The Impact of Cross-Border Cooperation on Human Resources Employed in Local Administration: The Case of the Romanian-Hungarian Border Area



Local communities in border areas, which have been until recently separated by political borders intended to legitimate and defend the essence of the nation-state, discovered in cross-border cooperation (CBC) a facilitator of good neighborly relations, economic opportunities, or a possibility to promote innovative and high-quality public services. At a European level, cross-border cooperation, supported by the integration policies of the EU, highlighted the growing role of local authorities and communities, as stakeholders and beneficiaries alike. This paper presents the results of a survey-based research conducted among managers, experts, and staff from local public administration, across the Hungarian-Romanian border, analyzing their opinion regarding the changes to their institutions brought forth by their involvement in cross-border actions in the Bihor–Hajdú-Bihar Euroregion. It focuses on revealing aspects such as the issue of human resources in local administration, the relationship between CBC projects developed by local administration and the employees’ expectations, involvement in decision-making, and prospects and career satisfaction in (local) public administration. Research results show that the local governments’ involvement in CBC projects should not only consider the opportunities of additional financing sources or improving cross-border relations in various fields (economic, cultural, communication, health, public order, tourism), as the results also reveal specific vulnerabilities and a particular indifference of local administration staff to generous, but often less tangible, objectives of CBC projects. The research also highlights the key role of human resource quality, echoing the role of managers in the selection, retention, and efficient use of human resources, linking the projects’ objectives to individual performance and expectations of a career in public administration.


Romania-Hungary cross-border cooperation Human resources Local public administration 


  1. Abrudan, M.-M., Săveanu, T., Matei, M., & Ujhelyi, M. (2015). Obstacles, realities and opportunities in human resources Management in Public Administration Institutions from Bihor County (Romania) and Hajdú-Bihar County (Hungary). Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 45(E), 5–25.Google Scholar
  2. AEBR. (2000). Practical guide to cross-border cooperation, Third Edition 2000. Gronau, Germany: Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) and European Commission.Google Scholar
  3. AEBR. (2016). Association of European Border Regions, Regions List. Available from: (Accessed 2 December 2016).
  4. Anderson, M., & Bort, E. (2001). The frontiers of the European Union. Chippenham, UK: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aston Centre for Europe. (2014). Local and regional authorities for a successful eastern partnership. Bruxelles, Belgium: European Union: Committee of the Regions.Google Scholar
  6. Badulescu, A., Kolozsi, L., Badulescu, D., Lupau, C. (2016). Strengths and weaknesses in local public administration in Romania. Preliminary research results. Proceedings of The 10th International Days of Statistics and Economics. Prague: University of Economics. September 8–10, 2016.Google Scholar
  7. Badulescu, D., Hoffman, I., Badulescu, A., & Simut, R. (2016). Local authorities’ involvement in fostering Hungarian-Romanian cross-border cooperation in tourism. Lex Localis-Journal of Local Self-Government, 14(3), 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baldwin, R., & Forslid, R. (2000). The Core - periphery model and endogenous growth: Stabilizing and destabilizing integration. Economica, 67, 307–324. doi: 10.1111/1468-0335.00211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunet-Jailly, E. (2005). Theorizing borders: An interdisciplinary perspective. Geopolitics, 10(4), 633–649. doi: 10.1080/14650040500318449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2013). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. Strasbourg, COM (2013) 301 final 2013/0156.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2015). Territorial Cooperation in Europe. A historical perspective. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  12. European Committee of the Regions. (2016). European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation, Maps & Register. [Interactiv] Available from: (Accessed 12 December 2016).
  13. Feier, F., & Badulescu, A. (2016). The HU-RO cross border cooperation programme 2007-2013: Insights related to the effectiveness of using the European funds. Oradea Journal of Business and Economics, 1(1), 47–57.Google Scholar
  14. Gasparini, A. (2008). Cross border cooperation in Central Europe. An analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Gorizia, Italy: Council of Europe & ISIG.Google Scholar
  15. González-Gómez, T., & Gualda, E. (2016). Reporting a bottom-up political process: Local perceptions of crossborder cooperation in the southern Portugal–Spain region. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(3), 468–480. doi: 10.1177/0969776413518781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hungarian Central Statistical Office. (2014). Times series of annual, regional statistics - Economic branches. Available at: (Accessed 01 November 2016).
  17. I.S.I.G. (2013). Manual on removing obstacles to CBC. Gorizia, Italy: Institute of International Sociology Gorizia.Google Scholar
  18. Knippenberg, H., & Markusse, J. (1999). 19th and 20th century borders and border regions in Europe. In H. Knippenberg & J. Markusse (Eds.), Nationalising and denationalising European border regions, 1800–2000: Views from geography and history (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krugman, P., & Venables, A. (1995). Globalization and the inequality of nations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 857–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lepik, K.-L. (2009). Euroregions as mechanisms for strengthening cross-border cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. Trames, 13(3), 265–284. doi: 10.3176/tr.2009.3.05. Accessed 01 November 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martinez, O. (1994). The dynamics of border interaction. New approaches to border analysis. In C. Schofield (Ed.), Global boundaries, world boundaries (Vol. 1, pp. 1–15). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Medeiros, E. (2011). (Re)defining the Euroregion concept. European Planning Studies, 19(1), 141–158. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2011.531920. Accessed 01 December 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Institute of Statistics (Romania). 2013. Statistical yearbook 2013 - Tourism. Available from: (Accessed 10 August 2015).
  25. Nijkamp, P., & Batten, D. (1990). Barriers to communication and spatial interaction. The Annals of Regional Science, 24(4), 233–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Dowd, L., McCall, C., Damkat, I. (2006). Sustaining cross-border cooperation: A cross-sectoral case study approach, University College Dublin, Institute for British-Irish Studies: IBIS Working Paper No. 61, MFPP Working Papers No. 11.Google Scholar
  27. Perkmann, M. (2003). The rise of the Euroregion. A bird’s eye perspective on European cross-border co-operation. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University, Department of Sociology.Google Scholar
  28. Regional Office for Cross-border Cooperation for Romanian-Hungarian Border (BRECO). (2015). Programme. Overview. Available from: (Accessed 15 December 2016).
  29. Saint-Germain, M. A. (1995). Similarities and differences in perceptions of public service among public administrators on the U.S.-Mexico border. Public Administration Review, 55(6), 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scott, J. (1999). European and north American contexts for cross-border regionalism. Regional Studies, 33(7), 605–617. doi: 10.1080/00343409950078657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Svensson, S. (2015). The bordered world of cross-border cooperation: The determinants of local government contact networks within Euroregions. Regional & Federal Studies, 25(3), 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Szmigiel-Rawska, K. (2016). Sustainability of cross-border cooperation: PHARE CBC partnership development paths. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(3), 513–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Topaloglou, L., Kallioras, D., Manetos, P., & Petrakos, G. (2005). A border regions typology in the enlarged European Union. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 20(2), 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Venables, A. (1996). Equilibrium locations of vertically linked industries. International Economic Review, 37(2), 341–359. doi: 10.2307/2527327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economic SciencesUniversity of OradeaOradeaRomania

Personalised recommendations