1 / 24

“Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010

“Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă www.ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010. Terms. Development regions (RD) = EU-style units statistical initially (NUTS II); then with a role in implementing development policies;

ceana
Download Presentation

“Regionaliztion” in Ro History and dilemmas Sorin Ioniţă ionita.eu Cluj, April 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Regionaliztion” in RoHistory and dilemmasSorin Ioniţăwww.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 • Current model: 2 tiers of LG (munic, counties); DR = statistical instruments & units for implementing EU/national policies; non-political executive (ARD) • 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 transfers

  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 – resources

  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)

More Related