. Oxford–New York, Pergamon 
Press.

Vasárus, G.L. and Lennert, J. 2022. Suburbanization 
within city limits in Hungary – a challenge for 
environmental and social sustainability. Sustainability 
14. (14): 8855. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148855

Veress, N.Cs. 2016. Romania’s youngest towns – how 
urban are they? Studia UBB Geographia 61. (1): 67–88. 

Vujović, S. and Petrović, M. 2007. Belgrade’s post-
socialist urban evolution: reflections by the actors in 
the development process. In The Post-Socialist City: 
Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and 
Eastern Europe after Socialism. The GeoJournal Library 
92. Ed.: Stanilov, K., Cham, Springer, 361–383. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6053-3_18

Weclawowicz, G. 2005. The Warsaw Metropolitan Area 
on the eve of Poland’s integration into the European 
Union. In Transformation of Cities in Central and Eastern 
Europe: Towards Globalization. Eds.: Hamilton, I., 
Andrews, K.D. and Pichler-Milanovic, N., Tokyo, 
United Nations University Press, 223–247.

Wiest, K. 2012. Comparative debates in post-socialist 
urban studies. Urban Geography 33. (6): 829–849. 
https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.33.6.829

Young, C. and Kaczmarek, S. 2008. The socialist past 
and post-socialist urban identity in Central and 
Eastern Europe: The case of Łódź, Poland. European 
Urban and Regional Studies 15. (1): 53–70. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0969776407081275

Zborowski, A., Soja, M. and Łobodzińska, A. 2012. 
Population trends in Polish cities – Stagnation, 
depopulation or shrinkage? Prace Geograficzne 130. 
7–28.

Zhu, Y. 1998. Formal and informal urbanisation in 
China: Trends in Fujian Province. Third World 
Planning Review 20. (3): 267. https://doi.org/10.3828/
twpr.20.3.r157kq31856303p2

Zhu, Y. 2002. Beyond large-city-centred urbanisation: 
in situ transformation of rural areas in Fujian 
Province. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 43. (1): 9–22. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-8373.00155

Additional sources

LEGE nr.351 din 6 iulie 2001. Privind aprobarea Planului 
de amenajare a teritoriului naţional – Secţiunea a IV-a 
Reţeaua de localităţi. (in Romanian) https://web.
archive.org/web/20140811185337/http://www.cdep.
ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act_text?idt=28862

Lista orașelor din România. Bucureşti, Institutul 
Național de Statistică. (in Romanian) https://
ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_ora%C8%99elor_din_
Rom%C3%A2nia

Nadania praw miejskich w Polsce po 1900. (in Polish) 
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadania_praw_
miejskich_w_Polsce_po_1900

Populatia rezidenta dupa grupa de varsta, pe judete si 
municipii, Orase, Comune, La 1 Decembrie 2021. 
Bucureşti, Institutul Național de Statistică. (in 
Romanian) https://www.recensamantromania.ro/
wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tabel-1.03_1.3.1-si-
1.03.2.xls

Statistical Yearbook of the Slovak Republic 2022. 
Bratislava, Statistical Office of the SR. https://slovak.
statistics.sk/wps/portal

Statistics Poland 2023. TABL. 21. Powierzchnia, ludność 
oraz lokaty według gmin. Warsaw, Statistical Office 
of Poland. (in Polish) https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/
population/population/area-and-population-in-
the-territorial-profile-in-2023,4,17.html

Statistical Yearbook of the Czech Republic 2022. Prague, 
Statistical Office of Czech Republic. https://www.
czso.cz/csu/czso/statistical-yearbook-of-the-czech-
republic-2022

https://doi.org/10.26565/2076-1333-2018-24-01
https://doi.org/10.26565/2076-1333-2018-24-01
https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201563041395
https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201563041395
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148855
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6053-3_18
https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.33.6.829
https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776407081275
https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776407081275
https://doi.org/10.3828/twpr.20.3.r157kq31856303p2
https://doi.org/10.3828/twpr.20.3.r157kq31856303p2
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8373.00155
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8373.00155
https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocumentAfis/29780
https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocumentAfis/29780
https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocumentAfis/29780
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_ora%C8%99elor_din_Rom%C3%A2nia
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_ora%C8%99elor_din_Rom%C3%A2nia
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_ora%C8%99elor_din_Rom%C3%A2nia
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadania_praw_miejskich_w_Polsce_po_1900
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadania_praw_miejskich_w_Polsce_po_1900
https://www.recensamantromania.ro/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tabel-1.03_1.3.1-si-1.03.2.xls
https://www.recensamantromania.ro/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tabel-1.03_1.3.1-si-1.03.2.xls
https://www.recensamantromania.ro/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tabel-1.03_1.3.1-si-1.03.2.xls
https://slovak.statistics.sk/wps/portal
https://slovak.statistics.sk/wps/portal
https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/population/population/area-and-population-in-the-territorial-profile-in-2023,4,17.html
https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/population/population/area-and-population-in-the-territorial-profile-in-2023,4,17.html
https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/population/population/area-and-population-in-the-territorial-profile-in-2023,4,17.html
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadania_praw_miejskich_w_Polsce_po_1900
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadania_praw_miejskich_w_Polsce_po_1900
https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/statistical-yearbook-of-the-czech-republic-2022
https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/statistical-yearbook-of-the-czech-republic-2022
https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/statistical-yearbook-of-the-czech-republic-2022

	Hungarian Geographical Bulletin Vol 73 Issue 1 (2024)
	András TRÓCSÁNYI - Viola KARSAI -  Gábor PIRISI: Formal urbanisation in East-Central Europe