The COVID-19 pandemic has changed many things. What happened to the demographic decline or growth of settlements in the country in the period 2020-2022? This is the question I try to answer briefly, in the first form, here. Of course, it depends on how, when, at what territorial level you measure and how you argue the conclusions. The requested data refer to settlements with a population of more than 1,000 people.

The demographic attractiveness of settlements was assessed by the percentage ratio of the population permanently residing in this settlement according to the last population census of 2021, and the population permanently residing in this settlement. The methodological hypothesis from which we started states that the demographic attractiveness of the settlement was in the reporting period and in the period immediately preceding it, the higher the corresponding percentage was. It is a measure of population stock accumulated over time.

Demographic appeal

The analysis showed, first of all, that in the conditions of the pandemic crisis, developed rural settlements, located near large cities and European roads, became the main center of demographic attraction. Secondly, the experience of migration abroad of the local population was also important (see appendix). It appears that developed communes located near large cities, but with a low proportion of people who left abroad, were preferred as migration destinations. In the equation of the configuration of these flows of demographic attractiveness, the main country of destination in the international migration of the local population was also of special importance. For communes where many people left for Germany and Spain, the local demographic appeal was lower. It is likely that the labor market in these countries contributed more to the stay of those who went there to work than to their return to Romania. Thirdly, the historical region of belonging to Romania was also important. Demographic attraction was clearly revealed in the communes of the Ilfov district, near the capital (Table 1). The largest demographic rejection was recorded for the settlements of Moldova and Banat.

Even with these ill-defined data, we can see that permanent immigration (from within the country or abroad) was more important for demographic attractiveness than permanent immigration (Appendix). Immigration through a change of residence was achieved, as was demographic attraction, more in communes than in cities. Conversely, immigration through a change of permanent residence was particularly focused on the developed cities of Transylvania. Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro