HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 www.humangeographies.org.ro

THE ADMINISTRATIVE – POLITICAL FUNCTION OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS AND THE ROLE IT PLAYS IN ORGANIZING GEOGRAPHICAL SPACE. CASE STUDY – ROMANIA

Radu Săgeatăa*

a Institute of Geography, Romanian Academy, Romania

Abstract: The functional typology of human settlements is shaped, among others, by their political‐ administrative function. Its distinctive place is determined by subjective factors, such as the political‐ administrative decisions, which have changed the course of some settlements to the benefit of others, or reverted them from their normal, natural evolution. That means outside involvement in space organization to the detriment of self‐organization, the latter being the outcome of the permanent tendency of territorial systems to rebalance from exogenous factors‐induced dysfunctions. Lately, the country’s territorial‐administrative organization has been steadily challenged years over the past few based either on the 1925 administrative map, or on the disparities in the structure of the present counties and the economic and social fluxes going on at the local level of the settlements system. In view of the above, we have attempted to work out an optimal model for the administrative organization of Romania’s territory by proceeding from the distance between communal seats and the town towards which they gravitate. The latter’s capacity for discharging an administrative function, and the relations of subordination or competition amongst these towns in also discussed.

Key words: Political‐administrative function, Human settlements, Territorial‐administrative organization, Romania.

Human settlements and the or contrary to their normal course, is a organization of the geographical areas subjective one and it is represented by the decision – making bodies of that territory. Among the hierarchies that determine the At a macro‐territorial level, the functional typologies of human settlements, a administrative decisions resulted in a special place is given to the political‐ territorial‐administrative organization that can administrative one. Regardless of its function, be consistent with the reality on the field or, be it industrial, commercial, tourism or on the contrary, the result of a series on military, a settlement is the product of the subjective, arbitrary factors. The placement of natural environment it is located in, which has an industrial objective associated with the conditioned its development through a series industrial exploitation of the resources from of restrictive or incentive factors (geographical an area represents the main vector that position, natural resources, labour force, etc.). accompanies the political‐administrative On the other hand, in the case of settlements decisions. The administrative units grow from that gained a political – administrative being local communities bound together function, the determinant factor that shaped based on historical affinities due to the their development trajectory either naturally complementary attributes of their natural potential and the type of traditional economy, *Corresponding author: of shared cultural and spiritual heritage to Email: [email protected] becoming units of industrial development or RADU SĂGEATĂ centres for exploiting the local natural derived from the permanent tendency of the resources. The administrative centres develop territorial systems to rebalance themselves in a hypertrophic manner due to the according to the inequalities produced by the migratory stock; thus giving birth to exogenous factors. In this network of inequalities in the insertion of newly arrivals interactions, the human settlements play an which lead to marginal social phenomena; important role as they constitute structural industrial cities are formed (particularly nuclei for the adjacent areas. socialist ones) with their specific architecture The functional organization of a and attributes, and in the rural areas the territory is based on complex genetic and collectivization and systematization evolutionary processes of the social areas that undermines the traditional social and first materialize in the apparition of new types production system, emphasizing migration relationships between the pre‐existing human towards the larger cities. These are settlements, after which this process spreads phenomena that profoundly marked the onto a given area. In time, the social, cultural, Romanian territory and whose consequences economic relations territorialize as they are both at a territorial and psychological level are associated with an entire machinery of difficult to eliminate. New macro spatial links institutions, forms, symbols, expressions and were created between human settlements as languages, etc. Thus mono‐ethnical and/or well as new areas of influence and mono‐cultural areas appear where the polarization, which were many times inhabitants have a strong sense of belonging artificially amplified by changing the to that space (also known as “local administrative status of some settlements. patriotism”) and have a powerful resistance to With the exception of smaller states, change. These are nonetheless the most which are made out of only one human coherent regional structures that have proven settlement and whose territory isn’t larger their unity and viability over time. On the than a few kilometres (Vatican, Monaco) each other hand the areas formed solely on state is made out of a certain number of economic and political grounds or based on human settlements which constitute the homogeneity of the human and natural polarization nuclei for the neighbouring rural potential have a lower emotional content. areas. This results in centres where these flows converge represented by human settlements and areas where the flows diverge (peripheral) The influence of the political factor in that form areas of discontinuity. These flows organizing geographical areas the make for a state`s territory more or less concept of territorial ‐ administrative homogenous to be crossed by a series of organization borders that divide it into a series of subdivisions. A territorial functional The intervention of the political factor is organization is thus sketched that corresponds bound to these organization patterns. The to the functional homogeneity of the social authoritarian and dictatorial governments will areas and has a dynamic, transitory character try to create administrative structures that determined by the evolution of the human have a political orientation and thus cannot settlements. On the other hand, the necessity become strongholds for the opposition but of exercising centralized government over the they will manipulate the supporting areas. entire territory of the state demands a They will avoid aggregating territories that political‐administrative organization so that have strong historic traditions or contain there are no privileged areas with extra‐ social groups bound together by the feeling of constitutional attributions (Figure 1). belonging to a certain community, looking for As a result, the territorial organization is separating these entities through the result of two categories of processes: ones administrative borders (Helin, 1967). On the based on volunteering, that result from the contrary, the democratic political systems impact of the political – administrative shape their administrative territorial units decisions and those based on self‐organizing

78 HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 THE ADMINISTRATIVE – POLITICAL FUNCTION OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

Figure 1. The role of human settlements in organizing the geographical territory according to the cultural groups that were By administrative ‐ territorial crystallized over a long process of historical organization we refer to the division on a evolution. That`s why major political changes, territory into administrative units in order to alternations between democratic and establish the bodies for central government at authoritarian governments lead in many cases a territorial level with the purpose of to changes of the territorial‐administrative implementing efficiently and homogenously organization the same way the administrative the general and local tasks onto the entire units shaped after economic criteria are state. In the same time, the administrative – tributary to economic changes. History proved territorial units are portions of a state`s that, in general as well as in Romania`s case, territory limited by normative laws in which these types of structures are short lived: the the authority that governs upon the social‐ interwar regions lasted as long as King Carol economic activity is exercised by an IInd ruled, while organizing the country`s administrative institution that is subordinated territory into regions and districts with double to the central power. The degree of standard (economical and political) subordination is regulated by the Constitution disappeared with the soviet influence. In the and is express through administrative tutelage. case of the bureaucratic governments the ideal Its aim is to protect the state`s public interests type of organization is made out of structures and uphold the law, its presence constitutes that have roughly the same surface, the main distinction between the unitary state population and manner of administrative that acknowledges local autonomy and the organization and proficiency. A well federal state where the tutelage institution is administrated system made out of unconceivable for the relations between the homogenous divisions creates the perfect federation and its components (Popescu, environment for the locally implemented 1999). The administrative – territorial central government (Helin, 1967). organization represents a method through The territorial – administrative which the political‐administrative decisions organization as a form of social‐political are reflected in the territory as it is an regionalization is a consequence and in the expression of political aspects being promoted same times a premises for the social‐economic at a central level. development of a country. Transforming a The concept of administrative – geographical area into a territory by making it territorial unit has two distinct meanings: the possession of that community`s members  Territorial, that of an administrative is the base for any administrative‐territorial constituency of a state, that expresses the area organization. in which the bodies of the central government exert their influence. This meaning only

HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 79 RADU SĂGEATĂ considers the policy of administrative administrative role: county residential seats demobilization, as the administrative – and rural residential seats and territorial unit is seen merely as a portion of cities/municipalities on which other the state`s territory; settlements depend administratively (that  Human, as a local territorial take the form of constituting localities or community, respectively the entire population villages that belong to a municipality/city). In that lives on a certain area of the state`s addition to all these, the Capital represents territory and have their own distinct local the main coordinating centre that public interests that are expressed through a subordinates the entire national judicial and administrative organization. administrative system. Unlike the above mentioned concepts, The political‐administrative decision – the political‐administrative function refers to making bodies aimed that in time they would human settlements, and namely those that achieve a better leadership of the state and host institutions of central or local social life by a more appropriate territorial administration (mayoralties, prefectures, organization. That is the reason why history branches of political parties, headquarters of registers administrative organizations and development agencies, etc.) through which reorganizations that reflect the social the central or local government exercises their development degree at any given date. During attributions in territory. The relation between a first phase of its evolution, the political – the political and the administrative is administrative organization had a military emphasised by the structure of the state itself: character, the administrative centres were also the role of the political factor is vital in federal important military bases, departure points for states, whose authority is transferred at a local campaigns for conquering and exploring the level while in states that have a centralized adjacent areas. Over time, when states were structure based on delegation of authority the established the military aspect was doubled by role of coordinating local centres is mostly the administrative one, first exploring administrative. (appointing imposts, tributes, taxes, income Hence, the political‐administrative units taxes, limiting properties) and then looking are forms of administrations within a federal for better and more efficiently administrating state (states, provinces, territories, etc.), the territory. The political character was unlike the administrative ones that correspond added as well as the legislative and the socio‐ to a unitary state whose territory is established economic one after the two Principalities were through a Constitution as indivisible. Such is united (Figure 2). the case of Romania. The main characteristic of the political – administrative function is given by the The Romanian administrative – presence and particularities of the political territorial system between 1918 and the system. In authoritarian political systems, 1968 administrative reform based on centralized and arbitrary decisions making processes, the dynamic of the units The formation of the Romanian unitary state that have this function and respectively the at December 1st 1918 brought together 4 areas under their influence is dictated by the different administrative regions that inherited political factors; in democratic systems, where administrative features dating from the the political decisions are motivated by the medieval period that evolved under different territory`s functionality, the role of local historical and political factors: the communities is more prominent and these administrative regime of the Old Romanian settlements have a natural dynamic Kingdom (established by the Law for the conditioned by the physical and social‐ nd economic environment. County Councils from April 2 1894); The The structuring of the Romanian Administrative Regime of Transylvania administrative system on two levels lead to (established through the No. 3632 Decree for the apparition of two types of settlements with introducing public services in Transylvania

80 HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 THE ADMINISTRATIVE – POLITICAL FUNCTION OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

Figure 2. The evolution of the administrative – territorial organization concept from December 11th 1918); the Administrative The prefects and the administrative Regime of Basarabia (established through the bodies had different tasks at hand: if the ones No. 852 Decree for introducing public services from counties such as Bihor or Caraş‐Severin in Basarabia from April 9th 1918) and the had to manage a population larger than administrative Regime of Bucovina 450.000 inhabitants, those from counties in (established through the No. 3 715 Decree for Bucovina managed a population that was ten administrating Bucovina from December 19th times smaller (Văşcăuţi – 25.000 inhabitants) 1918). which is the equivalent to a middle ranged Because they were set up under different town lead by a mayor. To all these we have to systems and political and economical add the big differences concerning the circumstances the 4 administrative regions communication network that limited the had specific characteristics and thus degree of accessibility in some peripheral introduced inequalities into the overall system areas of some counties. If normally the larger in matters of demographic and territorial size, counties should have had a better shape and position of the county seats within transportation infrastructure that would the county and degree of accessibility. Thus, ensure a more fluent circulation and better as far as area goes the counties in Bucovina administration and contrary to this the were 7 to 10 times smaller than the situations where the railway networks were neighbouring counties in Basarabia or some missing or had a smaller density the counties counties from Transylvania or Banat (Caraş‐ should have be smaller, the reality was exactly Severin, Hunedoara, Bihor, Arad, Timiş ‐ opposite: Basarabia had very large counties Torontal); even in the Old Kingdom there were although it had a poor transportation network significant differences between the former while in Bucovina where the road and railway Moldavian counties and some counties from networks were very well developed the Muntenia, Oltenia or Dobrogea while the counties were very small (Meruţiu, 1929, p. 192‐ administrative organization of Transylvania 193). If Basarabia would have been organized based on ethnical criteria also had large based on the size of the counties in Bucovina it discrepancies. should have had 9 counties not 49! In addition,

HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 81 RADU SĂGEATĂ some counties (Cojocna, Turda ‐ Arieş, Suceava formed and evolved under different political‐ and Tecuci) had a strong elongated shape that administrative systems were associated. This is didn’t correspond to the main transportation why in the interwar period almost all the axis which considerably diminished the important political parties and the elite efficiency of the administrative organs in representative of the scientific domain drew up exercising their attribution in the bordering projects that dealt with administrative areas with a smaller accessibility degree. Some unification; some of those were oriented towards county seats (Râmnicu Vâlcea, Piteşti etc.), were creating a centralized system, others were based situated very close to the border of the on an administrative regionalism founded on administrative structures they belonged to. The decentralization and local autonomy. This rural areas that were not polarized or poorly desideratum was officialised through the Law for polarized due to the fact that they were situated administrative unification from 1925 which on the opposite side on the county than the established that Romania`s territory would be county seats tended to gravitate towards the divided into 71 counties (Figure 4), as a result of county seats from the neighbouring counties. the disappearance by unification of 6 counties in The configuration of the transportation network Bucovina (Cotmani, Gura Humorului, Siret, amplified these dysfunctions so that travelling Văşcăuţi, Vijniţa and Zastavna) and partition from the peripheral areas of the county towards of Caraş – Severin County in two: Caraş and their residencies became very difficult. Severin. In the same time the borders of some Despite all this, the long period of time in counties particularly from Transylvania, which Romanians cohabitated with other Basarabia and Cadrilater were readjusted and nationalities in territories managed by different the eastern part of the Torontal County that imperial capitals resulted in this population had mainly Romanian population was having different opinions regarding included in Timiş County. administration then the centralist trends Although somewhat diminished, the promoted in the Old Kingdom. As a contrasts were still strong both from a consequence, the political class, representatives demographic perspective (while Ilfov County, due of national minorities and Romanians living in to its proximity to the Capital has almost one Transylvania, Basarabia, Bucovina and Cadrilater million inhabitants and other counties like Timiş, sustained that the best environment in which one Bihor, Prahova or Dolj had over 500.000 would obtain national cohesion and a tolerant inhabitants other counties didn’t even reach the climate between the majority population and the 100.000 inhabitants level: Făgăraş – 86.461, minorities would be a decentralized Câmpulung – 95.174), as well as a territorial administrative structure that would allow perspective (between 1.309 km2 – Suceava County inhabitants from different parts of the country to and 8.626 km2 – Timiş County). In the same time keep their old institutions that distinguished the imbalances produced by the eccentrically their culture and traditions from the ones in position of the county seats from some counties neighbouring regions. They considered that a (Râmnicu Vâlcea, Slatina, Piteşti, Miercurea true unity could not be obtain by ignoring the Ciuc or Turnu Măgurele) were maintained by differences between parts of the national territory keeping the county`s configuration and in the that evolved under different political systems or newly established Severin County the county by trying to equalize all existing systems becouse seat was set at Lugoj, very close to the north‐ the main purpose of a government is to ensure western border that gave for a poor gravitation the national unity through diversity. of the rural areas from the southern part of This differentiated legacy reflected in the the county (the Danube clisura) towards first administrative map of the Large Romania Drobeta‐Turnu Severin (called Turnu Severin (Figure 3) through which heterogenic until 1972). administrative‐territorial structure that were

82 HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 THE ADMINISTRATIVE – POLITICAL FUNCTION OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

Figure 3. Romania`s counties between 1918 and 1925

Figure 4. Romania`s counties between 1925 and 1950

HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 83 RADU SĂGEATĂ

Considerable differences existed as far as framework that would achieve a series of well the human settlements structure and determined objectives. This process configuration, urbanization degree, infrastructure materialized in the interwar period by the etc., went. For example counties such as Prahova, successive forming of administrative Constanţa, Hunedoara, Putna, Dorohoi, Vâlcea structures at a macro‐regional level that or Tulcea had well established urban systems resulted through aggregation of counties: that included 5 to 7 cities, while other 25 ministerial directories (1929‐1931) and lands counties didn’t have their own urban system (1938‐1940). as the county seat was practically their only When, in March 6th 1945, the first pro‐ city. Most of these counties registered a small soviet communist political party came to percentage of urban population; a strong power ample mutations of the administrative emphasis fell on the counties from Basarabia – territorial organization of the country took Hotin (3.9%), Soroca (4.7%), Orhei (5.5%) and place. They didn’t, however, constitute an Bălţi (7.9%). immediate priority as the 1948 constitution The demographic size of some county kept the former classifications of communes, seats (Făgăraş – 7.841 inhabitants, Odorheiu plase and counties. The political subordination Secuiesc ‐ 8 518 inhabitants or Slatina – 11.243 of the territorial – administrative structures inhabitants in 1930), made it impossible for became a reality only in September 8th 1950 them to take on the task of first rank when the No. 5 Law enacted that the country`s polarizing centre for an administrative unit as territory should be organized in 28 regions, large as a county especially if they were the and, according to the soviet model, in districts only urban dwelling from that respective (177) and communes (4.052). These were not administrative unit. This inconvenient was classified after geographical or historical resolved in a certain degree by delegating criteria as in 1929, but only considering their some administrative functions towards rural 'social‐economic complexity', the only units settlements that functioned as central units that met this criteria were those that 'directly and whose role were confirmed by electing supported the state`s central organs in them as a residential plasă (plasă – fulfilling state or party policies' (Oroveanu, administrative unit, plural plase, according to 1986, p. 211). Their configuration didn’t the Romanian Dictionary, Academia Română, resemble at all the former counties as their Institutul de lingvistică „Iorgu Iordan”, Edit. delimitation was mostly based on natural Univers Enciclopedic, Bucharest, 1996, page borders like for example the Danube or the 803). Carpathians (Figure 5) At the opposite end there were counties Constituting administrative units two like Ilfov or Covurlui that although having a times larger than the former counties was based single city, had an urban population on the idea that the agricultural regions would percentage of around and above 50%, or be subordinated to the larger urban centres by counties whose urban system was very well realizing an integrated agro‐industrial complex developed both quantitatively and and thus reinforcing the proletariat`s influence qualitatively (counties such as Prahova or over the peasantry which was reluctant to accept Constanţa). the 'reform' imposed by the communist political The existence of a large number of class. The naming of the newly established units counties whose area, economic potential, was depersonalized as in many cases the name demographic potential and number of first of the county seat was used as the name of the rank administrative‐territorial units are county. On the other hand, creating large different, compelled their association in order administrative divisions instead of the 58 to create the optimal environment for a better counties lead to a considerable diminishing of collaboration in executing, constituting or the numbers of administrative centres and thus maintaining social, economic or cultural orienting the investments mainly towards them. institutions or works. Therefore the The 28 regions were delimited on association didn’t imply a territorial merging economic criteria, after the soviet oblasts (soviet but creating a judicial and institutional administrative unit) but they soon proved to be

84 HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 THE ADMINISTRATIVE – POLITICAL FUNCTION OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

Figure 5. Romania`s administrative regions (1950‐1952) a much too fragmented structure, incapable of enough, becouse four years later, in 1956, two coping with the political requirements of that more regions were dissolved: Arad and Bârlad. time. They weren’t able to survive the In the same time some modifications were September 24th 1952 Constitution which, more brought to the old configurations by moving than its predecessor from 1948, copied the soviet some districts from one region to another model. Thus, 12 regions (Botoşani, Buzău, Dolj, (Figure 7). Gorj, Ialomiţa, Mureş, Putna, Rodna, Severin, After the retreat of the soviet troops Sibiu, Teleorman and Vâlcea) disappeared by from Romania in 1958 and as a result of the different processes of unification, two new politics led by Gheorghe Gheorghiu–Dej that regions were formed: Craiova by merging Dolj praised national values , the old national and Gorj regions and The Hungarian denominations reappeared on the country`s Autonomous Region following the model of the administrative map. The transition was thus Russian oblast by unifying the territories made from a soviet communist stage, inhabited by Székely from Covasna, Harghita characterized by a Stalinist uniformity and and Mureş. Piteşti region was formed by rejection of the past due to its 'bourgeois' uniting Argeş and Vâlcea regions; Severin was features, to a nationalist communist stage formed out of Prahova and Buzău regions; where the past was respected due to its Putna was included in Bârlad region etc. Some national content thus rejecting the Russian‐ of the consequences included the fact that the soviet cultural model of Stalinist inspiration. new regions were considerably large and the This lead in 1960 to a new administrative disappearance from the administrative map of reform that modified once again the structure some old Romanian names that had been in and configuration of the 16 regions, as a result the collective consciousness for centuries and of eliminating some of them or moving some their depersonalization by replacing the districts from one region to another (Figure 8). region`s name with the name of the county During 1960 and 1968 the administrative seat or 'imported' names (Stalin) (Figure 6) organization into regions and districts was These new regions didn’t prove to be large

HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 85 RADU SĂGEATĂ somewhat stabile but tensions accumulated that lead to the reinstatement of counties in 1968.

The administrative – territorial organization from 1968 and its consequences over the human settlements` systems

The arbitrary establishment of a borrowed administrative organization model, without

Figure 6. Romania`s administrative regions (1952‐1956)

Figure 7: Romania`s administrative regions (1956‐1960)

86 HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 THE ADMINISTRATIVE – POLITICAL FUNCTION OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

Figure 8. Romania`s administrative regions (1960‐1968) considering a series of concrete features of the two categories: the county as a superior level Romanian territory like the traditional respectively the city and the commune as an relationships between its regions but only their inferior level. The counties (39) were constituted most efficient subordination to the central based on the ones existing in the interwar period political authorities lead to repetitive inspired by the French departmental model. 'administrative readjustments' of a nonviable While the regions created in 1950 were based on structure. This situation was artificially the principle of homogeneity of the economic maintained as a result of the sovietisation of the potential, the new counties aimed to be entire cultural, economic and social life due to functional structures whose territory included the presence of the Red Army troops on several types of geographical units with varied Romanian soil. The political events that marked resources and potential that generated economic the former Communist Block between the VI complementarities (Argeş, Dâmboviţa, Buzău, and VII decades, mainly materialized by social Prahova, Vrancea, Gorj, Bihor, Timiş, Maramureş, tumultuous in Hungary (1956), then Satu Mare etc.). Even the counties with an Czechoslovakia ('The Spring from Prague' in apparently uniform relief like for example the 1968), correlated with the retreat of the soviet ones situated in areas with plains had a variety army from Romania (1958) all contributed to of microforms given by the association of Bucharest’s politics distancing itself from meadows and the two lakes the Danube Moscow and its orientation towards national formed, that would, at least theoretically give values. a differentiated structure and potential (Stahl, In this context the premises for a new 1969, p. 17). administrative – territorial organization of the As far as surface was concern the country were created and it became effective in counties didn’t vary as much as they used to February 17th 1986 when the law for the (the extreme counties were Timiş and Covasna administrative organization of R.S.Romania`s with 2.37 and respectively 6.6 and the territory was applied; it established that the administrative organization from 1925), but national territory would be organized based on the number of constituting communes was

HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 87 RADU SĂGEATĂ quite different from one county to another: 33 regressive dynamic of the urban centres that communes in Covasna County compared to didn’t earn back their administrative function, 125 communes in Ilfov County. The extreme other imbalances appeared at a macro‐ dimension of Ilfov County was thought territorial level. For example by choosing as reasonable as it constituted a polarizing area county seat Vaslui the polarizing area of for the Capital city but proved to be unviable Bârlad was considerable reduced and the as it was reorganized in 1981 (Figure 9). settlements from the northern part of Galaţi The administrative function was given County gravitated towards Galaţi even if it was to smaller urban centres, with a weaker further away. economic development, based on their central The lack of important administrative feature, and afterwards investments were decisions between 1968 and 1988 lead to the made into these settlements in order to justify accumulation of tensions in the relationships their role as coordinating centres and between the settlements that appeared when polarizing nuclei for the settlements systems the urban network was enlarged, in the constituted at a county level. This is the case beginning of 1989, with 23 cities, mostly of Vaslui, chosen as an administrative centre having an agro‐industrial function situated in instead of Bârlad, Slobozia instead of Călăraşi areas poorly polarized and with a strong or Alexandria instead of Turnu Măgurele. ruralisation degree and in counties that didn’t Although chosen as county seats they only have a proper urban network. The same law became municipalities in 1979. On the other dictated that the sub‐urban communes that hand this set of measurements generated ware arbitrary included in the urban area other inequalities: apart from a stagnant even became rural communes.

Figure 9. Romania. Current territorial – administrative map

88 HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 THE ADMINISTRATIVE – POLITICAL FUNCTION OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

The 1968 territorial – administrative appointed county seats), which contributed to organization had a disruptive effect on the a resizing of the urban influencing areas. At a national urban system especially by orienting macro‐territorial level, in order to simplify the investments towards the new administrative implementation of the regional development centres regardless of their being economically policies, it was necessary that the adjacent justified or not. The effect of this policy that administrative units with similar social‐ promoted an egalitarian development was an economic profiles would be identify and increased industrialization and a rapid grouped into historic provinces that were well demographic increase in medium or even individualized due to their common small urban centres underdeveloped in terms traditions, social‐economic complementarity of social‐economic infrastructure, at the and cultural and spiritual heritage. Their expense of more developed ones. The result functionality is projected in the inhabitants` consisted in modified migratory psychology; the region thus becomes a mental flows, which led to a strong decrease in the space, the space to which the inhabitants population number from adjacent rural report to for their identity, of the communion areas, along with their demographic aging, between man and his/hers environment, which greatly contributed to an increasing fundamental element for the durability of any 'dependence' of rural areas on urban ones. The spatial structure. cities that lost their administrative function This is why the current article proposes were the ones that had the most to suffer, as the establishment of an administrative they dropped down considerably on the urban structuring of Romania`s territory based on a hierarchy (Oraviţa, Huşi, Rădăuţi, Sighetu regional system, going from the historical Marmaţiei etc.). This modified the provinces, that correspond to well established relationships between the newly promoted mental spaces, with specific functional county seats and the former towns holding relations (infrastructure and human systems this function in the sense of transforming the of interaction) whose role should be amplified. subordinating relationships into competition The departmental level (county) should be the ones (in cases when at the moment when the medium one; in some cases a sub‐ county was formed its county seat was the departmental one similar to the interwar second town in the county urban hierarchy) or 'plase' and the inferior level should be by accentuating the subordination status in communal (communes, villages, cities and cases where former county seats with lower county seats) the role of the development regions positions on the national urban hierarchy should remain strictly statistic‐territorial and not were included in counties coordinated by a administrative. Clear hierarchical relations will be large urban centre with macro territorial established between these levels and they will functions. The first category could include the either be of service decentralization or following pairs of towns: Vaslui ‐ Bârlad (from demobilization: the current Vaslui County); Miercurea Ciuc ‐  decentralization: between the national and Odorheiu Secuiesc (Harghita County); Slatina ‐ regional ones, departmental (services Caracal (Olt County) and Alexandria ‐ Turnu decentralization) and local (when possible the Măgurele (Teleorman County), and in the latter principal of subsidiary will be applied); one Suceava ‐ Câmpulung Moldovenesc ‐  demobilization: for the relations between Fălticeni ‐ Rădăuţi, Galaţi ‐ Tecuci, Vaslui ‐ Huşi, the departmental level and the inferior ones (sub‐ Botoşani ‐ Dorohoi, Alba Iulia ‐ Blaj, Timişoara ‐ departmental and communal ones). Lugoj and Cluj ‐ Dej – Turda etc. (Table 1). In order to establish the configuration of the The evolution of the Romanian urban proposed administrative collage three distinct system in the last 50 years gave birth to ample stages have to be covered: mutations as far as relationships among I. Identification of the regional and local human settlements went, by preferentially converging centres capable of being invested orienting investments towards certain urban with administrative function, on hierarchical centres (in a first phase towards the county levels, based on their polarizing potential. seats and after 1968 towards the newly Evaluating the polarizing potential was done

HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 89 RADU SĂGEATĂ

Table 1: The current administrative – territorial organization. SWOT analysis A. STRONG POINTS B. WEAK POINTS A.1. Considering the political‐economic situation B.1. The decrease in the number of counties from that period, the 1968 administrative – compared to the interwar administrative system territorial organization was correcting a series of lead to a socio‐economic recoil of the towns that imbalances that appeared in the relationships used to be county seats and lost that status. This between certain settlements and it foreseen the materialized into a loss of the polarizing area in emergence of some urban systems of departmental favour of the current county seats which most often level with a smaller surface based on the developed in a hypertrophic manner. From an coordinating function of a county seat; A.2. By administrative point of view, the government multiplying the number of administrative units of tended to correct this situation by investing the superior rank, the administrative collage 'municipal' status to some towns that were county implemented in 1968 acknowledged the comeback in seats: Călăraşi, Odorheiu Secuiesc, Sighişoara, a certain degree of some counties from the interwar Mediaş, Sighetu Marmaţiei, Dej, Turda, Tecuci, period which were considered viable according to Roman etc.; B.2. The differentiated dynamic of these the traditions and specifics of the Romanian towns imposed by the change of administrative status administrative system; A.3. The decrease in the determined changes in the inter‐urban relations either by number of administrative levels by going from a regional transforming the subordinating relations into system to a departmental one was motivated by the competition ones (when the former county seat was reduction in bureaucracy justified in a local autonomy better placed in the urban hierarchy than another which was purely formal where local administrative departmental polarizing centre), or by accentuating the organs were entirely subordinated to the politics of the subordination relations (when the former county seat central commandments; A.4. The 1968 county was placed on a lower hierarchical level); B.3. The configurations corrected some shortcomings of the old development in a hypertrophic manner of the new counties from the interwar period as the new ones were county seats by attracting massive industrial more balanced as far as shape, area or population are investments generated strong migratory flows from concerned. When the current counties were constituted the rural areas, with negative consequences both on one of the factors that were considered was the fact that the rural patrimony (depopulation, demographic the variety of relief forms translated into different types aging) and their insertion in the urban environment of potential which completed each other. (the increase of marginal social phenomena, the decrease on the quality of the built – in environment, etc.). C. OPPORTUNITIES D. POSSIBLE ISSUES C.1. The 1968 administrative organization, through D.1. Going from a centralized economic system to an the new territorial structures, created the premises economy based on open competition created the for the development of the urban system by premises for the reorientation and the re‐dimensioning of declaring 49 large communes into cities and in the the flows circulating between human settlements which same time local polarizing centres. This decision was reverberated in the relations that occurred among them essentially political as increasing the urban as well especially in the case of the regional and local population was seen as an indicator for increasing polarizing nuclei. Under these conditions the the living conditions. Through this edict the urban administrative structures formed based on the 1968 social systems for each county started to form; C.2. Going – administrative situation would have been unviable and from a regional administrative system to a departmental it needed to be corrected according to the contemporary one was necessary in order to decentralize the system and evolution; D.2. The administrative – territorial reduce bureaucracy and it overlapped with the organization at that time was characterized by an administrative systems of most of the CAER states and increased fragmentation both at a departmental and ensured their being able to work together. communal level, and the tendency was towards accentuating it by going back to the interwar administrative structures which didn’t follow the general trend of the European scene of constituting powerful regional administrative units capable of being invested with real local autonomy. Thus the necessity of establishing a regional administrative system, by constituting a superior level administrative hierarchy, of regional level macro‐ territorial structures (NUTS 2), build on polarizing centres with regional functions.

90 HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 THE ADMINISTRATIVE – POLITICAL FUNCTION OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS based on three categories of potential: impact on the socio‐economic dynamic; demographic, economic and location. The - E3 – former county seats between 1925 and selection was made based on historic records 1950 that didn’t received this status afterwards. and their present location in the urban system For most of them this resulted into a stagnant and thus four samples were chosen (E1 ‐ E4) dynamic, even a regressive one, in spite of the (Figure 10): rehabilitation tries that were made by investing - E1 – former county seats between 1950 them with the municipality status and / or and 1968, excluding cities that lost this status preferentially locating industrial investments, between 1952 and 1956. This is the category of which determined imbalances in the respective the urban centres that had through the entire urban ecosystems; XX century the role of a first rank administrative E4 – potential administrative centres, centre; cities whom the current potential could allow - E2 ‐ current residential seats, which were them to officialise from an administrative invested or reinvested with this status through perspective as well their local convergence the 1968 administrative reorganization. Most centre. They are generally urban centres with of them were administrative centres in the more than 30.000 inhabitants that become, with interwar period as well, some of them regional a few exceptions, municipalities after 1990 and seats between 1950 and 1952 and even between that due to their location potential (in 1952 and 1956 (Arad and Bârlad). All of them depressions, in areas which are mostly rural and lost the status of regional or departmental have a low accessibility degree ‐ Sulina, Calafat, administrative centre which had a negative Brad, Vatra Dornei, Urziceni etc.) they can

Figure 10. Regional converging centres capable of being invested with political ‐ administrative function and their inter‐relations

HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 91 RADU SĂGEATĂ

constitute polarizing nuclei for large areas. most of them being former suburban The urban centres that have a restrictive location communes; potential, located near a regional or local  Administrative units intensely polarized polarizing centres (Mangalia, Câmpia Turzii, (less than 25 km away from the polarizing urban Aiud, Orăştie, Năvodari and Mioveni) were centre), with the polarizing degree depending eliminated from this category (Table 2). on its polarizing potential; II. Establishing the polarizing areas of the  Administrative units with a medium selected urban centres, based on the travelling polarizing degree (between 25 and 50 km away distances between them and the adjacent from the polarizing centre). Most of the rural settlements. When connections between settlements and small towns enter in this settlements can be achieved though multiple category and from among them secondary local routes, the distances on the superior access polarizing nuclei appear; roads were considered. The natural favourable  Poorly polarized administrative units factors and restrictions (configuration of the situated more than 50 km away from a relief and the hydrographical network) that polarizing urban nucleus, which define determine the configuration of the profoundly rural areas with diffused communication network were also indirectly polarization. accounted for. There were thus individualized 14 areas Depending on the distance to the with diffused polarization in regard to the polarizing urban nuclei, the polarizing potential administrative centres: Brăila Plain, administrative units were groups in several Măcin Mountains and Casimcea Plateau, South categories: Dobrogea (south of Casimcea Valley), the part of  Situated in the immediate vicinity of the the Bărăgam situated in Ialomiţa County, the polarizing urban centre (less than 10 km away), Găvanu – Burdea Plain, the south and west of

Table 2: Regional converging centres capable of being invested with administrative function

E 1 E 2 E 3 E 4 Bacău Alba Iulia Bârlad Brad Baia Mare Arad Blaj Calafat Braşov Alexandria Caracal Caransebeş Bucureşti Bistriţa Câmpulung Carei Constanţa Botoşani Câmpulung Câmpina Craiova Brăila Moldovenesc Cugir Cluj‐Napoca Buzău Dej Curtea de Argeş Galaţi Călăraşi Dorohoi Drăgăşani Deva Focşani Făgăraş Feteşti Iaşi Giurgiu Fălticeni Hunedoara Oradea Miercurea Ciuc Huşi Medgidia Piteşti Piatra Neamţ Lugoj Mediaş Ploieşti Reşiţa Odorheiu Secuiesc Olteniţa Suceava Râmnicu Vâlcea Roman Oneşti Târgu Mureş Satu Mare Rădăuţi Paşcani Timişoara Sibiu Râmnicu Sărat Petroşani Sfântu Gheorghe Sighişoara Reghin Slobozia Sighetu Marmaţiei Roşiori de Vede Slatina Turda Sulina Târgovişte Tecuci Târnăveni Târgu Jiu Turnu Măgurele Urziceni Drobeta – Turnu Vatra Dornei Severin Tulcea Vaslui Zalău

92 HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 THE ADMINISTRATIVE – POLITICAL FUNCTION OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS the Oltenia Plain and the Getic Plateau, Locvei polarizing nuclei is slightly the same with the and Almăj Mountain, west and south of the inter‐county polarizing nuclei. Timiş Plain, Apuseni Mountains and Crişurilor III. The quantification of the existing Plain, northern half of the Orientali Mountains, relations between the urban centres eastern and southern half of the Moldovei Plain, considered viable for being invested with Tutova Hills and the western part of the Central administrative function (samples E1 – E4). Moldavian Plateau, Curburii Carpathians and Three types of relations were individualized: Subcarpathians, Covurlui Plateau and Plain. In subordination, competition and indifference, order to realize an evaluation of the influence based on which the territorial structures area of the potential administrative centres that resulted from their polarizing areas were would respect reality as much as possible, the hierarchically organized on administrative collage resulted based on the road distances was levels. Thus, the subordination relations correlated with the accessibility degree to the existing at the level of the urban centres railway network. determined integration relations at the level of Due to the fact that some of the selected the polarizing territorial structures, them in cities as potential administrative centre are turn generating sub‐departmental situated in peripheral areas of the actual administrative levels, and the competition and counties (especially from the E3 and E4 samples), indifference relations, were fragmentation their influence areas transcend the limits of the ones that sketched the limits between the current administrative structures. Apart from all administrative structure of departmental these, the percentage of the intra‐county (county) level (Figure 11).

