I SSN- L 2285 – 3332
Revistă indexată în baze de date internaţionale
The USV Annals
of Economics and
Public Administration
VOLUME 12, ISSUE 1(15), 2012
EDITORIAL BOARD:
Editor‐in‐chief: Carmen NĂSTASE
General editorial secretary: Adrian Liviu SCUTARIU
Editors: Elena HLACIUC, Carmen CHAŞOVSCHI, Mariana LUPAN, Ovidiu Florin HURJUI, Simona BUTA
SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE:
Angela ALBU, „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania Paolo ANDREI, University of Studies in Parma, Italy
Stefano AZZALI, University of Studies in Parma, Italiy George P. BABU, University of Southern Mississippi, USA
Christian BAUMGARTNER, International Friends of Nature, Austria Grigore BELOSTECINIC, ASEM, Chi şinău, Republic of Moldova Ionel BOSTAN, „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi, Romania Aurel BURCIU, „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania
Gheorghe CÂRSTEA, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest , Romania Slobodan CEROVIC, Singidunum University, Belgrade, Serbia
Simion CERTAN, State University of Chişinău, Republic of Moldova Carmen CHAŞOVSCHI, „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania Liliana ELMAZI, Tirana University, Albania
Cristian Valentin HAPENCIUC, „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania Elena HLACIUC, „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania
Elena IFTIME, „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania Marian JALENCU, State University of Chişinău, Republic of Moldova Miika KAJANUS, Savonia University of Applied Sciences, Iisalmi, Finland Alunica MORARIU, „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania Maria MUREŞAN, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucuresti, Romania Carmen NĂSTASE, „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Roman ia Alexandru NEDELEA, „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania Ion PÂRȚACHI, ASEM, Chişinău, Republic of Moldova
Rusalim PETRIŞ, „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania Abraham PIZAM, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida Ion POHOAȚĂ, „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi, Romania Gabriela PRELIPCEAN, „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania Gheorghe SANDU, „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania Petru SANDU, Elizabethtown College, Pennsylvania, USA
Doru TILIUȚE, „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania Viorel ȚURCANU, ASEM, Chişinău, Republic of Moldova
Diego VARELA PEDREIRA, University of A Coruna, Spain
Răzvan VIORESCU, „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania
Cover design & graphic layout: Adrian Liviu SCUTARIU
Contact:
Faculty of Economics and Public Administration „Ştefan cel Mare” University of Suceava
Str. Universităţii nr. 13, Corp H, Camera H108 720229 SUCEAVA, ROMANIA
Phone: (+40) 230 216147 int. 294 E-mail: cercetare@seap.usv.ro
Journal web site: www.seap.usv.ro/annals Faculty web site: www.seap.usv.ro
University web site: www.usv.ro
Întreaga răspundere asupra conţinutului articolelor publicate revine autorilor.
---
SECTION 1. ECONOMY, TRADE, SERVICES...6
TYPOLOGY AND PLANNING OF THE TOURISM REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA..7 Gheorghe ZAMAN
Valentina VAS)LE Zizi GOSC()N Elisabeta R. ROSCA
STATE OWNED ENTERPRISES AS OBJECT OF TRANSITION AND STRUCTURAL REFORMS IN CEE: THEORETICAL BASIS OF A NECESSARY RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS... 18
Alina BADULESCU
Anca PACALA
SOME ASPECTS CONCERNING THE ROMANIAN LABOUR MARKET IN THE CONTEXT OF EMIGRATION... 24
Diana‐Mihaela POC)OVĂL)ŞTEANU Liana BADEA
IS THERE A FOURTH WAVE OF DEMOCRACY OR NOT? AN EVALUATION OF THE LATEST THEORIES... 32
Cristian C. POPESCU
DIMENSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES OF CONSUMER PROTECTION POLICY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION... 39
Corina ENE
ATTENUATION SCENARIOS OF SOCIOECONOMICAL INEQUALITIES AT RURAL LEVEL SOUTHWEST OLTENIA REGION... 46
Ramona Florina POPESCU Emilia UNGUREANU
BARIERRS AND SOLUTIONS IN THE KNOWLEDGE FLOW PERCOLATION MODEL... 55 Daniela POPESCUL
WESTERN BALKANS’ COUNTRIES IN FOCUS OF GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS... 63 Engjell PERE
Albana (AS(ORVA
USING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES TO RAISE THE COMPETITIVENESS OF SMES... 74 Kristina PUKSTA
Alexandru NEDELEA
ASPECTS REGARDING THE INTERCONNECTION OF REGIONAL SCIENCE WITH REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT... 84
Adrian Liviu SCUTAR)U
THE IMPACT OF THE ECONOMIC CRISES FROM THE XXIST CENTURY ON THE EUROPEAN LOWCOST AIRLINES’ MARKET... 91
Laura D)ACONU MAX)M
CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE CURRENCY – THE EVOLUTION OF THE EURO... 99 Loredana JUNCU
FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMPTION OF ORGANIC FOOD IN ROMANIA...107 Andrei‐Cosmin DUMEA
INGAME ADVERTISING: ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS FOR ADVERTISERS...114 Alina G()RVU
SECTION 2. MANAGEMENT AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ...120
THE CONTEXT AND NEW TRENDS OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT FLOWS...121 Costică M)(A)
TALENT MANAGEMENT IN FOUR STAGES...130 Sajjad WA(EED
Abdülhalim ZA)M (alil ZA)M
CONSUMER UTILITY THEORY TO BUSINESS MANAGEMENT...138 Lorena CRO)TOR
APPROACH TO CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT (CRM)THE NEW KEY SALES SUCCESS...144
Daniel Mihai VAS)L)U
ANAYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FDI AND ECONOMIC GROWTH – LITERATURE REVIEW STUDY...154
Lenuta CARP
SECTION 3. ACCOUNTING - FINANCES...161
FORECAST OF FINANCIAL VALUES...162 )oan DUM)TREAN
APPLICATION OF ACTIVITY BASED COSTING IN MANUFACTURING COMPANIES IN BANGLADESH: A SURVEY BASED STUDY...170
Nikhil Chandra S()L Alok Kumar PRAMAN)K
CHALLENGES OF SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS: PERSPECTIVE OF AUDITORGENERAL OF NIGERIA...183
Augustine E. AK()D)ME Famous ). O. )ZEDONM)
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION AND THE EXEMPTION FROM DISCLOSURE FOR CREDIT INSTITUTIONS...190
Mariana VLAD )oana COLBU
FINANCING HEALTH CARE IN ROMANIA AND IMPLICATIONS ON THE ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES ...195
Sorin Gabriel ANTON
UNDERSTANDING THE DETERMINANTS OF TAX COMPLIANCE BEHAVIOR AS A PREREQUISITE FOR INCREASING PUBLIC LEVIES...201
Larissa‐Margareta BǍTRÂNCEA Ramona‐Anca N)C()TA
)oan BǍTRÂNCEA
MONETARY POLICY TRANSMISSION MECHANISM ONTO THE REAL ECONOMYA LITERATURE REVIEW...211
SECTION 4. STATISTICS, ECONOMIC INFORMATICS AND MATHEMATICS ...218
PLACE AND IMPORTANCE OF SUCEAVA DISTRICT FOREIGN TRADE IN THE NATIONAL ECONOMY OF ROMANIA...219
Elena‐Maria B)J) Eugenia L)LEA Mihaela VATU) Elisabeta R. ROSCA Florin‐Paul‐Costel L)LEA
MAE ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF MEASURING THE GLOBAL AVERAGE UNCERTAINTY OF INFLATION FORECAST IN ROMANIA...230
Mihaela BRATU
SECTION 5. LAW AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION...237
DOCTRINAIRE CONTROVERSIES ON THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SERVICE...238 )rina B)LOUSEAC
THE STRUCTURE OF THE ROMANIAN PARLIAMENT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ITS OPTIMIZING AND OF THE COOPERATION MECHANISM WITH THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT...244
Lucian‐Sorin STĂNESCU Debora BELȚ)C POPOV)C)
FROM INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS TOWARDS THE NEW PARADIGM OF LABOR RELATIONS ...256
Maria‐Cristina BĂLĂNEASA Aurel MANOLESCU
INTERWAR REGULATIONS REGARDING ROMANIAN CIVIL SERVANTS...263 Marilena‐Oana NEDELEA
FROM CENTRALIZATION TO CRISIS DECENTRALIZATION IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION MANAGEMENT AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL APPROACH...271
Petronela ZA(AR)A
CONVENING THE GENERAL MEETING OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THE VOTING RIGHT OF THE PARTNERS IN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES...277
Eugenia Gabriela LEUC)UC
THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUILIBRIUM AND SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER THE ROMANIAN CONSTITUTION...284
Camelia TOMESCU Mihaela Codrina LEVA)
SECTION 1
TYPOLOGY AND PLANNING OF THE TOURISM REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA
Professor Gheorghe ZAMAN
dr. Valentina VASILE
Institute of National Economy Bucharest, Romania
Professor Zizi GOSCHIN
Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest, Romania
Associate professor PhD. Elisabeta R. ROSCA
University „Stefan cel Mare” of Suceava, Romania
Abstract:
The paper „Typology and Planning of the Tourism Regional Development in Romania” presents a succinct approach of the general conceptual background of regional science, context in which have developed also the theoretical elements on the typology and planning of the regional economic growth. In the paper is presented the typology of regional development of tourism in Romania, in the form of touristic regionalization or zoning of the country, as well as some of the typological groups made in the specialized literature for Romanian tourism. Also, the paper presents a theoretical delimitation of the concept of regional development in tourism and some of the plans/programmes that include the Romanian regional tourism development, too: Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013, National Development Plan 2007-2013 of Romania, National Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 and Master Plan for the Development of National Tourism 2007-2026.
