A reasoned discussion about administrative reorganization is welcome in the public space. The idea that we are holding off until the 2024 election is politicking. Why don’t we check the quality of parties and politicians in office and their attitude to the main problems of the country? The cumulative crises in which Romania found itself have part of the solution also in the discussion and adequate solution of the problems related to the administrative super-fragmentation, the large gap in the standard of living between different categories of localities or regions. .

Without going into the details of the argument here, it is enough to mention this in Romania, life is worse, the smaller the place of residence. Child mortality, for example, in communes with a population of less than 2,000 people was approximately 10.2‰ in the period 2016-2018, compared to 7.3‰ in communes with a population of more than 6 thousand inhabitants or 4.4‰ in large cities with a population of more than 200 thousands of inhabitants. And the examples can be continued on different aspects and categories of different territorial units.

Some of the ideas recently formulated by independent MP Tudor Benga regarding administrative reorganization in Romania deserve full attention. Starting at this point, we can begin to overcome some of the hurdles of the great failure to pass the 2013 decentralization project. His Lordship’s proposed new counties are mostly subdivisions of the development regions proposed by CONREG (National Regionalization Council) in 2013. The new districts of Moldova de Nord and Moldova Centru are actually a segmentation of the North-Eastern Development Region in the version proposed in 1997 by the “Green Map. Regional Development Policy in Romania” (Hansen et al. 1997). In the same way, the differentiation between the Carpathian region of Kurbur and Dobrudja represents the segmentation of the South-Eastern region of development. I do not repeat the maps and details here (Sandu 2013). At first I think so it is necessary to carefully discuss the principles of structuring the long-delayed reorganization.

Replacing old counties (NUTS 3, in European Union terminology) with regrouping counties solves many of the problems that led to the failure mentioned in 2013. In this way, it is possible to avoid the revision of the Constitution, which provides, in Article 3, that Romania is administratively organized by communes, cities and counties. In this way, political parties and the parliament will get rid of the excuse that “administrative reorganization is difficult, it is necessary to change the Constitution.” Other reasons why politicians are not satisfied with administrative reorganization and decentralization are loss of votes, undermining of clans in the administration, etc.

The new districts must be designed in such a way as to respect not only the principle of ensuring regional identity, but also those related to economic and administrative functionality. Before drawing maps that bring votes, it is necessary to lay out and argue the principles of ensuring the multifunctionality of regions of the type NUTS 2 (development regions) and NUTS 3 (counties). New counties should be considered in conjunction with the entire regional system, which includes old counties, development regions, historic regions, and geographic regions. The idea that only one type of regionalization ensures development is utopian.

I would give just a few examples that may illustrate some of the previously mentioned ideas. Hunedoara County, for example. In the new counties project, it appears in southwestern Transylvania together with Sibiu and Alba. Of course, Hunedoara is part of the historical region of Transylvania in the narrow sense of the term. According to the criteria of identity, the option is justified. Functionally, however, no. For decades, residents of Hunedo (Figure 1, Sandu 2018) commute to Timișoara from Banat more than to Sibiu or other neighboring counties. How to conceive a new country that resolutely disrupts the usual residence with a workplace? Also, if we talk about identity, the toponym of Transylvania has a broad meaning that covers, in addition to Central Transylvania, also Banat and Crisana-Maramureş. In other words, Hunedoara remains in Transylvania as a historical region if it is defined in a broad sense, including the regions beyond the mountains.

We can also discuss the possibility of segmentation of the southeastern development region between the new districts of Dobruja and Karpaty de Courbur. There are cultural differences, but… There is a region of the mouth of the Danube, which is better represented by the southeast region of development. You are building a bridge across the Danube to connect Breila with Tulcea, but to separate the two counties on the new administrative map. It is clear that many decisions cannot be made uncritically. Could it be that the cultural diversity characteristic of this region can bring benefits, including economic ones??

Another example that raises questions. Both in 2016 (Sandu 2018) and in 2019 (Figure 1) the county of Suceava due to the migration of tyzh to Iasi. The new county of Bucovina-Moldova de Pivnich proposes the segmentation of Suceava de Iași. Of course, based on identification, perhaps the solution would be clear. But is it really necessary to ignore the links of economic functionality?

And examples of similar questions can be given further. It is important that these are formulated and negotiated to achieve the best possible regional configurations.

Decisions about regional configurations, which also operate in public administration, can only be made if all relevant levels, local, district, development region and national, are taken into account. The idea of ​​reducing territorial defragmentation and through voluntary, administratively stimulated unification of small, non-functional municipalities deserves support. Subject to discussion and consideration are the proposals of specialists regarding the consideration of unification criteria and incentives. Large gaps in living conditions between the countryside and the city, villages in the center of the commune and peripheral villages, communities near communes distant from large cities, etc., should be quickly recognized as the goals of territorial policy. There is no need to wait until after next year’s political elections to decide on this. Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro