sign in sign up
<<
Home , Botiza, Brazii, Bunila, Buteni, Chisindia, Ciumani

QUAESTIONES GEOGRAPHICAE 31(2) • 2012

INTER-COMMUNAL COOPERATION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF

Ra d u Să g e a t ă

Institute of Geography, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania

Manuscript received: June 5, 2011 Revised version: May 23, 2012

Să g e a t ă R., Inter-communal cooperation and regional development: The case of Romania. Quaestiones Geographi- cae 31(2), Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań 2012, pp. 95–106. 2 tables, 3 figs. DOI 10.2478/v10117-012- 0022-8, ISSN 0137-477X.

Ab s t r a c t . Romania’s local administrative-territorial organisation shows a high degree of fragmentation. The situation tends to worsen as some villages break away from the parent communes and form new administra- tive-territorial structures. Since their area is fairly small and adequate financial resources to sustain some co- herent, long-term development programmes are missing, a solution would be for them to associate freely into inter-communal cooperation structures, which is a basic prerequisite for attracting European structural funds. Such a type of cooperation practice was experienced in this country at the beginning of the 20th century. Today, inter-communal cooperation could be achieved in two ways: by an association of local communities patterned on historical ‘lands’ (after the French model) and by the establishment of a town, of the metropolitan type, to polarise cooperation structures.

Ke y w o r d s : administrative fragmentation, inter-communal cooperation, regional development, Romania Radu Săgeată, Institute of Geography, Romanian Academy, 12 Dimitrie Racoviţă, 023993, Bucharest, Romania; e-mail: [email protected]

1. Introduction Romania), or by having new, flexible structures of inter-communal association based on common With the numerical increase in communes, interests and established by people’s free accord. a local tendency to fragmentation has become In the first case, the political-administrative de- obvious, especially after 20001.This situation calls cision rests with the centre and is sanctioned in for a new territorial planning strategy, either by a referendum; in the second case, the initiative creating an under-departmental type of admin- belongs exclusively to the local communities. istration resembling the French arrondissement From this viewpoint, we consider that extrapolat- (or a small rural district – the plasă of inter-war ing the French pays model to Romania would be a useful and beneficial experiment with a positive 1 Out of the 238 new communes formed between 1990 and 2011, only 5 held this rank before 2000. This evo- impact on the evolution of the Romanian village. lution is the result of the local communes’ desire for We use the term ‘village’ because, with a few ex- self-administration, also encouraged by the govern- ceptions, the new urban nuclei created after 1945 ments that came to power after the elections of 2000. have not become real polarisation cores with ur- Some rural communities situated at the periphery of ban functions. In most cases, whether they enjoy the existing communes perceived themselves margin- alised and decided to separate and form new com- urban status or remain rural settlements lately munal centres. As a matter of fact, many of them had benefiting from European rural development commune-seat status before 1950. 96 Radu Săgeată programmes, their evolution has been very much experimented with by Romanian administrative the same. practice at the beginning of the 20th century. The administrative-territorial map of Roma- nia, both in the present variant and in the one proposed as an optimisation model, shows great 2. Evolution of inter-communal fragmentation at the local level: 2,926 communes cooperation in Romania and 320 towns, of which 103 are municipia2 (Jan- uary 1, 2011). The fragmentation is expected to The very definition of the commune shows it continue as some villages tend to break away to be an associative structure: an administrative- from the existing communes and develop into territorial unit which comprises the rural popula- new administrative structures. tion united by common interests and traditions, This process can be considered beneficial, fall- and includes one or several villages in terms of ing in line with the action of assigning some vil- economic, socio-cultural and geo-demographic lages communal status which they held before conditions (Erdeli et al. 1999: 83). 1968. Re-establishing all the 1,551 communes The commune, institutionalised after the uni- dismantled in 1968 would reduce the average fication of principalities by the Communal Act of size of local administrative structures (currently April 1, 18643, was to have 100 families or 500 in- 80.27 km2) to 53.64 km2; a comeback to the 1925 habitants. In this way, 2,905 communes came into situation would mean an area of only 33.6 km2. being in the two principalities of Wallachia and Since local structures have the characteristics re- Moldavia. The average area of a commune was quired by identity spaces, delimiting them needs 47.5 km2. Because of high local fragmentation the agreement of the respective local communi- and because communal administrative structures ties and not the establishment of demographic or had a small area and population, the formation of financial thresholds, and even less of administra- sufficiently large budgets to achieve real financial tive boundaries imposed from outside. autonomy was rare. Therefore, the Act of May 1, A small area and the absence of adequate fi- 1904 stipulated that a commune must have 800 nancial resources to sustain some coherent long- inhabitants and a minimum income of 8,000 lei term development programmes would suggest (Nistor 2000). Out of the 2,905 communes, only that the free association within inter-communal 299 met this criterion, the others would associ- cooperation structures could be a solution to ate and form 962 communal rings, each having obtain the European structural funds over the to finance a minimum of health and public order 2007–2013 period. Inter-communal cooperation services. structures represent associative structures of co- The communal rings functioned only four operation among territorial communities at the years, being dissolved by the Act of April 29, 1908, commune level, a type of cooperation already which laid down a basis for a lucrative system of associations of local territorial communities to Table 1. Change in the number of Romanian adminis- perform or keep up some public works of local trative-territorial units (1990–2010). economic, cultural or technical-urban utility. of which The main legal provision regulating the lo- Year Towns Communes municipia cal communities’ associative system at the com- 1990 260 56 2,688 mune level was the Administrative Unification 2010 320 103 2,926 Act (June 14, 1925), which promoted excessive centralism materialised in small administrative

2 In Romania’s legislation, the municipium (pl. municip- 3 Under this law, the communes, defined as adminis- ia) is defined as a city with a large number of inhabit- trative-territorial units with juristic-person status, ants that has a special economic, socio-political and included “all villages, towns and small towns (bor- cultural-scientific importance in the country’s life. oughs)”. It was only after 30 years that a distinction Another normative act later has established precisely would be made between the rural and the urban and clearly the demographic indicators, location ad- commune (Act of July 31, 1894) as the technological vantages, and economic and physical-infrastructure progress of society had widened the gap between ur- facilities for a city to be declared a municipium. ban and rural environments. INTER-COMMUNAL COOPERATION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF ROMANIA 97 units: whenever possible, each village was to be 3. Inter-communal cooperation in post- turned into a commune. However, this was not communist Romania. Premises and feasible in practice because Wallachian, Molda- evolution vian and some Bessarabian communes had very low incomes. What emerged were 8,751 com- The steep economic decline of the 1990s was munes (the largest number of local administra- amply reflected also by political-administrative tive-territorial units ever recorded in Romania) decisions, which shifted from the ideological to comprising 15,267 villages. And again, the large a predominantly economic perspective. A first number and extremely low financial power made step in this direction had in view the principle of local autonomy simply a desideratum, a mere restitutio in integrum, which characterised most formality. Therefore, this law maintained the political decisions in matters of legislation up system of lucrative associations initiated in 1908 to the mid–1990s, when a number of laws were (but dissolved in 1959) when the Peasant Party, passed regulating the situation of nationalised then in government, with Juliu Maniu as Prime houses, rehabilitating some political personali- Minister, opted for the establishment of large ties active mainly in the inter-war period, and administrative units capable of having true local stipulating an objective presentation of Roma- autonomy. In this way, the number of communes nia’s contemporary history and the communist dropped drastically from 8,751 to 1,500, but that system, in an attempt to correct the arbitrary de- of villages remained unchanged. In order to es- cisions made by the regime abolished in 1989. In tablish a commune, it was necessary to have over line with this rehabilitation policy, it was decided 10,000 inhabitants and a local income higher than that the administrative-territorial structures dis- 500,000 lei. The opposition, especially the Nation- mantled in 1950 should be re-established. al Liberal Party, voiced its discontent and, when Romania’s official request for EU membership it came to power, resumed the 1925 principles of lodged on June 22, 1995 opened up the road to extreme centralisation (the Administrative Act of negotiations for adopting the European Com- 1936). munity acquis. As regards the administrative-ter- After 1950, the communist rule reduced lo- ritorial structures, that moment marked the de- cal initiatives simply to acts of acquiescence in velopment of initiatives to set up territorial units party and state decisions, local autonomy be- comparable in area and demographic size to re- came formal, and the institutional framework gions in Europe. The idea of integrating former of inter-communal association was eliminated. administrative structures gained ground against The number of communes was steadily being re- proposals of fragmentation based on the recon- duced: 8,751 in 1936; 4,313 in 19564; 4,259 in 1960; struction on the former county pattern. As a re- 2,706 in 1968; 2,326 in 1989; but was up to 2,869 sult, the eight development regions established on July 1, 2005. in 19975 constituted the territorial framework The Romanian legislation provides only for for the implementation of regional development contract-based cooperation between local territo- policies6. rial communes through the agency of local coun- While at the macro-territorial level there is cils. Their task is to undertake works and services a tendency to create administrative structures of public interest and collaborate with economic patterned on the European region type, at the agents on the basis of agreements for works of micro-territorial level tendencies are just the op- common interest. The normative acts stipulating posite, basically towards fragmentation, as new the above include the Local Public Administra- local administrative structures are expected to tion Act, the Public Finance Act, and the Local emerge by spinning off from the existing ones. Public Finance Act (Popescu 1999). 5 They were mentioned in the Green Paper. Regional De- velopment Policy in Romania worked out by the Gov- ernment and the European Commission under the PHARE Programme. 4 However, they increased to the 1956 figure of 4,313 6 These were legislated in July 1998 (see Regional De- from 4,052 in 1950. velopment Act No. 151, art. 5 and 6). 98 Radu Săgeată

Generally, history and local patriotism (re-es- corruption, thus discouraging entrepreneurial tablishing the communes abusively dismantled initiatives. in 1950 and 1968)7 are the motives put forward, And so, between January 1, 1990 and January but the true reasons behind the decisions to set 1, 2011, 238 new communes came into being (Fig. up new communes are rather of an economic and 1). The peak moment of that action was 2002– political nature. 2004, after the Management of the National Terri- The overall economic decline in the post–1989 tory Plan – Section IV: The Settlements Network period, shown in the severe degradation of the was adopted in July 20018. This normative act means of production and fixed assets which had established the legal framework stipulating the belonged to former collective farms (buildings, minimum and maximum criteria for changing warehouses, animal sheds, irrigation systems, the status of communes to towns and of towns to plant nurseries, solariums, etc.), contributed to municipia. But in many cases villages proposed the worsening of the situation of the aged and as county-seats ignored the conditions imposed feminised rural population inherited from the by the law; moreover, political decisions made communist regime and its forcible industrialisa- under the pressure put by the local authorities tion policy. In these conditions, convincing peo- to set up new communes and bring in entrepre- ple who had lost their jobs in the process of urban neurial activities were often subjective, because industrial restructuring to go to the countryside those communes had not the economic potential was a pretty difficult task, even though the land which would have entitled them to those promo- law provided for the restitution of property and tions. the government offered financial assistance. Since administrative fragmentation at the com- In addition, the general money shortage led to munal level keeps progressing, contract-based a steady degradation of technical-construction cooperation among local territorial communities infrastructure, also enhancing the consequences is not only a functional modality, but also a very of some extreme climatic and geomorphological useful one. This would help attaining some ob- phenomena (floods, droughts, landslides) that af- jectives of public interest (infrastructure, serv- fected very many rural communities, increasing ices) and facilitate collaboration with economic endemic poverty and the feeling of dependence agents for works of common interest on the ba- on local administration, which appeared to be in- sis of public-private partnership agreements. different to villagers’ problems. A good example in this respect is the French pays Location is also very important. There are (Săgeată 2004a, b, 2005, 2006). many isolated villages or communes undergo- In France, inter-communal cooperation has ing depopulation, and so people there tend to set got a long tradition, given that extended adminis- up their own administrative structures and spare trative fragmentation has been a landmark there. the long and costly journey (of tens of kilometres With its 36,700 communes, France has the most sometimes) to the communal seats. fragmented local administration throughout the In this way, the separation of some villages European Community, ranking far behind any and the formation of new communes with fewer other of its member states. In Germany, for ex- inhabitants is an attempt to solve the economic ample, the merging of communes in the 1970s left and social situation of some local communities only 8,500 units from the former total of 24,000; in the hope that self-administration is more ef- in France the process took on a reverse course, ficient, efficiency being a major prerequisite in similar to that foreseeable for Romania. Also the the allocation of extra-budgetary funds. In many causes underlying those changes are similar, in cases, however, these initiatives hide local inter- principle people’s profound attachment to their ests in the guise of mayors’ strong attachment to their electorate. In reality, this scheme results in an overexpanded bureaucratic apparatus and

7 The 8,751 communes in place under the 1925 adminis- trative-territorial organisation were reduced to 4,052 8 Act 351/July 6, 2001, published in the Official Bulletin in 1950, 2,706 in 1968 and 2,326 in 1989. of Romania, XIII, 408 of July 13, 2001. INTER-COMMUNAL COOPERATION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF ROMANIA 99 Fig. 1. Settlements assigned communal status between January 1, 1990 and 2011 100 Radu Săgeată locality9, which is strongly identified mentally ing well-individualised regional spaces, “lands” with local autonomy, local specificity against in Romania, unlike their counterparts in France, a centralised administrative system. The mayors, have never enjoyed a legally institutionalised who were the first to be requested to state their status. We consider that a normative act setting opinion on the numerical reduction of communes, things right would be highly beneficial. Such an were keen to oppose the merger, usually invok- act should provide for their institutionalisation, ing their obligation to the electorate. So, nearly and for the establishment of some inter-commu- 80% (28,600) of the overall number of communes nal cooperation structures scheduled to overlap have under 1,000 inhabitants and 61% even fewer the historical “lands”. than 500; in this way, the necessary services for The presence of some strong urban nuclei actually discharging the attributes of local power capable of effectively polarising local settle- are missing. Besides, the average area of a French ment systems might help some of those “lands” commune is very small, no more than 15.1 km2, (Maramureş Land, Dorna Land, Bârsa Land, many having even under 10 km2. This situation Făgăraş Land, and Amlaş Land) develop into prompted two territorial polarisation acts (in under-departmental type administrative struc- 1995 and 1999) institutionalising inter-communal tures, an aspect taken into account when work- cooperation by way of setting up communities of ing out the administrative framework proposed communes and pays. as an optimisation model (Săgeată 2004a, b, 2006). While the French pays have emerged relative- Their functional capacity is reflected in people’s ly recently, the Romanian geographical space has psychology, the region becoming a mental space recorded them since as far back as the early Mid- and an ethnographic space, a space with which dle Ages (1200–1300). With time, “lands” (pays) inhabitants identity themselves, expressing the have acquired some features which define them communion between man and his environment, as specific geographical regions of Romania (Ilieş a reality fundamental to sustaining any territorial 1999). By the level of importance, “lands” hold organisational structure. Mental spaces are at the a lower rank than the historical provinces, but same time functional spaces, as well as spaces of higher than the commune-type local communi- cultural homogeneity, structured from bottom to ties. “Lands” stand out as the most character- top on the basis of relationships among the local istic mid-level functional territorial structures communities. Most European regions are in ef- in Romania. That they are viable structures has fect mental spaces shaped in the course of a long been proved by their great temporal stability, historical process. There are cases when people’s having become actual landmarks of the local regional identity is stronger than their national people’s identity, of their mental, ethnographic one (e.g. Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium, the and life experience (l’espace vécu) (Cocean 2002). German and Austrian lands, the Swiss cantons, This function is augmented by local polarisation or some of the Spanish autonomous communi- cores, which have registered a remarkable de- ties). Therefore, we consider that the regions velopment through investments in rural tourism which, through inter-communal cooperation and agro-tourism. have in time become mental spaces are the most Like the French pays, the Romanian “lands” viable ones and, irrespective of size, deserve be- do not cover the whole national territory, but ing vested with administrative status. only old pockets of settlement, corresponding as However, in our opinion, the