Key words: typology of regions, tourism, regional planning, plan/programme, Romania.
JEL classification: M100, R110, R120.
INTRODUCTION
In the process of continue widening the area of investigation, characteristic also at present for the regional science, they developed a set of disciplines such as: regional economy, regional planning, regional forecasting, urban economy, urban planning, rural economy, land use planning, infrastructure economy, spatial regional development a.s.o. (Nicolae and Constantin, 1998; Constantin, 1998). Into practice, these disciplines became concrete domains of action, for the ensuring of regional development and the specialists engaged in its study sometimes assume attempts to guide the evolution of regional development by regional strategies and policies, interlinked concepts because the strategies of regional development are translated into the regional policies, considered as specific, operational tools for the realization of strategic objectives, important leverages of state intervention in the solving of economic and social development problems. The implementation of regional policy is made by the regional planning, defined by two main components: an economic and social component, that refers to the economic and social objectives and the measures with the role to ensure a balanced regional development, for the reduction of disparities within region and the interregional; a physical component, that summarizes the problems of locating in territory of the economic, social and cultural edifices, resulting from the implementation of measures proposed by the first component (Constantin, 1998; Rosca, 2007).
“the regional plan”. Around the years 40s have appeared the first concrete forms of regional policy, result of the activity of some profiled organisms as: the Commission of Spatial Planning in Switzerland (1937), the Committee of National Planning (1941) and the Swiss Association for the National Spatial Plan (1943). In the Low Countries, in 1941, was promulgated the Law of National Plan, that established official three levels of action: town, region, country.
At its turn, Romania is situated among the pioneers of regional development planning in Europe. Cincinat Sfintescu defined the concepts of over-urbanism (1929) and systematization (1932) and in 1949 appeared the first town-planning and spatial planning projects in our country. The term of systematization, derived from the latin systema-having a complex sense of rational association based on predetermined criteria of a sum of elements, comprises an assembly of technical, economic and legislative measures that have in view a better organization, after a plan, of the living spaces but also productive and recreational activities (such as tourism), movement of raw materials, finished goods and people without neglecting the natural environment. The term is used mostly in Romania, where it has a similar content with: l’amenagement du territoire used by the France school, physical planning and spatial organzation, terms used by the Anglo-Saxon and American schools, raumordnung in Germany, ordinacion del territorio in Spain a.s.o. (Constantin, 1998; Candea and Bran, 2001; Rosca, 2007).
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE TYPOLOGY AND THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
TYPOLOGY OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT - THEORETICAL COORDINATES
categories of regional development policies (Zaman and Goschin, 2005; Zaman and Goschin, 2006; Rosca, 2010).
PLANNING THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN TOURISM - THEORETICAL APPROACH
To understand the process of regional planning in leisure and tourism must be made first a differentiation of these terms. John Tribe considers that the definition of leisure and tourism involves the consideration of the free time. So, he proposes some definitions and correlations between the two concepts, namely: the period of leisure is similar to the discretionary time and this is the time remaining after work, travel, sleep, making household and personal activities; the recreation is part of leisure time and includes home activities such as reading or watching TV or outdoor activities such as sports, theatre, cinema and tourism; the travel and the leisure include the displacements to the tourist destinations, the accommodation and the complementary activities at destination, the recreation. In the development of travel and tourism component an important role plays the tourism planning. The problem that appears is to identify how the touristic plans can be made and how these can be implemented? Are there techniques and processes at the national and regional levels that can be followed for ensuring tourism development? The experience demonstrates that the tourism planning found the place and produced results. The tourism planning proposes objectives for the limitation of social, environment, economic negative effects as well as the obtaining positive effects by the achieving proposed objectives (Tribe, 1999).
