“Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010
description
Transcript of “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010
![Page 1: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
“Regionaliztion” in RoHistory and dilemmas
Sorin Ioniţă
www.ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010
![Page 2: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Historic regions: sec XVII-XVIII
![Page 5: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Historic regions: 1864
![Page 6: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Historic regions: 1920
![Page 7: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Historic regions: 1925
![Page 8: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Historic regions: 1929
![Page 9: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Historic regions: 1938
![Page 10: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Historic regions: 1950
![Page 11: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Historic regions: 1952
![Page 12: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Historic regions: 1956
![Page 13: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Historic regions: 1960
![Page 14: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Historic regions: 1968
![Page 15: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Historic regions: 1981
![Page 16: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Historic regions: 1998
![Page 17: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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)?
![Page 20: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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)
![Page 22: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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?
![Page 23: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
![Page 24: “Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070417/568153dc550346895dc1d5a8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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)