first and most a rule to depression areas used as shelter-places important obstacle to forming inter-communal (Table 2). cooperation structures in Romania’s rural areas But for all their political and political-admin- (Fig. 2) is the local psyche. Unlike the French, istrative functions discharged throughout his- who have a positive perception of participatory tory to the present day, and despite represent- practices, of partnership among local communi- ties, or between various institutions and the local 9 In France the commune is identified with the admin- actors, liable to produce mutual benefits, the Ro- istrative territory of the human settlement (rural or manian peasant has experienced decades of for- urban), and no other units (of the village-type as in Romania) enter its fabric. cible collectivisation. Therefore, he is extremely INTER-COMMUNAL COOPERATION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF ROMANIA 101 reluctant to take such a move, because the idea of by prejudice accumulated over decades of collec- an inter-communal system, of collective partici- tivisation. pation, is perceived as a comeback to the commu- Establishing inter-communal cooperation nist principles. A good illustration of the above is structures patterned on ‘disadvantaged (less-fa- the fundamentally different acceptance given by voured) zones’, usually with only one industrial the French and the to the term ‘agri- enterprise on their territory, and this one in the cultural production cooperative’. process of restructuring, as well as a very weak Consequently, in order to make people real- potential for occupational diversification, ap- ise that things have indeed changed, and that the pears to be a failed experiment in stimulating new forms of association have nothing in com- regional development. In many situations, in the mon with the past situations, local communities absence of precise legal regulations, this type of have to be well informed. Otherwise, any local zone has favoured tax evasion, because instead of initiative tends to be blocked from the very outset creating jobs for the locals by processing existing raw materials and benefit from fiscal assistance, Table 2. Main ethnographic mental spaces in Romania by spatial level. Macro-space Middle space Micro-space Historical provinces PAYS (“LANDS”) Communes ALMĂJULUI Bozovici*, Lăpuşnicu Mare, Dalboşeţ, Bănia, Şopotu Nou, Prigor (Ţinutul ~) and Eftimie Murgu (Caraş Severin County) BANAT PADURENILOR (Ţinutul *, Bătrâna, Bunila, Cerbăl, Dobra, , , ~) Pestişu Mic, Topliţa and Veţel () CÂMPULUNGULUI Câmpulung Moldovenesc*, Vama, Pojorâta, Sadova, Fundu (Ocolul~) Moldovei, Frumosu and Frasin (Suceava County) BUCOVINA DORNEI (Ţara ~) Vatra Dornei*, Dorna Candrenilor, Dorna Arini, Iacobeni, Panaci, (Suceava County) Şaru Dornei and Poiana Stampei Beiuş*, Pocola, Remetea, Căbeşti, Curăţele, Budureasa, Tărcaia, BEIUŞULUI (Ţara ~) Finiş, Şoimi, Uileacu de Beiuş, Drăgăneşti, Lazuri de Beiuş, (Bihor County) Bunţeşti, Rieni, Pietroasa, Ştei, Lunca, Câmpani, Vaşcău, Nucet, Cărpinet and Criştioru de Jos CRIŞANA SILVANIEI (Ţara ~) Şimleu Silvaniei*, , Vârşolţ, , Horoatu Crasnei, (Sălaj County) , Bănişor, Sâg, Vălcău de Jos, Nuşfalău and Ip Sebiş*, Vârfurile, Pleşcuţa, Gurahonţ, , , Almaş, ZARANDULUI (Ţara ~) , , Igneşti, , , Bârsa, , () Şilindia, Tăuţ and Cărand DOBROGEA - - Sighetu Marmaţiei*, Sarasău, Câmpulung la Tisa, Săpânţa, Remeţi, Giuleşti, , Călineşti, Deseşti, Ocna Şugatag, Bârsana, , , , Budeşti, MARAMUREŞULUI , Strâmtura, , Dragomireşti, , , (Ţara ~) , , Bistra, Vişeu de Sus, Vişeu de Jos, Poienile de MARAMUREŞ-OAŞ (Maramureş County) sub Munte, , Bogdan Vodă, , Borşa, Săcel and Siliştea de Sus OAŞULUI (Ţara ~) Negreşti-Oaş*, Vama, Certeze, Bixad, Călineşti-Oaş, Oraşu Nou, (Satu Mare County) Târşolţ, Cămârzana and Gherţa Mică VRANCEI (Ţara ~) Năruja*, Vrâncioaia, Nistoreşti, Bârsăneşti, Valea Sării, , MOLDAVIA () Vidra, , Andreiaşu de Jos, and WALLACHIA - - (MUNTENIA) LOVIŞTEI (Ţara ~) Brezoi*, Mălaia, Voineasa, Racoviţa, Câineni, Boişoara and (Vâlcea County) Perişani OLTENIA SEVERINULUI (Ţara ~) Drobeta-Turnu Severin*, Brezniţa-Ocol, Izvoru Bârzii, Malovăţ, (Mehedinţi County) Şimian and Husnicioara, Căzăneşti, Şişeşti 102 Radu Săgeată