In the leisure domain as in others, the planning should provide the best solutions to satisfy the specific demand of a population. In this process are essential four stages namely: determination of current situation in the moment in which is made the planning process; determination of desired situation; determination of distance between current situation and desired situation and the establishing of requirements; determination of concrete actions to be done for covering this distance and the achieving of planned objectives (Soubrier, 2000). So, the first stage consists in the drawing of an accurate portrait of current situation at the time of making planning. It involves the determination of material (physical) financial and human available resources and their use in the system of service production, the realization of an inventory of offered and used services and the highlighting of leisure population behaviour. Determination the concrete level of demand for leisure services represents in fact the first useful stage for the specifying of offered services as well as the needed resources that allow the practice of desired activities. Determination the distance between the current situation (effective behaviour) and the desired situation concerning on the consumption of leisure services allows the identification of leisure needs of a population. The implementation of some measures to reduce this distance is made though after the verification and comparison the obtained observations by different methods of demand analysis. If this analysis is not well done it is possible to appear a lack of correlation between needs and resources. In the process of leisure planning it is necessary to elaborate a plan of development or a policy in which to be presented the means and the strategies for satisfaction the needs for leisure services of population. This document must specify the activities to make, the relations between the services providers and population to facilitate the use of communities available resources.
on the sites and the identification of preferred destinations and the establishing of conclusions and recommendations for desired plan (based on the second stage results); study of effects, which refers to the social, economic and environmental impacts of the development proposal and to the used resources and the problems which should be given a particular attention.
In essence, we note that in tourism regional development planning two steps are necessary namely: the realization of development plan and its implementation by a regional development policy in tourism. Plans/programs of regional economic and social development are realized at two levels: at national level, which include the regional development too and at regional level, by development plans on each regions (Constantin, 1998; Rosca, 2010).
TOURISM REGIONALIZATION (ZONING) OF ROMANIA
The need to elaborate the spatial planning strategies determined the increase of identification importance and the evaluating of tourism resources with the aim of country tourism regionalization (zoning). In the geographical Romanian literature existed tryings for tourism regionalization since 1945, when N.Al. Radulescu delimited 24 tourism regions in Romania. In 1969, M. Iancu, as a result of an analysis of tourism fund and its use, he delimited on Romania territory 23 zones, distributed in three categories namely: international tourism interest zones (Bucharest, Brasov a.s.o.), zones of national interest (Ceahlau, Maramures a.s.o.) and zones of local and regional interest (Vrancea, Bacau, Mures a.s.o.). G. Posea, in 1977, realised a grouping of districts by the existent tourism potential and M. Ielencz, in 1992, delimited provinces (regions), zones (areals), mountain massifs (tourism complexes), centers and tourism objectives on the basis of tourism potential analysis. In a large study of Human and Economic Geography, realized by the Institute of Geography from the University of Bucharest in 1984, the tourism region is presented as a comprehensive category, represented by a large territory (generally geographical units), characterized by an obvious concentration of tourist objectives in which are located forest massifs, water courses, towns and tourism centers, tourism areals (Cucu and Iordan, 1984). The great tourism regions of Romania were considered: Black Sea littoral and Danube Delta, Eastern Carpathians, Meridional Carpathians, Banat Mountains, Apuseni Mountains, the urban and periurban recreative zones and other tourism areals (Minciu, 1995). Also, the areal (tourism zone) is defined as a territory characterized by the diversity of tourism natural potential, by the great number of tourism objectives and complexes, by a homogeneity of facilities, that are specific to a certain type of tourism (recreative, sportive, itinerant), in this category being included: Maramures Depression, Rucar-Bran Corridor, Poiana Rusca Mountains, Danube Delta a.s.o. (Candea and Simon, 2006).
Delimitation and ranking the tourism areas require the inventory and the knowledge of tourism potential components, their grouping in space and their quantitative and qualitative evaluation in order to establish the development opportunities that can generate and the necessary equipments for a management in efficient and competitiveness conditions. Among the methods of evaluation and ranking of tourism zones can be mentioned the method of graphs and the method of partial ranks. In the tourism regionalization of territory, the uniqueness of tourism zone is ensured by specificity, while the specific of tourism region is the unity in diversity (Cocean, Vlasceanu and Negoescu, 2002).
