Challenges of Pandemic-Related Border Closures for Everyday Lives of Poles and Czechs in the Divided Town of Cieszyn/Český Těšín: Integrated Functional Space or Reemergence of Animosities?

Abstract

The article asks whether the divided town Cieszyn-Český Těšín can be considered a joint “living space” in the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic. It evaluates the impact of the pandemic on various aspects of the daily lives of the inhabitants and institutions of both parts of this divided town. Three main dimensions of cross-border integration were studied: cross-border flows, cross-border structures/institutions, and the feeling of togetherness, which represents an ideational dimension of cross-border integration. The research was based on studying narratives covering border closures in the divided town, the analysis of cross-borderness of existing Facebook groups acting in both parts of the divided town, and the results of an extensive questionnaire-based survey among its inhabitants. The border closures restricted cross-border flows, which hit cross-border commuters and damaged the quality of this divided town as a living place because it introduced uncertainty. However, the health crisis also showed the high level of mutual interconnections between the local inhabitants and a functional cross-border civic society. The local people and politicians tend to perceive the divided town as a joint living space. The level of cross-border integration highly exceeds the one usual in the “new EU.”

EU labor policy recommendations drawn from COVID‐driven research attention on cross‐border commuting – A review

“…Qualitative, as well as quantitative approaches, can be seen. Descriptive analysis (e.g., document or social media analysis), as well as (semi‐structured) interviews, are the prevailing forms of qualitative research in the selected articles (e.g., Baez Moreno, 2020; Böhm, 2022; de Vries, 2020; Leiblfinger et al, 2021; Martin & Bergmann, 2021; Medeiros et al, 2021; Novotný, 2021; Opioła & Böhm, 2022; Virkkunen, 2020; Wu, 2021; Zhou et al, 2021). In addition to this, multiple forms of statistical modeling can be found (e.g., Hamidi et al, 2020; Laroze et al, 2021; Wilmes et al, 2021).…”

“…On the one hand, the literature targets the effects of a border closure as a ‘non‐pharmaceutical intervention’ (Aravindakshan et al, 2020, p. 2) for the spread of the COVID‐19 virus and chains of infection across borders (Brugués Rodríguez et al, 2021; Hamidi et al, 2020; Laroze et al, 2021; Lemey et al, 2021; van Hensbergen et al, 2021; Williams et al, 2021; Wilmes et al, 2021). On the other hand, the literature focuses on the impact of border closures on the mobility and daily life of the population in border regions (Böhm, 2022; Haddawy et al, 2021; Järv et al, 2021; Kajta & Opiłowska, 2021; Leiblfinger et al, 2021; Martin & Bergmann, 2021; Medeiros et al, 2021; Novotný, 2021; O'Connor et al, 2021; Spennemann, 2021; Virkkunen, 2020). A smaller share of literature refers to the responsiveness and inclusion of decision‐makers on local, regional, and EU levels in reacting to the COVID‐19 pandemic and the attempts to contain the spread of the virus or to break the chains of infection by closing national borders (Böhm, 2022; de Vries, 2020; Francetic, 2021; Kajta & Opiłowska, 2021; Medeiros et al, 2021; O'Connor et al, 2021; Opioła & Böhm, 2022).…”

“…On the other hand, the literature focuses on the impact of border closures on the mobility and daily life of the population in border regions (Böhm, 2022; Haddawy et al, 2021; Järv et al, 2021; Kajta & Opiłowska, 2021; Leiblfinger et al, 2021; Martin & Bergmann, 2021; Medeiros et al, 2021; Novotný, 2021; O'Connor et al, 2021; Spennemann, 2021; Virkkunen, 2020). A smaller share of literature refers to the responsiveness and inclusion of decision‐makers on local, regional, and EU levels in reacting to the COVID‐19 pandemic and the attempts to contain the spread of the virus or to break the chains of infection by closing national borders (Böhm, 2022; de Vries, 2020; Francetic, 2021; Kajta & Opiłowska, 2021; Medeiros et al, 2021; O'Connor et al, 2021; Opioła & Böhm, 2022). The same stock of literature critically evaluates the cooperation and communication of decision‐makers of different levels and the impact of decision‐making on the border regions.…”

“…However, its occurrence may appear in different forms. Cross‐border commuting is either the sole target group of a study (e.g., Novotný, 2021) or part of a focus group, such as transnational people or cross‐border communities (e.g., Böhm, 2022; Järv et al, 2021). Additionally, cross‐border commuters, or generally speaking, cross‐border labor mobility, can be seen as a target group impacted by the COVID‐19 pandemic (e.g., Järv et al, 2021; Kajta & Opiłowska, 2021), or as a factor influencing the chain and occurrence of infection (e.g., Laroze et al, 2021; van Hensbergen et al, 2021; Williams et al, 2021).…”

The COVID-19 pandemic as a catalyst of cross-border cooperation? Lessons learnt for border-regional resilience

“…These crises especially affect border regions in the EU (cf. Gräbner et al, 2020;Fedajev et al, 2021;Martinho, 2021;Böhm, 2022;. The concept of resilience in this context is widely discussed in the literature, with resilience frequently defined as 'bouncing back' or 'rebounding'.…”