“Why did the country’s programs developed by the Romanian authorities fail? The first reason is because they contained extra-budgetary measures. In 2016, the World Bank discovered 365 programs developed by the Romanian authorities lying in different drawers, two-thirds of which had no budget,” said BNR Chief Economist Valentin Lazea at the Governance Course conference on Tuesday.

But there is another third, about a hundred programs that had a budget.

What Valentyn Lazeya said at the conference:

• The second reason is the almost constant electoral context. I give the example of Romania’s competitive strategy, developed in 2016 under the auspices of the government and the Romanian Academy, with clearly defined and budgeted measures, but which was quickly abandoned due to the electoral context of that year.

• Moreover, there were other plans for the country that, apart from being included in the budget, were not even adopted in the context of the elections, such as the National Strategy for the adoption of the Euro for 2018-2019, which was also abandoned very quickly.

• I have a lot of experience in the plans and strategies of many countries, a sad experience. Starting in 1998, when the country plan was developed, Romania’s first attempt to join the OECD, going through the 2016 Competitive Romania Strategy and the 2018-2019 National Plan for the Adoption of the Euro.

• I listed four reasons, maybe there will be more. The first reason may be a lack of respect for the authorities, a lack generated both objectively and subjectively. Objectively, let’s say, due to the fact that society has seen a frequent change of priorities, as soon as the government changes, old priorities are postponed, new ones appear, or even in the same election cycle, priorities change at the first reshuffle. What works today won’t work tomorrow.

• This cannot inspire confidence in the authorities. Or, a subjective case, the incompatibility of these ideas or projects put forward by the central government with local interests, more or less occult, which are disturbed or have their own agenda and practically sabotage these ideas coming from the center.

• Another reason why I believe these national programs have failed is the lack of intra- and inter-institutional solidarity. We have a whole list of problems here because the country plan requires you to have empathy, empathy for institutions you will never deal with, areas of the country you will probably never go to, empathy between white and blue collar workers, between Transylvanians and Olten people, between young and old and so on. But we in Romania have lost this notion of empathy and solidarity. Romania is characterized by huge disparities at the territorial level, a very high Gini coefficient that shows inequality in society, tax revenues of only 27% of GDP, the second lowest level in Europe, which shows what? That you do not want to contribute to the general fund, that you are not in solidarity with the rest of the nation.

• The third very important reason is the ignoring of intangible incentives. If a bag of money is not attached to the project, it is not interesting. No one thinks that if you do your work qualitatively, and not for money, it saves time and nerves for yourself and all your fellow citizens. Westerners have long since come to the conclusion that by doing your job, you save yourself time and nerves and those who do their job well.

• The fourth reason is the predominant short-term and very short-term vision, in the sense that the simplest and most popular measures are always taken first from the country’s plan, and the most complex and with long-term effects are left for later.

• Why were the national programs developed for Romania by foreign authorities, the IMF, the World Bank, and the European Commission partially successful? First, this government is more respected than the government of the country. Secondly, the implementation of these programs is a material incentive, it is a bag of money.

• Even these programs are implemented due to the lack of solidarity in Romanian society. For example, the benefits of some in the case of non-payment of taxes and fees or the benefits of others in receiving benefits that are disproportionately large in relation to contributions. We know what discussions are going on regarding the pension reform. Europe stipulates money from PNRR for this reform. We are ready to risk this money.

• And fourth, even these programs developed by international institutions face a predominant short-term orientation to the detriment of the medium and long-term. Those measures that are easy to perform are selected.

• In summary, what can we realistically expect from the country program? The best country program we have is the PNRR, what we like, what we don’t like, that it is created by Romanians, in part or in a small part, with a lot of ecology, with a lot of IT, etc. on. That’s it, we have it, it’s with money, it’s fixed, it’s the best opportunity to implement it, whether we like it or not.

• I also see a possible punctual but uncoordinated progress made by some Romanian entrepreneurs, each in their own niche, but without an integrative macroeconomic vision, without necessarily having a vision to influence taxation, fiscal and monetary policy.

The PNRR is the country’s only comprehensive plan that also has a fiscal section

• In the long-term and very long-term perspective, the reform of the education system, which promotes different values ​​than those promoted in the last 30 years, emphasizing solidarity, long-term approach, respect for authority, non-material incentives.

• PNRR is the only round plan of the country which also has a fiscal section, it contains all these macroeconomic constraints. So every month we hold two or three conferences, each one discussing the country plan, but each one discussing a segment, a sub-segment, an activity.

• Money and approval come from Brussels. They are able to decide whether certain goals are worth sacrificing.

• At least the project “Competitive Romania” and “Strategy for the transition to the euro” were made together with the Academy, the result of practical implementation is zero. why For the above reasons. I believe that the Romanian society today does not respect the authorities, even the Academy, and does not respect it for the reason indicated. Who can fix it in the long run? The education system, if you will.

Under the auspices of the Academy, plans were made before, will they be made again, the Romanian public, those who have to implement, are they somehow moved by the fact that it was done by the Academy? My opinion is not.