Method of graphs is a system of analysis on more levels, based on criteria and sub-criteria specific for each level and depending on the level is assessed through a certain number of points. The basic criteria which can be used are: natural potential (sub-criteria: heritage values, landscape-natural conditions, balneal resources), cultural and historical potential (sub-criteria: historical values, urban values, ethnographic values, memorial values, museums and collections), tourism structures (sub-criteria: accommodation and food, balneal treatment, leisure structures), communications routes (sub-criteria: roads, railways, airways). The method was used by the specialists of Institute URBANPROIECT for the realization of spatial tourism development plans and allowed the highlighting of main tourism zones and sub-zones of Romania. So, using as criteria the tourism potential, the tourism equipment and the network of communications routes were identified two major categories of tourism zones namely: zones having a high tourism potential, with equipment and infrastructure partially satisfactory, with well outlined tourism functions, namely: Brasov-Bucegi-Prahova Valley, Portile de Fier-Cerna Valey, Valcea and Campulung-Muscel, Bucovina, tourism equipped littoral, Bistrita-Calimani-Dorna Depression, Bihor-Motilor Country, Danube Delta- North Dobrogea, Neamt-Bicaz, Superior Valley of Olt, Gorj, Maramures-Oas, Retezat-Hateg Depression-Dacian Fortresses and Marginimea Sibiului, Sibiu, Olt Country and zones with high potential, with real possibilities of amplification and consolidation the tourism function, namely: Rodna Mountains-Borsa, Semenic Mountains-Caras Depression-Nera Keys, Bucharest Municipality, Oradea Municipality, Timisoara, Superior Valley of Mures, Vrancea, Cluj-Dej and surroundings, Iasi Municipality and surroundings, Targu-Mures and surroundings, Tarnava Mare Valley, Lower Danube lands, Parang Mountains-Lotru, Fagaras Mountains-Iezer, Danube Meadow, Superior and Middle Valley of Teleajen, Valley and lands of Buzau.
Method of partial ranks was used for the districts ranking on the tourism potential, the tourism infrastructure and the mode of recovery, aim in which were selected two groups of indicators namely: a first group which refers to the quality and concentration of tourism potential and the technical infrastructure level (natural and cultural potential, accommodation capacity, weight of urban population, density of modernized roads and railways) and a second group, which includes the indicators which give the measure of the degree of tourism valorisation (total number of tourists, number of foreign tourists, total number of overnights, average length of stay, volume of revenue realized on the main tourism forms). To each indicator has been assigned a coefficient of importance (between 0,5 and 1) and it was determined an unique partial rank, as an arithmetic average of the products between ranks and the coefficients of importance at the district levels, on each group of indicators. Districts that occupy the best positions, by the method of ranks, are: Constanta, Bucharest Municipality, Brasov, Prahova, Bihor, Sibiu, Timis, Cluj, Caras-Severin, Mures, Suceava. From the analysis of occupied positions by districts results some discrepancies between districts on the tourism potential, general and tourism infrastructure, in the sense that there are districts with a valuable tourism potential but without an adequate tourism equipment.
of some common objectives on attracting financial resources and methods of implementation of some specific objectives, in the context of complex conjunctures of economic, political and social environment specific to the territory for arranging (region, zone, resort a.s.o.). Norms recommended by the World Tourism Organization (WTO) distinguish several types of tourism planning namely: interregional tourism planning, which considers an unitary projection extended on more countries in the same region (alpine, Mediterranean a.s.o.); national tourism planning, which includes a national plan of tourism promotion and commercialization; regional tourism planning, which considered one or more provinces, regions a.s.o., belonging to the same country; local tourism planning, which aims to develop a territorial segment limited from the spatial point of view (for example, one or more villages, cantons a.s.o.); vectorial tourism planning, which aims objectives on problems and categories (for example, the social or for youth tourism development, recreational navigation, tourism circuits, valorisation of tourism heritage a.s.o.) (Dezsi, 2006).
TOURISM REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN ROMANIA
Romania focuses its regional development policy on its own objectives and on the European Union recommendations. Mission of the European regional development policy is oriented in two directions: to ensures the economic, social and territorial cohesion by the reducing of disparities between the level of regions development and the Member States and to promote the investments in key-sectors for improving competitiveness in regions and countries through restructuring, adaptation and innovation.
Main financial instruments, such result from the Annual Management Plan 2008 are Structural and Cohesion Funds:
- European Regional Development Fund-ERDF, which is applied in all the Member States and which co-financing the basic investment objectives. Financing is oriented to the poorest regions in terms of GDP/capita.
- Cohesion Fund, which co-finances mainly the transport and environment projects in the Member States whose gross national product is lower than 90% of the EU average.
