Which regions matter or not in influencing local demographic attractiveness (AD) through temporary or permanent immigration/emigration, internal or external? Are historical regions, development regions, counties or cultural zones more important than groups of neighboring counties with a similar cultural profile in the case we are discussing here, in the case of Romania? I have already partially answered such questions in another material[1]. We are currently interested in these questions, especially in terms of timing: How have these regional conditions affected demographic attractiveness over time when comparing the period of the COVID-19 pandemic to the previous period for which we have similar data?

Why the interest in the topic? For the simple reason that this analysis of demographic attractiveness at the local level says a lot about the spatial and social conditioning of local changes. Places do not function autonomously, but in certain regional contexts. Publicly available data, here and now, on domestic and international migration at the local level for an unknown period of time is not available, even after the 2021 census conducted by the National Institute of Statistics (INS), actually conducted in 2022. The assessment of local demographic attractiveness indirectly through the ratio of the population at the usual place of residence to the population at the place of residence turned out to be effective[2], and further we use it for regional and temporal understanding of the related processes. Such an approach is all the more necessary because locally available data on internal and external, temporary and permanent migration are rare in the context we are talking about. To understand the spatial conditioning of local demographic attractiveness in 2021, the year of the COVID-19 pandemic, we turned to 2011, for which we have the closest similar data in time. It is useful, for a start, to start from the situation of local demographic attractiveness in 2021 and 2011, by counties and types of settlements, depending on the habitat and their proximity to large cities.

Synthetic table at the district level

Major changes occur during the COVID-19 pandemic across the country, with maximum AD in communes near major cities (97%). The contrast is obvious in comparison with 2011, when the relative equality of AD was observed at the level of communes located near large cities compared to distant ones (Table 1). Unfortunately, we cannot compare the situation during the pandemic with the previous period, 2018 or 2019, due to the lack of adequate data. Therefore, we do not know whether the previously mentioned change for the period 2011-2021 is a pandemic effect, a medium-term evolution, or a combination of the two effects. As a hypothesis, we could formulate the idea that the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified the previously existing trend of increasing attractiveness due to temporary migration and change of residence.. Certainly, AD in 2021 compared to 2011 was higher in communes located near large cities compared to those far from them. The situation is particularly noticeable in areas such as rural Ilfov near the capital Bucharest. But not only there. The situation is also observed in communes near the big cities of Cluj, Timis and Dolj.

The situation in the counties of Sibiu and Neamts, located near large cities, is surprising. They had lower AD than communes located far from large cities. We don’t know why. Case studies are needed. If we follow the development of the county, then between 2011 and 2021 the biggest change took place in Iasi. Here AD decreases from 94% in 2011 to 80% in 2021, with the maximum drop at the level of the city of Iasi. Answers can only be obtained through specific regional analysis.

The next step in answering the questions in this section of the analysis can be done by digging deeper. If we “control” for several variables (the development of settlements, their distance from large cities, or the experience of migration abroad at the local level), we can find out whether the mentioned changes are likely to occur as a specific regional effect.

Stability and change of influence on local demographic attractiveness

In order not to overload the presentation with technical details (given by multiple regression equations), we mention only the main results of the comparative analysis of 2021 with 2011.

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, AD was higher in developed communes near major cities and relatively few people abroad. The same pattern was found for 2011, but with one difference. In 2011, the commune’s proximity to large cities was not so important. It is likely that this increase in exposure was consolidated between 2011 and 2019 and intensified during the pandemic.

The regional impact on AD appears to be more prominent in 2021 compared to 2011. In 2011, AD was significantly higher for the communes of Ilfov, compared to other historical regions. The corresponding regularity is also preserved in 2021. In addition, in 2021, two more regions with a specific impact on AD appear, respectively Moldova and Maramures. Settlements in the historical region of Moldova, other things being equal, tend to have a lower AD index (base region in multiple regression is Dobruja). In 2021, Maramures settlements seem to have a higher AD compared to other historical regions. It is not clear from the available data why the rejection effect was larger in Moldova and the attraction effect was larger in Maramures in 2021 than in 2011. More returns from the country or from abroad, in Maramures, and less in Moldova? Perhaps, but we cannot answer the question with the available data.

If we discuss the influence of a historical region in two periods, rather than individual regions, we find that its influence remains relatively constant. About 7% of the variation in AD is given by the regional affiliation of the area in 2011. For 2021, the corresponding percentage is about 6%[3].

Both historical regions and development regions consist of counties, as administrative regions of the maximum structure. For this reason, it may be appropriate to track their specific effect for 2011 and 2021[4] on AD. For both reporting periods increased demographic attractiveness is characteristic of settlements in the districts near the capital Bucharest and the city of Cluj. In 2011, the counties with the highest AD capacity were Ilfov, near Bucharest, and Cluj. For these counties, the migration attraction, temporary or permanent, was maximum. AD was also significantly higher for counties close to Bucharest, namely Giurgiu and Calarasi, both in 2011 and 2021. Cities in Bistrica-Neseud county tend to fall into the category of cities with high AD in 2021.

Among Moldova’s eight counties, only three had a very high demographic decline in 2011, namely Neamts, Bacau and Vranca, in the western part of the region. However, in 2021, the number of counties in the historical region of Moldova with increased capacity for demographic rejection expands, including four counties, namely Iasi, Neamt, Vaslui, Galati.

The main changes seem to have taken place especially in the county of Iasi, which is characterized a state of relative “neutrality” in AD in 2011 to become a country of demographic decline in 2021 major. I have already noted, analyzing the data in Table 1, that this change occurred especially in the cities of Iasi. A similar evolution from neutrality in AD in 2011 to a decrease in demographic attractiveness is observed in two more counties of Moldova, respectively, in Vaslui and Galaţi. All three counties are located in the eastern part of the region in a continuous strip. Why is this so? Coincidence or common causes? Obviously, this remains in question for now until new data emerges to clarify this.

The same evolution from neutrality to increased demographic rejection it is also found in Muntenia (Arges, Prahova, Buzeu and Jalomica), Olt from Oltenia and Hunedoara from Transylvania.

Another trend from rejection to neutrality in AD appears in the counties of Transylvania (Covasna and Harghita), in Tulcea in Dobrudja and in Vranca in Moldova.

The remaining counties not mentioned in the typology in these last paragraphs do not seem to have a specific AD trend (counties of Crisana-Maramureş, Teleorman, Dambovitsa, Vilca, Braila, Brasov, Salai, etc.) Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro