LIVING (BEYOND) THE BORDER
EUROPEAN INTEGRATION PROCESSES AND
CROSS-BORDER RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY (CRM)
IN THE UPPER ADRIATIC AREA
Devan Jagodic
Slori – Slovene Research Institute
Trieste (Italy)
d.jagodic@slori.org
CROSS-BORDER RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY (CRM)
CRM as an emerging phenomenon of spatial mobility
taking place in several EU “internal” borderlands
Migration movements undertaken by people living in
border areas, who decide to buy a house and move
on the other side of the border
Origins of the phenomenon (the “border paradox”):


on the one side: explosion of CRM after acceleration of European
integration processes during the 90’s ► consequence of the
increasing permeability of physical and mental borders
on the other side: cross-border migrants profit from
asymmetries between two bordering areas (real estate market
conditions, cost of living etc.) ► consequence of the long-lasting
border-barriers
LITERATURE REVIEW ON CRM: 4 CASE-STUDIES
 Dutch-German borderland
(Strüver, 2005; Van Houtum & Gielis, 2006)
 German-French borderland
(Terlouw, 2008)
 Danish-Swedish borderland
(www.tendensoresund.org)
 Slovak-Hungarian borderland
(Hardi, 2009)
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK (1)
CRM AS AN EFFECT OF SUBURBANISATION
OF BORDER CITIES
CRM always the RESULT of the border cities’
expansion towards their metropolitan suburbs across
the border
Nijmegen (NL) ► Germany
Karlsruhe (D) ► France
København (DK) ►Sweden
Bratislava (SK) ►Hungary
Neighbouring rural areas becoming progressively
residential suburbs of the cities, their “satellite
settlements”
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK (2)
CRM AS AN EFFECT OF SUBURBANISATION
OF BORDER CITIES
CAUSES for CRM typical of suburbanisation:
• high residential density in cities
• cheaper houses in peripheries
• growing demand for larger houses out of the city
centre and close to “nature”
• improvement of road connections and increase of
private motorisation
• role of governmental authorities (urban policies,
building permits, credit conditions etc.)
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK (3)
CRM AS AN EFFECT OF SUBURBANISATION
OF BORDER CITIES
A series of SIDE EFFECTS deriving from the “elastic”
way of life undertaken by cross-border migrants
CRM as an “elastic migration” (Van Houtum & Gielis,
2006) = constant interaction between centrifugal
forces (moving house in the new country) and
centripetal forces (maintaining of functional and/or
affective bonds with the country of origin)
Daily cross-border commuting practices to/from the
city (work, bring children to chool, visits to parents,
use of services, etc.)
CROSS-BORDER RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY
IN THE UPPER ADRIATIC AREA (1)
The Italian-Slovenian borderland:
 rather sensible and controversial area
 several variations of the border line ► changes in
political-institutional system, ethnic repressions,
definitions of rigid borders
 after World War II: border represented the
ideological line of division between West and East
 BUT, after the 60’s: border ever more permeable,
development of cross-border mobility practices
 democratisation of Slovenia (1991) and its entrance in
EU (2004) accelerated border crossing, giving birth
to new mobility phenomena (CRM)
CROSS-BORDER RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY
IN THE UPPER ADRIATIC AREA (2)
European integration processes + weakening of the
border barriers + liberalization of the Slovenian
real estate market ►Development of cross-border
flows of residential mobility in the Italian-Slovenian
border area
Main directions: rural villages of the Slovenian Carst
laying near close to the national border with Italy
New Slovenian Carst inhabitants = urban population
coming from Trieste, border city and capital of Friuli
Venezia Giulia Region
CROSS-BORDER RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY
IN THE UPPER ADRIATIC AREA (3)
 Suburbanization of Trieste crossing the national
border
CROSS-BORDER RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY
IN THE UPPER ADRIATIC AREA (4)
REASONS for moving beyond the border:
a) economic motivations:
differences in real estate prices !!!
less bureaucracy
minor costs for purchase
fewer taxes and duties
b) anti-urban motivations: better quality of life (green
areas, fresh air, no pollution etc.)
CROSS-BORDER RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY
IN THE UPPER ADRIATIC AREA (5)
Actors of CRM
 young couples looking for first house
 many of them had previous contacts with Slovenian
language/culture (members of Slovenian minority in
Trieste or relatives with Slovenian origins or have
studied the language)
 migrants with no knowledge of Slovenian language =
difficulties with the socio-cultural integration in the
new environment
CROSS-BORDER RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY
IN THE UPPER ADRIATIC AREA (6)
Cross-border migrants' way of life
 new residences located in the close vicinity of the
border line, in order to facilitate the maintenance of
contacts with the country of origin
 daily commuting with Trieste (work, school, social
networks, free time, use of services) ► “elastic” way
of life
 new domicile mostly used as a dormitory, a space where
to enjoy “nature” in the free hours of the day and
during weekends
CROSS-BORDER RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY
IN THE UPPER ADRIATIC AREA (7)
PROBLEMATIC ASPECTS linked to progressive
advancement of cross-border migration flows:
a) environment
b) landscape
c) social aspects
d) etno-linguistic aspects
a) EVIRONMENT
 Slovenian Carst = morphological and geological
specifities (“Carst phenomena”)
 Continuos building intervensions = threat for the
preservation of the natural lansdcape
 Traffic pollution produced by daily commuting
b) LANDSCAPE
 Traditional Karst architecture
 Advancement of “urban sprawl”
c) SOCIAL ASPECTS
Diffusion of urban ways of life linked to individualism
and privatism ► spread of family-centred residential
patterns
Orientation towards Italy and little motivation to social
integration in the new enivironment of living
“Living” often reduced to “residing” ► contrast with
traditional Carst rural way of life (social communities)
d) ETNO-LINGUISTIC ASPECTS
Main problem: little knowledge of Slovenian language
among some new incomers ►part of the local
population not inclined to communicate in Italian
Cases of ethnic segregation within
residential complexes at the margin
of the rural villages ►few contacts
with local population, mutual
diffidence
REACTIONS FROM LOCAL PUBLIC OPINION
Lack of legal instruments, which allows a wide diffusion
of “satellite settlements
Development of the territory influenced by big
investors, building lobbies and real estate agencies
Mediatic slogans underlining the threat of the
“invasion” from the Italian capital
Development of a series of local “civil initiatives”
CONCLUSIONS
CRM = a controversial phenomenon, which could arise
very different reactions:
a) POSITIVE: “a laboratory for cross-border
integration, which can contribute to overcome
physical and mental barriers by creating transnational
spaces”
b) NEGATIVE: “a contamination of the national
territory with exogenous elements”
c) INTERMEDIATE: “a part of the dynamics of the life
along the border; a normal consequence of the
asymmetries between two neighbouring systems,
caused by the presence of the border”
CONCLUSIONS
A
o
o
o
series of practical issues that national and
local authorities are called to face:
How to support integration of migrants in the new
setting? How to manage possible situations of
segregation or ethnic conflict?
How to deal with fiscal issues, giving that migrants
usually pay taxes in the country of origin but use
some public services in the country of destination?
What kind of cross-border cooperation is possible to
develop in order to face these problems?
THANKS FOR YOUR
ATTENTION!!!