www.ssoar.info Rural poverty in Romania and the need for diversification: Carpathian studies Turnock, David Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Turnock, D. (2005). Rural poverty in Romania and the need for diversification: Carpathian studies. Europa Regional, 13.2005(3), 102-114. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-48068-3 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer Deposit-Lizenz (Keine This document is made available under Deposit Licence (No Weiterverbreitung - keine Bearbeitung) zur Verfügung gestellt. Redistribution - no modifications). We grant a non-exclusive, non- Gewährt wird ein nicht exklusives, nicht übertragbares, transferable, individual and limited right to using this document. persönliches und beschränktes Recht auf Nutzung dieses This document is solely intended for your personal, non- Dokuments. Dieses Dokument ist ausschließlich für commercial use. All of the copies of this documents must retain den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen Gebrauch bestimmt. all copyright information and other information regarding legal Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments müssen alle protection. You are not allowed to alter this document in any Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise auf gesetzlichen way, to copy it for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses Dokument document in public, to perform, distribute or otherwise use the nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen Sie document in public. dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oder conditions of use. anderweitig nutzen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an. Rural poverty in Romania and the need for diversification: Carpathian studies DAVID TURNOCK Introduction Poverty is a very serious problem in Ro- mania, as it is in the other transition states in South Eastern Europe, as a result of economic restructuring and a decrease in salaried employment. It is assessed by the Commission for Poverty Alleviation and Promotion of Social Inclusion (www. caspis.ro) in terms of spending power re- lated to an ‘alimentary baseline’ along with non-food items and services added. But poverty does not correlate simply with unemployment because millions of country people are tied to small restituti- on holdings sustaining very low incomes that can easily fall below the poverty line (CARTWRIGHT 2001). Some small indivi- dual farms survived under communism while private plots were an important part of the cooperative system (Photos 1 Photo 1: Traditional practices for cereal harvesting maintained in the 1970s in the village of and 2). But ‘minifundia’ in Romanian Gornoviţa (Mehedinţi Plateau) Photo: TURNOCK 1980 agriculture has greatly increased becau- se spontaneous privatisation after 1989 associations which are most common sharecropping arrangements remained meant that legislators in 1991 “had no in lowland areas specialising in arable popular. Most farmers struggled with option but to issue a land law that sanc- farming. Although land leasing beca- insufficient land and livestock as well tioned the earlier spontaneous reposses- me legal in 1994 the leaseholder still as inadequate equipment. There were sion” and dissolve cooperatives ‘de jure’ lacked adequate security and informal 4.26 mln individual farms in 2000 with (CHIRCA & Teşliuc 1999, p. 37). Hence ‘by design’ the restitution created a rural class of elderly landowners because most of the heirs who inherited their parents’ former land were now urban dwellers, for the rural population declined from 12.16mln (76.6 %) in 1948 to 10.60 mln (45.7 %) in 1990 and 10.26 (47.3 %) in 2002. “Young and middle-aged rural households who depend on land for their living and who will have to make up the core of the future farmer population lost out in the distribution of land in the wake of de-collectivisation” (Ibid p.38). Moreover, a ban on land transactions after the revolution effectively blocked access to land for younger farmers for almost seven years: so, “with a sticky land sales market and insecure land lea- sing arrangements it is very difficult to match the surplus land they [the princi- pal restitution beneficiaries] own and the surplus labour of the younger farmers” Photo 2: Mai�e cultivation on private farms and gardens at Câmpuri (Vrancea) in 1990 (i bidem p. 33) other than through land Photo: TURNOCK 1990 102 Europa Regional 13(2005)3 in commerce (Photo 3) – and 34 % are unpaid family workers (METE et al. 2003 p. 2). Not surprisingly, a third of rural income comes from informal earnings – overwhelmingly from small-scale ag- riculture, land leasing and agricultural seasonal work (for example by itinerant teams of landless labourers who are paid in kind) – compared with less than 20 % in urban areas. Thus CHIRCA and Teşliuc (1999, p. 30) assert that “those who work as sole entrepreneurs in the rural area are cursed to be poor”: farming is not gene- rally seen as a source of prosperity or a real source of economic growth. The si- tuation remains critical despite positive economic growth since 2000. In 2002 42.4 % of the rural population were poor compared with 17.6 % for the urban sec- tor: i.e. 68 % of the nation’s poor lived Photo 3: Opportunities arise for commerce through privatised shops in former cooperative in rural areas. And whereas the overall premises – illustrated here at Nistoreşti (Vrancea) – and through new kiosks and cafes. rate declined significantly from 35.9 % Photo: TURNOCK 1987 in 2000 to 28.9 % in 2002, the urban are- an average area of 2.36 ha. Meanwhile themselves effectively excluded from as tended to gain from growth while the markets for agricultural commodities the salaried labour market and “pushed rural poor were largely excluded. Inde- were depressed before 1997 by fixed pri- into less onerous activities in farming, ed the labour shakeout from SOEs con- ces for meat, milk and wheat that elimi- non-agricultural self-employment or tinues so that “people are still moving nated competition from commodity and unemployment” (Teşliuc et al. 2003, p. towards occupational categories with storage markets. And smaller producers 137). Formal employment in rural areas increasing poverty” – especially agricul- still face difficulties because from 2001 accounts for only 26 % of working peo- ture (GAttI 2003, p. 73). Moreover while only ‘commercial’ farms could benefit ple, compared with 90 % in urban areas. there is social provision for poor people, from government agricultural support. 39 % of working people in rural areas through unemployment benefit, ‘mini- Country people who used to com- are self-employed – overwhelmingly mum income guarantee’ and heating mute to work in the towns often find in agriculture through some are active allowances (in addition to pensions and Area Zone 1986 1998 - 2000 2002 1992 Total A B Total A B Total C D Apuseni Urban 13.579 +8.1 +7.2 15.209 +4.5 -5.1 14.275 +5.1 4.757 Rural 41.867 +2.8 -16.3 35.003 -2.3 -8.4 34.968 -16.5 11.222 Total 55.446 +4.1 -10.5 502.232 -1.5 -7.5 49.243 -11.2 15.979 Buzău Urban 11.900 -6.9 -4.6 12.626 -2.1 * 11.631 _-2.3 4.096 Rural 101.494 +1.3 -7.2 94.259 -3.9 -1.5 93.686 -7.7 33.840 Total 113.394 +1.8 -6.9 106.885 -3.7 -1.3 105.317 -7.1 37.936 Harghita Urban 20.526 +10.9 -0.2 19.878 -4.5 -2.0 18.744 -8.7 6.403 Rural 30.984 +7.7 -4.3 30.278 -2.3 -1.6 29.208 -5.7 10.090 Total 51.510 +9.0 -2.7 50.156 -3.1 -1.7 47.952 -6.9 16.493 Maramureș Urban 64.896 +13.5 -4.7 59.711 +2.4 -7.5 57.218 -11.8 16.481 Rural 108.214 +12.0 -8.2 101.314 +2.5 -9.0 97.043 -10.3 28.511 Total 173.110 +12.6 -6.9 161.025 +2.4 -8.4 154.261 -10.9 44.992 Reșiţa Urban 157.209 +2.6 -5.7 138.012 -0.8 -2.8 122.962 -21.8 46.467 Rural 30.159 -4.9 -8.1 24.419 -9.3 -1.3 24.585 -18.5 8.247 Total 187.368 +1.4 -6.1 162.431 -2.1 -2.5 147.547 -21.3 44.992 Retezat Urban 165.682 +10.4 +6.8 173.909 +1.2 -12.6 157.660 -19.9 10.573 Rural 39.931 -4.2 -1.5 33.145 -8.7 +3.4 31.996 -19.9 10.573 Total 205.613 +7.6 +5.2 207.054 -0.4 -10.1 189.656 -7.8 67.386 Vâlcea Urban 26.922 +7.9 +2.8 28.687 +0.5 -1.7 26.881 -0.2 8.747 Rural 50.578 +6.3 -8.8 44.072 -1.7 -1.3 43.848 -13.3 16.259 Total 77.500 +6.8 -4.7 72.759 -1.0 -1.5 70.729 -8.7 25.006 Total Urban 460.714 +7.9 * 448.032 +0.3 -6.9 409.371 -11.1 143.764 Rural 403.227 +4.4 -7.9 362.490 -2.2 -3.4 355.334 -11.9 118.742 Tab. 1: Carpathian study areas: Population Source: National CommissionTotal for Statistics863.941 (commune files)+6.3 -3.6 810.522 -0.8 -5.3 764.705 -11.5 262.506 A Natural increase per thousand B Net migration per thousand C Percentage change 1986 - 2002 * less than 0.1 103 turnock_1.xls ������������������������ �������������� ���������������� ��������������������������� ��������������� ����������� �������� ���������������������� ��������� �������� ������ ����������������� ��������� ������������������� ��������� ��������� � ������� ����������� ������� ���������� ��������� ������ ������� ����� ���� ����� �������� ������������ � ����� ������ � ���� ����� ����� ����������� � ��������� ���� ����� ��������� � �������� ����� ����� ����� ������ ������ � ����� � ����� ���� ���� �������� ����� � ������ ���� ���� � ������� ����� ����� ������� � ������ ���� ������ �������� ������ ����� ����� ��������� ����� ������� ������ ������ ������� � � ������ � � ����������� ������� ������� ������ ���� ������ ����� ������ ������� ������� ������ ����� ��� ����� ������ ���������� �������� ������� ������������� ��������� �������� ����� ��������� ��� ��������� �������� ��������� ���������������������� ���� ������� ������������������������ ��������� ��� �� �� ������ �������� ���������������� ���������� ������������ ���������������������� Fig.