Table 2. cont.

Macro-space Middle space Micro-space Historical provinces PAYS (“LANDS”) Communes *, Cisnădie, Sadu, Tălmaciu, Râu Sadului, Răşinari, Poplaca, AMLAŞULUI (Ţara ~) Orlat, Gura Râului, Sălişte, Cristian, Tilişca, Şelimbăr, Ocna () Sibiului, Şura Mică, Şura Mare, Roşia, Vurpăr, Slimnic and Loamneş. Braşov*, Săcele, , , Râşnov, Cristian, Vulcan, Brad, , Zărneşti, Poiana Mărului, Şinca Nouă, Târ- lungeni, , , Dobârlău, Hărman, , Sânpetru, BÂRSEI (Ţara ~) Hălchiu, Bod, Dumbrăviţa, , Hăghig, Măieruş, Apaţa, (Braşov and Covasna Belin, Vâlcele, Ilieni, Chinchiş, Dobârlău, Ozun, Sfântu Gheo- counties) rghe, Valea Crişului, Bodoc, Ghidfalău, Reci, Moacşa, Boroşneu Mare, Brateş, Covasna, Zăbala, Ghelinţa, Cătălina, Cernat, Târgu Secuiesc, Turia, Sânzieni, Poian, Ojdula, Breţcu and Lemnia Bistriţa*, Şieu-Măgheruş, Budacu de Jos, Cetate, Livezile, Josenii BISTRIŢEI (Ţara ~) Bârgăului, Prundu Bârgăului, Tiha Bârgăului, Mărişelu, Şieu, (Bistriţa-Năsăud County) Şieuţ and Monor CHIOARULUI (Ţara ~) Şomcuta Mare*, , Copalnic Mănăştur, Satu (Maramureş County) Lung, Săcălăşeni, Mireşu Mare and . *, Păuleni-Ciuc, , Frumoasa, Mihăileni, CIUCURILOR (Ţara ~) Dăneşti, Cârţa, Sândominic, Sâncrăieni, Sânsimion, Sânmartin, () Ciucsângeorgiu, Bălan, Tuşnad and Băile Tuşnad FĂGĂRAŞULUI Făgăraş*, Mândra, Şercaia, Şinca, Hârseni, Recea, Voila, Beclean, (Ţara ~) Lisa, Victoria, Viştea, Ucea, Şoarş, , Bruiu, Chirpăr, Arpaşu (Braşov County) de Jos, Cârţa, Porumbacu de Jos, Avrig and Racoviţa GIURGEULUI (Ţara ~) *, Lăzarea, Ditrău, Remetea, , Sărmaş, (Braşov County) Gălăuţaş, Topliţa, , , Suseni and Voşlăbeni Deva*, Hunedoara, Călan, , Turdaş, Băcia, Mărtineşti, HAŢEGULUI (Ţara ~) Boşorod, Bretea Română, Haţeg, Sântămăria-Orlea, Toteşti, Gen- (Hunedoara County) eral Berthelot, Cârjiţi, Peştişu Mic HOMOROADELOR (Ţara ~) *, Caţa, Homorod, , Mereşti, , Mărtiniş, (Braşov and Harghita Vlăhiţa and Copâlniţa counties) LĂPUŞULUI (Ţara ~) Târgu Lăpuş*, Lăpuş, Cupşeni, , Vima Mică, Cerneşti (Maramureş County) and MOMÂRLANILOR (Ţinutul~) Petroşani*, , , Vulcan, and (Hunedoara County) Câmpeni*, Abrud, Roşia Montană, Bucium, Bistra, Almaşu Mare, MOŢILOR (Ţara ~) Lupşa, Buceş, Vidra, Sohodol, Poiana Vadului, Scărişoara, (Alba and Hunedoara Horea, Albac, Mogoş, Vadu Moţilor, Întregalde, Ciuruleasa, counties) Bulzeştii de Sus, Blăjeni, Buceş, Bucuresci and Crişcior Năsăud*, Rebrişoara, Rebra, Feldru, Ilva Mică, Coşbuc, Salva, NĂSĂUDULUI (Ţara ~) Zagra, Nimigea, Chiuza, Şintereag, Dumitra, Telciu, Şintereag, (Bistriţa-Năsăud County) Dumitra, Telciu, Şieu-Odorhei PRAIDULUI (Ţara ~) (Harghita and Mureş coun- Sovata*, and ties) *In italics: settlements acting as polarising centres (central places). many entrepreneurs use the ‘disadvantaged positive. On the other hand, the selection of lo- zone’ regime to eschew taxation while running cal communities to be listed as disadvantaged is their companies elsewhere. In this way, the im- rather arbitrary, given that vast areas from Mol- pact of this venture on the local communities of davia and the Bărăgan Plain, plagued by endemic disadvantaged zones themselves is anything but poverty, profiled on one industrial unit alone and INTER-COMMUNAL COOPERATION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF ROMANIA 103

Fig. 2. Inter-communal cooperation structures. largely dependent on the climate, have not been et, a high population density, high land prices, included in this category. The rush to have as and a small administrative territory; the peri-ur- many disadvantaged zones as possible (embrac- ban area has limited financial resources, but land ing 7% of the country’s area and about 6.5% of in excess. The high land prices in town make in- its population) had not the expected investment vestments migrate to the peri-urban zone, and so effect, and since legislative measures appeared to administrative boundaries become simply a for- be ineffective, the whole scheme was abandoned. mality, the town expanding beyond its adminis- This aspect is mirrored also by the pattern and trative limits, and the rural zone evolving from duration of the ‘disadvantaged area’ regime. The polarised to integrated space. So, inter-commu- first such areas (designated in 1998 and 1999) nal cooperation becomes essential in stimulating were formed by inter-communal cooperation and entrepreneurial initiatives towards integrated re- represented extensive territorial structures (Bu- gional development. covina, Moldova Nouă-Anina, Brad, the Apuseni The formation of some metropolitan zones Mountains, the Jiu Valley, etc.); the latest ones similar to the municipalities of Oradea, Timişoara, (established in 2000 and 2001) were limited to Cluj-Napoca or Iaşi and to the Bucharest Metro- one administrative unit only. politan Zone is based on this type of inter-com- On the other hand, inter-communal coopera- munal cooperation. I suggest the extension of this tion in the peri-urban areas within the framework kind of partnership also to other urban centres, of metropolitan zone associations10 is fully viable such as the Galaţi-Brăila bipolar conurbation, or because the two types of area are perfectly com- the urbanised seaside area under the influence plementary: the town has the biggest local budg- of the Constanţa municipality (Săgeată 2004a, b, 2006). 10 With the exception of the country’s capital, the term A second trend in the evolution in the rural- “metropolitan zone” is inappropriate for towns in Ro- mania (Săgeată 2004b). urban interface, manifesting itself on the vertical 104 Radu Săgeată plane this time11, is the increasing transformation tem after 1990, has been municipium status as- of communes viewed as local polarisation cores signed to a great many towns. While the first years into towns (Act No. 351/2001, annex II–6.1 des- of the third millennium saw some communes ignated 17 zones with no town within a radius raised to town status, the last decade of the 20th of 25–30 km which were to develop urgently into century, basically the first phase of the transition, localities performing the inter-communal servic- witnessed some towns being declared municipia. ing role). In this way, the Romanian urban sys- So, all of the 47 new municipia established in the tem was enlarged (2001–2005) with 53 of the 58 post-communist period12 received this rank over settlements raised to town status after 1989. Their the 1993–2003 period, 37 of them before January demographic size, physiognomy and functional 1, 2001. The question is, what were the criteria profile justify the assumption that post-commu- behind pushing small towns (with fewer than nist urbanisation, just like the urbanisation pur- 20,000 inhabitants, e.g. Urziceni, Brad, Salonta, sued in the years of the centralised economy, Topliţa, Orşova, Vatra Dornei, etc.) to the top of had an extensive, quantitative character rather the hierarchy, and moreover, if those legislative than the intensive, qualitative attributes capable initiatives really boosted the socio-economic de- of creating better urban comfort and functional velopment of the local communities concerned. convergence between the top and the bottom of Whereas most municipia boast a complex the urban hierarchy. industrial profile, some are one-industry towns Multiplying the number of towns (Fig. 3) in (Câmpia Turzii and Hunedoara), agro-industrial conditions where large areas are not, or little, towns (Urziceni, Salonta, Roşiori de Vede and polarised by an urban core, may be well-inten- Caracal), towns specialised in the forestry econ- tioned, but it tends to remain simply declarative omy (Brad) or tourism (Vatra Dornei and Man- if these towns are not capable of growing into real galia). Just as in the 1965–1980 interval, the diver- local polarisation nuclei and playing a coagulat- sification index of industrial branches assumed ing role in the territory. Besides, the minimum the highest values in those municipia which had legal criteria attached to town status are usually experienced soaring development in the years of scarcely met, many settlements preserving strong the centralised economy. Hence their vulnerabil- rural traits. ity, caused on the one hand by artificial produc- In the absence of standards of quality matching tion relations between industrial partners, and the urban environment, urbanisation imposed by on the other hand, by the disparity between the legislation has more often than not a negative im- town’s industrial profile and the resources of the pact on the local communities, making them lose urban influence zone. As a result, inter-municipia the EU funds earmarked for rural development relationships also suffered some changes. programmes. In our view, establishing a catego- There are cases when location was the fac- ry of settlement intermediate between the urban tor that determined municipium status for some and the rural, similar to the urban communes of towns. Thus, in intensely rural areas with small- the interwar period, would be a solution. These town networks (e.g. in the Apuseni Mountains, settlements would be similar to rural ones, but in the Getic Piedmont, or in south-western Olte- would act as nurseries for the new urban settle- nia), some polarising centres should be singled ments, which should rise to town status only af- out to coordinate socio-economic activities. Turn- ter having met the necessary legal criteria. ing such towns into municipia (Brad, Drăgăşani, And last but not last, a third evolution trend Calafat, Salonta or Topliţa) might attract invest- which has affected the Romanian settlement sys- ment helping them to become growth poles for the respective zones. 11 Inter-communal associations and cooperation show on the horizontal plane, in space, by functional con- Assigning the municipium rank to towns situ- nections established spontaneously between local ated on the middle or lower rungs of the urban communities; on the other hand, changing some hierarchy has widened the existing gaps in the units’ administrative-territorial status presupposes the involvement of external decision-making bodies, a fact that would entail modifications also at the hier- 12 Out of the 47 municipia in 1968, we get 56 in 1989 and archical (vertical) level. 103 by January 1, 2011. INTER-COMMUNAL COOPERATION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF ROMANIA 105

Fig. 3. Municipia and towns established between January 1, 1990 and January 1, 2011. municipium network of Romania, so that the way, a disparity appeared between their real de- network shows obvious disproportions in de- velopment potential and the political-administra- mographic size as well as economic and loca- tive decisions which tended to blur the dysfunc- tion potential. The municipial population varies tions produced by the excessive industrialisation between 1,926,334 (Bucharest) and 10,996 (Beiuş, drive of the old centralised economy. Soon the March 18, 2002) and if Bucharest is left out of the lack of prospects of such a development model equation, then the ratio of extreme sizes slides became apparent, their socio-economic progress from 175/1 to 23/1. The fact that in demographic being little stimulated by legislative initiatives. terms the size of some municipia occupying the Therefore, reshuffling the network of municipia is higher ranks of the hierarchy is bigger than of an imperative, affecting towns with under 50,000 some counties (e.g. Covasna, Ilfov, sălaj, Tulcea, inhabitants, which might be demoted from this Giurgiu or Ialomiţa) calls for some deep recon- rank. sideration of their administrative pattern and Summing up, we would say that boosting the creation of districts inside their boundaries inter-communal cooperation in Romania means similar to those existing in Bucharest. Densities creating functional structures, patterned on the within the built-up areas of those municipia also historical “lands” and metropolitan zones around vary widely, from over 10,000 pop./km2 (or even some viable local polarisation cores whose func- 21,855 pop./km2 in Oneşti to a record high 42,602 tional capacity has been proved in the course of pop./km2 in Orăştie) to under 1,000 pop./km2. time, and which have historical grounds for the In view of the above, we assume that muni- creation of territorial-administrative structures in cipium status after 1990 was often considered between the department and the commune, simi- the optimum, even miraculous, solution for the lar to the old district seats (Rom. scaun specific to socio-economic revival of some declining towns, the Transylvanian Saxons or Szecklers; plai, ocol, and a chance to attract investment therein. In this districts of the Carpathian mountain settlements; 106 Radu Săgeată plasă, a small rural district; raion, the district of Po p e s c u C.-L., 1999. Autonomia locală şi integrarea europeană (Local autonomy and European integration). All Beck, the 1950–1968 period). Apart from being a Soviet- Bucharest. type administrative structures, the raions largely Să g e a t ă R., 2001. “Ruralul” în mediul urban (Sings of the overlapped with some Romanian realities. Thus, “rural” in the urban). Revista Geografică, VIII: 157–165. Să g e a t ă R., 2004a. Dinamica zonelor de influenţă urbană sub some of the former district seats (the plasă or the presiunea funcţiei politico-administrative (Dynamics former raion centres), especially if endowed with of urban influence zones under political-administrative ethnographic or tourist functions, are potentially pressure). Forum Geografic, III, 3: 121–126. Să g e a t ă R., 2004b. �������������������������������������Zonele metropolitane în România (Met- capable of being spatially restructured, provided ropolitan areas in Romania). Romanian Review on Political someone wished to invest in their infrastructure. Geography, VI(1–2): 123–136. Să g e a t ă R., 2005. Structuri de cooperare intercomunală (In- tercommunal co-operation structures). Sustainable devel- References opment of rural space. Economic problems, 154–155: 30–45. Să g e a t ă R., 2006. Deciziile politico-administrative şi organizarea teritoriului. Studiu geografic cu aplicare la teritoriul României Co c e a n P., 1997. Ţara (The land) – a typical region of Roma- (Political-administrative decisions and organisation of nia. Revue Roumaine de Géographie, 41: 41–50. the territory. Geographical study with application to Ro- Co c e a n P., 2002. Geografie Regională (Regional geography). mania). Edit. Universităţii Naţionale de Apărare „Carol Presa Universitară Clujeană, Cluj-Napoca. I” &, Edit. Top Form, Bucureşti. Er d e l i G. et al., 1999. Dicţionar de geografie umană (Dictionary Să g e a t ă R., 2007. Inter-communal cooperation and territorial of human geography). Edit. Corint. planning units. In: Surd V. & Zotic V. (eds), The French ex- Hu m e a u J.-B., 1992. Le regroupement intercommunal en mi- perience and its applicability to Romania, rural space and local lieu rural (Inter-communal groups in rural areas). L’ In- development. Presa Universitară Clujeană, Cluj-Napoca: tercommunalité. Comité d’ Expansion de Maine et Loire: 147–151. 5–12. Să g e a t ă R., 2010. Regional development in Romania. Geographi- Il i e ş M., 1999. “Ţările” – regiuni geografice specifice ale cal studies. Edit. Universităţii “Lucian Blaga”, Sibiu. României (“The lands” – specific geographical regions Să g e a t ă R. & Si m i l e a n u V., 2007. Political-administrative de- in Romania). Romanian Review on Political Geography, I(1): cisions, a pressure factor for entrepreneurial initiatives. 44–49. Geographica Timisensis, 16(1): 95–104. Ni s t o r I.-S., 2000. Comuna şi judeţul. Evoluţia istorică (Com- mune and county. Historical evolution). Dacia, Cluj-Na- poca.