ABSTRACT
In the first chapter, it was stated that one of the principal interests in boundaries of any political geographer relates to the way in which a boundary or frontier influences both the landscape of which it is a part and the development of the policies of the states on either side. This view resulted from acceptance of the dictum, repeated by nearly all the authors reviewed, that it was meaningless to consider the boundary outside the context of the flanking state areas. Lapradelle termed this zone le voisitiage, and ‘border landscape’ is suggested as an equivalent term. Political geographers are interested in boundaries because they mark the limits of political organization, which varies over the Earth’s surface. Variations in political systems are often accompanied by variations in regulations concerning economic activity and the movement of people, goods, and ideas. The results of these variations are likely to be most clearly seen in the neighbourhood of the boundary, whether state functions are rigidly applied at the boundary or whether the states combine to minimize the adverse effects of the boundary upon the border inhabitants. Few workers have selected this subject as the focus of their study, but many have included important references to it. Minghi (1963) did not suggest a separate group of such studies in his proposed classification of case studies but included important papers by House (1959), Ullman (1939), and Nelson (1952) in categories dealing with the effects of boundary change and the characteristics of internal boundaries. House (1982) has identified the need for much more detailed research
into the nature of borders: There is an urgent need both for empirical and comparative studies of a dynamic nature for frontier [border] situations, whether these involve confrontational or co-operative relationships, and for a more coherent set of theoretical frames within which to study such situations. (House 1982, p. 264)
In an effort to answer his own call, House produced an important study of the borderland between Mexico and the United States along the Rio Grande. After describing the evolution of the boundary and the characteristics of the people living on both sides, he analysed the rich variety of transactions within the borderland, which included water management, migration, smuggling, and tourism. He usefully stressed the set of spatial relationships which can be
profitably considered. They are portrayed in Figure 6.1, which is adapted from his work (House 1982, p. 10). This figure shows the relationships
between administrations, commercial enterprises, and individuals in the border, in provincial centres, and in the countries’ capitals. At the conclusion of his study House drew attention to some o f the
problems which face geographers undertaking research in borderlands. He emphasized the difficulties of differentiating the transactions, perceptions, and contributions of actors at the provincial and capital levels, and he also warned of the problems associated with data bases for the neighbouring countries which were not strictly comparable and which would not allow multivariate analysis. This seminal study by House also answers a much older call by Minghi
(1963) for more attention to the normal situation of boundaries and borderlands. There is a temptation for scholars to concentrate on dramatic events associated with boundaries, but they are dramatic because they are exceptional, and for every border incident which is reported in newspapers and broadcasts there are thousands of routine transactions occurring within the world’s borderlands.
