The Role of Political Factors in the Urbanisation and Regional Development of Romania

Abstract

The industrial development policy focusing on heavy industry, mainly the steel and machine-construction branches, was a characteristic feature of the socialist-type political systems of Eastern Europe. Its notable consequence for the system of human settlements translated into forcible urbanisation, but only insofar as quantity was concerned (artificial multiplication of towns and of the town population). As industrial units set up, some villages, functioning as dormitories, would be turned into towns: other would be integrated into the urban administrative territory; on the other hand, some dominantly rural residential districts would be attached to the town and a new type of settlements, connected with the construction of big industrial estates, would be built on empty terrain. As a result, a new type of town-integrated settlements would emerge, but the quality of their urban-type infrastructure falls far below that of traditional centres. Their individual character is marked by a fluctuating evolution, in the majority of cases much closer to countryside, that is, decreasing population and growing vulnerability connected with the units they had been engendered by. Considering the foregoing, we could say that these settlements, now part of the town, represent a distinct, intermediary category between the urban and the rural system and should be designated as such. The state capital determines a specific organisation of the state territory, as materialised in a certain pattern of communication routes and a specific layout of the other urban nuclei with macro-territorial functions. Bucharest’s peripheral position within the national territory calls for the decentralisation of its functions concomitantly with remote regional metropoles becoming more important as spatial structuring nuclei. Bucharest’s high degree of hypertrophy compared to the second city in the urban hierarchy, together with its distinct position within the Romanian urban system, asked for a distinctive organisation of its built-in area as early as the beginning of the 20-th century.

Exploring the Relationship between the Dynamics of the Urban–Rural Interface and Regional Development in a Post-Socialist Transition

“…Its administrative structure includes 41 counties and Bucharest, the capital city (Figure 1). The territorial development policy in the communist period was based on the extensive industrialization and control of the settlement system [38]. The housing policies, lack of private property and land market, as well as the centralized planning system are elements that explain why, during the communist period, there was no real process of suburbanization, as witnessed in all former socialist countries [39][40][41].…”

“…• The definition of smaller buildable perimeters than actual built-up areas, through the law on systematization (spatial planning); • The obligation of higher education graduates to carry out internships in other settlements than the big cities; • Priority given to some mega-projects over the definition and functionality of urbanrural interfaces, which would have reduced the city-countryside discontinuities. The territorial development policy in the communist period was based on the extensive industrialization and control of the settlement system [38]. The housing policies, lack of private property and land market, as well as the centralized planning system are elements that explain why, during the communist period, there was no real process of suburbanization, as witnessed in all former socialist countries [39][40][41].…”

The Illusion of Urbanization: Impact of Administrative Reform on Communities’ Resilience

“…The minimum legal criteria enforced by the Law no. 351/2001 were generally not fulfilled, while many settlements preserved strong rural traits (Săgeată 2010). Assessing compliance with the minimum legal criteria (see Table A2), the fifty five settlements fulfilled, on average, four criteria.…”

A Comparative Analysis of the Socio-Economic Development of Romanian Cities and Towns Inhabited by Ethnic Hungarians

“…Besides these, it is worth shortly overviewing the literature dealing with the development of the settlement structure and the urbanisation of Romania (Benedek, 2006;Zamfir et al, 2009;Csák, 2009Csák, , 2015Săgeată, 2010;Mitrică, 2014;Mitrică, Săgeată, & Grigorescu, 2014;Dumitrache et al, 2016). Sandu (2017) has provided probably the most comprehensive multidimensional study on the development at settlement level in Romania lately (defining "LHDI index", the latest version of this index measures the local human development of settlements with 30-30,000 inhabitants).…”