1

“Regionaliztion” in RoHistory and dilemmas

Sorin Ioniţă

www.ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010

2

Terms

Development regions (RD) = EU-style units

– statistical initially (NUTS II);

– then with a role in implementing development policies;

Romania has 8 regions, formed as associations of counties in 1998

3

“Regionalization”

Permanent debate regarding the role of DRs:

• Turn them into proper LGs (elected), like in Poland

• Continue with structures parallel to LGs, with no political legitimacy (like in Hungary)

The efficiency argument in CEE conclusive

Old debate (since the ’20s) and affected by historical senzitivities

4

Historic regions: sec XVII-XVIII

5

Historic regions: 1864

6

Historic regions: 1920

7

Historic regions: 1925

8

Historic regions: 1929

9

Historic regions: 1938

10

Historic regions: 1950

11

Historic regions: 1952

12

Historic regions: 1956

13

Historic regions: 1960

14

Historic regions: 1968

15

Historic regions: 1981

16

Historic regions: 1998

17

Projects in discussion

1. Current model: 2 tiers of LG (munic, counties); DR = statistical instruments & units for implementing EU/national policies; non-political executive (ARD)

2. Regionalization A: turn DR into LGs –elected regional councils + executive (Poland ‘99); the result would be 3 LG tiers

18

Projects in discussion

3. Regionalization B: turn DR into LGs ane abolish counties (judeţe); the result will be still 2 LG tiers (in practice, fewer and larger counties, with more attributions)

(4.) Regionalization A or B – but not on the structure or current DRs

19

Unclear issues

● Who supports what (gov, UDMR, other

parties, FALR, counties, civil society) ?

● Pros / cons on each project? CBA?

● Options on trade-offs:● Subsidiarity / economies of scale● Autonomy / regional equalization

● “Regional development policy”: what is it? Who implements it (on what tier)?

20

Regional gaps and financial transfersLocal revenues, lei/cap x 1.000, 2003

822

1,279

3,102

1,127

1,378

1,223

1,313

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Moldova

SE

Muntenia

Oltenia

Banat

NW

Centru

"Wealth" (PIT/cap)

Total revenuesLGs

21

Regional gaps

• Real disparities: Muntenia ahead; Moldova & Oltenia behind

• Constanţa is the 2nd most developed county after Ilfov-Buc

• Region West (5, Banat) is the most homogenous and developed after Buc-Ilfov (8)

22

Regional gaps & transfers

Comparing regional data with national averages, direction of transfers can be inferred:

• Self-reliance: only Muntenia (net donor on all);

• Earmarked transfers: Muntenia, SE and Banat net donors; Moldova and Center are net recipients

Har-Cov problem: wishful thinking dilemma = how to increase autonomy and continue to receive transfers?

23

Szekely lands – resourcesPIT share/cap, €/cap in 2005

53

0 50 100 150 200 250

1. Bucureşti

2. Ilfov

3. Timiş

4. Cluj

5. Constanţa

…

National average

9. Sibiu

…

16. Mureş

…

21. Covasna

…

23. Harghita

…

41. Botoşani

42. Vaslui

€/cap

24

Szekely lands – resources

● HG & CV are net beneficiaries from redistribution (HG ranks 3rd as total subsidies per capita); MS is on the line (neutral)

● The transfers are justified by difficult local conditions (mountain, isolation) and lack of own revenues

● Increasing local autonomy raises problems, without a strong cohesion policy (i.e. redistribution)