Programming documents of the implementation of Structural and Cohesion Funds are: Operational Programmes (OPs), National Development Plan (NDP) 2007-2013 and National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) 2007-2013. In Romania, these documents contain also the regional development planning, including the tourism growth planning.
So, NDP 2007-2013 identifies for Romania tourism a set of key-issues among which are included:
- instability of the institutional governmental framework with role and responsibilities in the elaboration of policy and strategy in tourism as well as the lack of cooperation among tourism operators;
- reduced contribution of the tourism sector to the GDP formation (about 2% in recent years);
- defective general infrastructure, particularly in the transport and communications system, but also tourism services;
- high weight of the old accommodations and an average index of the utilization the accommodation capacity in function constantly low.
Solving these problems would come with the implementation of national development priorities contained in the NDP and the sources of financing are structural funds provided in the NSRF. Strategic Framework establishes the Structural and Cohesion Funds allocation for Romania, the total sum allocated being 19.668 billion €. In percent, the allocation of Structural Funds on OPs, according to NSRF is: Competitiveness: 13.3%, Transport infrastructure: 23.7%, Environment: 23.5%, Regional: 19.4%, Technical Assistance: 0.9%, Human resources development: 18.1%, Administrative capacity: 1.1%.
image as a tourism destination, in order to increase its attractiveness, both touristic and business and the creation of an integrated tourism offers system and the Regional Operational Programme, which follows the regional and local tourism development, for the creation of additional sources of income at regional/local level, the creation of new jobs through the development the historical, cultural and natural heritage of regions (and within the regions, in isolated areas with tourism potential, which can contribute to their economic development and to the reduction of the degree of isolation). In ROP 2007-2013 the tourism is addressed in the chapter of Comparative analyses and disparities among regions, where they are analyzed some of the assets of tourism development in Romania, mainly, the natural and anthropic tourism resources, the evolution of the main tourism indicators (accommodation capacity, number of overnights, tourism arrivals, international tourism revenues, tourism contribution to GDP creation a.s.o.) in recent years. In the same capitol are presented the conclusions of specialised studies of WTO in which were identified the main mega-tendencies recorded in the world tourism, which will amplify for the years 2020, related to the supply and the demand in tourism. In the analysis of competitiveness in tourism, based on the development indicators elaborated by the World Bank and on UNO and WTTC reports, 8 countries were considered Romania competitors countries in the tourism domain: Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Ukraine. In comparison with these countries, Romania has an average index of competitiveness in tourism of 58.91, less than the recorded values in Hungary (78.44), Czech Republic (74.47) and other countries, but bigger than Ukraine and Serbia and Montenegro. Also, Romania is more competitive in pricing, environment, openness to the international commerce and tourism, social services domains.
The analysis of competitiveness has realized by the comparison of 8 indices calculated for the studied countries, presented in the Table no 1.
Table no 1. Indices of competitiveness analysis in tourism in year 2004 for the calculation of global index*
Countries Index of price competitiveness
Index of
human
tourism
Index of
infrastructure
Index of environment
Index of technology
Index of human resources
Index of openness
Social
index
Bulgaria 58,46 80,04 64,05 67,86 69,23 71,60 76,42 60,89
Croatia 68,99 na na 69,60 87,98 68,62 55,62 57,43
Serbia and Montenegro
na** na na na 66,65 na 29,59 na
Romania 66,28 24,61 42,77 71,22 58,8 63,01 72,79 71,79
Hungary 50,02 92,91 77,26 76,06 92,34 84,7 79,4 74,81
Slovakia 47,05 38,09 73,28 70,77 78,72 71,6 65,73 57,47
Czech Republic
48,71 72,69 na 75,24 94,15 74,68 79,25 76,59
Poland 49,1 43,47 na 72,03 77,4 88,3 70,82 61,1
Ukraine 68,25 73,73 na 23,12 41,35 81,23 58,02 52,88
*competitiveness global index is calculated as an arithmetic average of indices for which exist available information. ** data are not available.
In ROP 2007-2013 of Romania the tourism is also found in the chapter Strategy, Priority Axis 5: Sustainable development and tourism promotion. This priority axis aims mainly the valorisation and sustainable promotion of the cultural heritage and the natural resources as tourism potential, the improving the tourist accommodation and recreational infrastructure quality in order to increase attractiveness of regions, development of local economies and creation of new jobs.
The main domains of intervention proposed in ROP 2007-2013 for tourism are:
- creation / development / modernization of specific infrastructures for the sustainable valorisation of natural resources and for the increase of tourism services quality;
- promotion of tourism potential and creation of necessary infrastructure for the increasing of Romania attractiveness as a tourism destination.
As guidance operations to perform in these intervention domains are proposed:
- restoration, protection and conservation of world cultural heritage (the churches with mural paintings from the north of Moldova, Monastery of Hurezi, the villages with fortified churches from Transylvania, Dacian fortified fortresses, Historical Center of Sighisoara, assembly of wood churches from Maramures, Danube Delta Biosphere Reservation) and the modernization of related infrastructure.
- valorisation of mountain tourism potential by the construction of necessary infrastructure: arrangement of access routes to the natural objectives, marking of tourism routes, information boards a.s.o.;
- development of balneal tourism by the improving, modernization and equipping of treatment bases, the arrangement for exploitation of mineral springs a.s.o.
- diversificationof domestic and foreign tourism promotion methods;
- creation of information and tourism promotion national centers, which ensure the realization of a unitary system of tourism information and tourism statistics, with public on-line access (complementary action to those from the National Rural Development Program).
As quantifiable in indicators objectives, ROP proposes until 2015 the increasing of tourists number with 15%, the increasing of number of overnights with 5%, the creation of 10 national centers of tourism information and promotion and it estimates at 1 million the number of tourists who visit them and to 1.5 million the number of website visitors.
Another instrument of sectorial development planning in Romania is the National Rural Development Programme 2007-2013, elaborated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, in which are analysed the resources and the development perspectives of rural tourism in Romania. The document shows that in 2005 the number of accommodation places in tourism pensions has reached 22,061, among which 50.5% in rural space and the rural tourism development depends on the existence and quality of tourist guesthouses, the presence of some various types of activities, the elements of folklore, the ethnographic regions and the practicing of agriculture and viticulture favourable to agro-tourism. Even the agro-tourism and rural tourism, forms of tourism related to the farm activities, generate alternative revenues and provide opportunities for rural development, in Romania is necessary a process of modernization, development and innovation of this form of tourism, the creation of modern and competitive services. The tourism in rural spaces is affected by the lack of organization, the insufficient promotion and limited dissemination of information in tourist centers, but also the limited number of these centers which activate at national and international level, the existence of an infrastructure that does not satisfy the tourism requirements in terms of accommodation and recreational structures as well as the general access infrastructure.
tourism arrivals number in Romania will determine the increase of visitor expenditures and the increase of tourism contributions to the gross domestic product creation. So, if in 2005 this was 3.5%, in 2011 in Master Plan is estimated that will be 4.3%, in 2016 4.9%, in 2021 5.9% and in 2026 6.9%.
Table no 2. Target concerning the arrivals of foreign visitors, Source/Country, between 2006-2026 in Romania
- thousand tourists -
Origin 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026
EU 2.803 3.777 4.990 6.569 8.642
Non-Member States of EU from Europe 2.886 3.428 4.022 4.663 5.340
North America 164 235 337 484 695
Israel 62 89 128 184 263
Japan 14 23 37 60 86
Rest of the world 108 155 222 319 459
Total 6.037 7.707 9.736 12.279 15.485
Source: estimations in Master Plan concerning the arrivals of foreign visitors.
Master Plan for National Tourism Development 2007-2026 in Romania proposes as directions/initiatives, among others, the revision of role and responsibilities of administrative structures (Government, Ministry, districts councils and local administrations), the tourism development planning correlated with the modernization of infrastructure in tourism within the National Territory Arrangement Plan, where there is a detailed section on tourism, human resources development, improvement of tourism products (on components: accommodation, attractions, development of some specific forms of tourism namely: business tourism, balneal tourism, rural tourism, littoral tourism, cultural tourism, active tourism: excursions and skiing, cycling and other, city breaks in Bucharest, Danube cruise facilities a.s.o.).
In the Romania international tourism were identified two market segments namely: business in nature and related to the local community, holiday villages a.s.o. (generically called ecotourism and geotourism), such as: operations at small to medium scale in different parts of country (especially in Carpathians and the Danube Delta) and organized as individual attractions and as a part of ecotourism circuits and young tourists, having in view that no country has thought to identify as main destination for young tourists (Romania provides an appropriate range of outdoor activities, both in summer and in winter, it has a diverse programme of musical, sportive and other events in Bucharest and in other places in country, offered at relatively low costs, attributes that attract young tourists).
Objectives included in the Master Plan are concretized in a Plan ofAction, which operability can be: immediate, on short term (initiated before the end of 2008), on medium term (initiated before 2013), on long term (initiated before 2020).