Figure 11. The proposed territorial collage based on the relationships established at the level of the regional human settlements

1. Subordination, 1 a. Diffuse subordination, 2. Competition, 3. Conurbation, 4. Primary regional convergence nuclei, 5. Secondary regional convergence nuclei, 5. Departmental (county) convergence nuclei, 6. Primary local convergence nuclei, 7. Secondary local convergence nuclei, 8. Regional borders (NUTS 2), 9. Departmental (county) borders (NUTS 3), 10. Sub‐departmental borders (NUTS 4).

HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94 93 RADU SĂGEATĂ

Based on the historic regions that Ianoş, I, Pumain, D & Racine, JB (edit.) 2000, formed over time as homogenous functional Integrated Urban Systems and Sustainability of spaces, as well as mental and perceived areas Urban Life, IGU, Edit. Tehnică, Bucureşti. (Cocean, 2002, p. 56‐60) and starting with the Ianoş, I & Heller, W 2006, Spaţiu, economie şi sisteme de aşezări, Edit. Tehnică, Bucureşti. relationships established at the regional Iordan, I & Rey, V 1993, 'La carte administrative de la settlements systems and the road distances Roumanie d’avant guerre: probable ou impossible between the communal centres and the local retour?', Bulletin de la Société Languedocienne polarizing nuclei there were individualized 10 de Géographie, t. 116, no. 3‐4, Montpellier. macro‐territorial structures which we Nistor, I 2000, Comuna şi judeţul. Evoluţia istorică, considered viable for receiving a regional Edit. Dacia, Cluj Napoca. administrative status. The 10 administrative Oroveanu, M 1986, Organizarea administrativă şi structures established based on the regional sistematizarea teritoriului R. S. România, Edit. converging polarizing nuclei and the relations Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucureşti. between them, can be denominated based on Popescu, CL 1999, Autonomia locală şi integrarea europeană, Edit. All Beck, Bucureşti. the specificity of the historic provinces in Rey, V, Coudroy de Lille, L & Boulineau, E 2004, which they are located: Bucovina (Northern L'élargissement de l'Union Européenne: réformes Moldavia), based on the cooperation between territoriales en Europe Centrale et Orientale, Botoşani and Suceava, Central Moldavia based in L'Harmattan, Paris. the cooperation between Iaşi and Bacău; the Lower Rey, V, Groza, O, Ianoş, I & Pătroescu, M 2006, Danube centered on the a Galaţi ‐ Brăila Atlasul României, Enciclopedia Rao, Bucureşti. conurbation; Dobrogea, centered on Constanţa; Săgeată, R 1999, 'Evaluarea impactului generat de Muntenia, centered on Bucharest; Oltenia, posibila revenire la organizarea administrativ‐ centered on Craiova; Banat, centered on teritorială interbelică asupra sistemului urban Timişoara and secondly on Arad; Maramureş, din România', Revista Română de Geografie Politică, t. I, no. 1, Edit. Universităţii din based on the cooperation between Baia Mare Oradea, p. 98‐101. and Satu; Transilvania, which includes Crişana Săgeată, R 2000, 'Organizarea administrativ‐ and is centered by Cluj‐Napoca; South – teritorială a României. Model de optimizare', Eastern Transilvania, based on the Revista Română de Geografie Politică, t. II, no. 1, cooperation between Braşov and Sibiu. Edit. Universităţii din Oradea, p. 61‐68. The denominations of the two northern Săgeată, R 2002, 'Evoluţia organizării regions (Bucovina and Maramureş) are highly administrativ‐teritoriale a României în perioada relative, as they are given to macro‐territorial interbelică (1918‐1940)', Revista Geografică, t. IX, structures that go far beyond the actual historic Institutul de Geografie, Bucureşti, p. 158‐166. regions. The traditional regional specificity of Săgeată, R 2002‐2003, 'Evoluţia organizării administrativ‐teritoriale a României între 1950 these spaces makes us choose these şi 1968', Studii şi Cercetări de Geografie, t. XLIX‐ denominations to some impersonal ones like for L, Edit. Academiei, Bucureşti, p. 133‐144. example 'North‐East Region' or 'North‐West Săgeată, R 2004, Modele de regionare administrativ‐ Region'. teritorială, Edit. Top Form, Bucureşti. Săgeată, R 2006, Deciziile politico‐administrative şi organizarea teritoriului. Studiu geografic cu Bibliography aplicare la teritoriul României, Edit. Universităţii Naţionale de Apărare „Carol I”, Cocean, P 2002, Geografie regională, Edit. Presa Edit. Top Form, Bucureşti. Universitară Clujeană, Cluj‐Napoca. Săgeată, R 2008, Regiunile Europei. Metodologie de Helin, R 1967, 'The Volatile Administrative Map of analiză regională, Edit. Fundaţiei România de Romania', Annals of the Association of American Mâine, Bucureşti. Geographers, t. 57, no. 3, p. 481‐502. Săgeată, R, Guran‐Nica, L, Dumitrescu, B, Damian, Ianoş, I 1987, Oraşele şi organizarea spaţiului N & Baroiu D 2004, Soluţii de optimizare a geografic, Edit. Academiei, Bucureşti. organizării administrativ‐teritoriale a României Ianoş, I 2005, Dinamica urbană. Aplicaţii la oraşul în perspectiva aderării la Uniunea Europeană, şi sistemul urban românesc, Edit. Tehnică, Edit. Ars Docendi, Bucureşti. Bucureşti. Stahl, HH 1969, Organizarea administrativ‐ teritorială, Edit. Ştiinţifică, Bucureşti.

94 HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, (2011) 5.1, 77‐94