Evolution and Possibilities of Regionalization in Romania
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EVOLUTION AND POSSIBILITIES OF REGIONALIZATION IN ROMANIA SCUTARIU Adrian Liviu1, NĂSTASE Carmen2, POPESCU Mihai3 1 Assistant Ph.D. Student, 2 Associate Professor Ph.D., 3 Lecturer Ph.D. Faculty of Economics and Public Administration, Economy and Tourism Department, "Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania, [email protected] Abstract: This article aims to make a short foray in the phenomenon of regionalization in Romania, presenting an evolution of the territorial administrative division since the twentieth century until now. The current regionalization, as a demand for application of EU regional development policy is a combination the historical and functional criteria. Although some decisions are taken regionally now, the center still has a major role, the regions not having judicial personality or administrative role. Key words: regions, regional development, Romania, European Union, territorial administrative units JEL Classification: P25, R58 1. Introduction Manifestations of spatial organization and planning of Romania were often related to certain historical and political events. Spatial planning (Puşcaşu V., 2000, pp. 74-75), as a set of ideas and practical measures concerning the process of arranging space components and resize relations between them, is based on the administrative-territorial organization, complex action of territorial structures modeling, by the constitutional provisions, in order to determine the administrative-territorial units considered the best at a time for management and application of local development policy, from the economic, financial, cultural, social, etc. points of view. The criteria that the administrative territorial organization is based on are political, social, historical, functional, economic and environmental ones. From these criteria, the political one is the first in terms of importance. 2. References in time of Romania's territorial division The counties were the most important administrative units in Romania. Thus, the administrative organization from 1926 reveals the existence of the 71 counties (Figure no. 1). Figure no. 1 The historical regions and counties in the interwar Romania 578 We can consider the grouping of these counties in 10 provinces, during the reign of King Charles II (1938) as a first attempt of regionalization, (figure no. 2). This measure purpose was, on the one hand, the decentralization of the economic, social, cultural and political main problems, and on the other hand, a tighter control over these regions, by the king, through its representatives who were administrative ruling these lands. Figure no. 2 Romania dividing lands (1938-1940) Source: The Administrative Law from 14 august 1938 The organization in the provinces, proving not to be the most efficient, was abandoned, the counties being the administrative units until 1950. This year, they started a new, Soviet-inspired territorial organization, based on regions and districts. Small changes and improvements were made successively in 1952, 1956 and 1960; after that, the number of regions and districts has decreased, due to social and economic transformations occurring in the country. Next figure shows the last variant of this organization. Figure no. 3 The administrative regions in Romania (1960-1968) Source: Decree no. 299 from 27 august 1960; Statistical Yearbook of Popular Republic of Romania, 1962. Waiving this organization took place in 1968, when there are new districts appeared, resized according to the ways of communication and polarizer centers, often ignoring the historical criterion. As forms of organization that brings together small areas within counties, cities and villages appear. The new administrative division was based on functional criteria, and by 1983 experienced only minor changes. 579 Figure no. 4 The counties of Romania between 1968-1981 Source: Law no. 2 from 15 February 1968 We can say that different territorial divisions correspond or tend to correspond to the exigencies of that time. The last century tendencies, still existing today in a certain way, are those of an excessive centralization in which the centre is the most important in taking decisions, while the provincial elements having only a minor role. We can mention that this fact has its roots in the idea of the Romanian state unitarity. Nevertheless, the 1918 Great Union brought, in the state structure, regions which have been separated for centuries, bringing itself some new problems concerning their integration. Because that time the economy was considered to be a fundamental element for a nation, with which it overlaps, it was desired an orientation of the provinces to the interior. This meant the break from the old systems and bringing both a control and a centralization of the economy, the refusal of the foreign capital and customs protectionism. Liberals saw the economy as a guaranty of the new state independence. The capital has become the unique centre for decisions and provinces had to be in connection with the centre. During the communist period, there was kept the same situation to which were added the ideological views. Instead of creating some contacts between regions, in this period it was tried a kind of artificial mixture of the population. All the aspects mentioned above had determined the development of the capital much more then the rest of the country. 3. The present-day regionalization of Romania Neither the fall of communism, nor the integration in the E.U. brought substantial changes, regionalization, being no more than a form with no attempt of changing what is essential. The territorial division into medium regions size (NUTS 2) was made rapidly without taking into consideration the functional aspect, the traditional, economical or identity links. In a part it was an attempt of keeping the historical frontiers and a balanced sizing. In Romania the idea of regionalization was seen skeptically viewed because of the presumption of federalizing Romania. Nevertheless, in 1998 with PHARE assistance, there was created the general framework of settling the regional politics, the judicial acts regarding this being adopted too. The new regions didn’t receive any judicial personality fact accepted finally by the E.U., for which the aim of the funds administration was the most important aspect. So, these regions represent a modality of collaboration between counties for creating some commune programs of development, unable to be created at the county level because of both limited resources and framework. At the same time some decisions taken in the past by the state may be done now by the regional level. The regions’ limits have county borders, that in same cases were drawn without taking into account some principles, and these errors were taken. Thus, the regions were created in Romania not for regionalization, but for the regional development. Perhaps, because of lack of some administrative structures, the regional development may be reduced at a simple spending of some both European and national funds. Although the regions 580 don’t have judicial personality, The Agencies for Regional Development do, but only as a non- governmental organization, fact that don’t provide them any decisional power. All these lacks determine no real coherence concerning regional strategies. Even if very little, there are steps to regionalization and the central power will have to transfer the decisional power to the local level because a “centralized regionalization” can’t exist. In the E.U., the unity of the regions have as base some geographic, linguistic, cultural, and economic reasons before other administrative ones. There are more options for a regional division of Romania among which the division into historical provinces and economic-functional, each of them having some advantages and disadvantages. The present day organization into 8 regions, which was a wish of mixing the historical and functional criteria, it is actually an uniform division of the territory, but which didn’t considered very much neither of those two criteria. There are counties (Constanţa, Tulcea, Galaţi, Vrancea, Buzău and Brăila) organized into a region without any link between them (the South-East region), as well as some historical regions with a strong identity (the South Bukovina, Maramureş) were included into bigger regions on the reason - justified in a way - that they have too small size for being regions. The capitals of these regions were established illogically by the centre, for example in the North-East, the center was established in Piatra-Neamţ, which isn’t nearly a concentrated centre. 4. Other possibilities of regionalizing Romania comparative with the present day division into regions Another vision of dividing could be that of the natural borders breakthrough, on the reason of identification of the similitudes of preponderant activities, such as the association of the mountain counties from Moldavia and Transilvania. Another problem is that the limits of a region sometimes breaks the collaborations, usually necessary, between areas that are in different regions; in some countries of the E.U. this question is solved by allowing of developing these types of collaborations. It may be taken into account the identity point of view, on the historical regions idea, where there are cultural, community, infrastructure connections The region sizing wasn’t imposed by the E.U. as a dogma, but more as an orientative model. The alternative of the historical regions division brings the advantage of cultural identities and of economical connections which have already been built. Even if, from the following map, it can be seen that the present day limits of the counties don’t take entirely into account the historical frontiers, we can opt for the present day limits of the counties. One of the disadvantages may be the size differences between these regions (figure no. 5). Figure no. 5 The historical regions in Romania Another alternative could be that of polarization around some centers (big cities), following the historical criterion, too, but with all these there will exist difficulties in delimitations. If we look now at the present day division from the tourism point of view, we can say that it is not the best.