These instruments of the regional development planning of Romanian tourism have already entered into the implementation stage. Financial support of the tourism development in Romania is constituted from the European Union contribution through the Structural and Cohesion Funds, from the direct external financial assistance, from the direct or indirect budgetary allocations (expenditures for culture, recreation, religion, environmental costs, transport, communications a.s.o.) or from the public and private investments.
CONCLUSIONS
macroeconomic indicators of results, mainly the gross domestic product at regional and national levels and the their rates of evolution, but also other criteria of economic, geographical, social nature a.s.o. Study of specialized bibliography concluded that the realization of a typology of regions is also linked and particularly useful for the regional development planning, in the sense that a good knowledge of resources within a region, but also of imbalances in its development allows the finding of the best solutions for the allocation of resources and its development, within a plan/programme of regional development. Approaching the typology of regional tourism development can be seen that there are numerous studies of tourism regionalization (zoning) of the country by which the authors concerned with this issue have identified tourism regions which have specific categories of tourism resources and which require certain types of tourism territorial planning. Activity of tourism regional development planning is reflected in a series of plans and programmes elaborated at national, regional, for the entire tourism sector and for certain forms of tourism such as: National Development Plan 2013, Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013, National Rural Development Programme 2007-2007-2013, Master Plan for National Tourism Development 2007-2026. These instruments, inspired by the regional development policy and that of European Union, capable to highlight, on one hand, the tourism potential of regions and on the other, to achieve an optimal allocation of material, financial and human resources in this sector of activity, are in various stages of implementation, allowing the orientation of budget allocations, public and private investments and allocations from Structural and Cohesion Funds towards the most recommended regions and tourism activities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.Candea, M., Bran, F., (2001), Spatiul geografic romanesc. Organizare, amenajare, dezvoltare durabila, Editura Economica, Bucharest, pp. 81-82, 245-259
2.Candea, M., Simon, T., (2006), Potentialul turistic al Romaniei, Editura Universitara, Bucharest, pp. 186-187
3.Cocean, P., Vlasceanu, G., Negoescu, B., (2002), Geografia generala a turismului, Editura Meteor Press Bucharest, pp. 284-289
4.Constantin, D.L., (1998), Economie regionala, Editura Oscar Print, Bucharest, pp. 9-12, 233-235 5.Cucu, V., Iordan, I. (coord.), (1984), Geografia Romaniei, vol. II, Editura Academiei Romane, Bucharest, pp. 461, 469-499
6.Dezsi, S., (2006), Patrimoniu si valorificare turistica, Editura Presa Universitara Clujeana, Cluj-Napoca, pp. 36-39
7.Gunn, A.C., (1988), Tourism Planning. Basics, Concepts, Cases, Third Edition, Taylor & Francis, Washington, pp. 109-116
8.Minciu, R., (1995), Amenajarea turistica a teritoriului, Editura Sylvi, Bucharest, pp. 58-59
9.Nicolae, V., Constantin, D.L., (1998), Bazele economiei regionale si urbane, Editura Oscar Print, Bucharest, pp. 11-18
10.Rosca, R.E., (2007), Aspecte privind planificarea dezvoltarii regionale în turism, in volume „Provocari ale aderarii Romaniei la Uniunea Europeana”, Editura Pro Universitaria, Bucharest, pp. 437-441
11.Rosca, R.E., (2010), Rolul statisticii in planificarea regionala a activitatii turistice, in volume „Criza economico-financiara-dimensiuni si interferente”, Editura Pro Universitaria, Bucharest, pp. 530-533
12.Soubrier, R., (2000), Planification aménagement et loisir, Presses de l’Université du Quebec, Canada, pp. 97-99
14.Zaman, Gh., Goschin, Z., (2006), Regional Economic Evolution. Typology and Structure, in volume „Dezvoltarea regionala in contextul integrarii in Uniunea Europeana”, Editura Economica, Bucharest, pp. 117-119
15.Zaman, Gh., Goschin, Z., (2005), Typology and Structure of Economic Growth, in Romanian Journal of Economics, No 1/2005
16.*** Annual Management Plan 2008, European Commission, Directorate-General Regional Policy, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy
17.*** Cadrul Strategic National de Referinţa 2007-2013, http://www.fonduri-structurale.ro
18.*** Master Planul pentru Dezvoltarea Turismului National 2007-2026. Concluzii principale, World Tourism Organization, http://www.infotravelromania.ro
19.*** Planul National de Dezvoltare 2007-2013, Guvernul Romaniei, http://www.edu.ro
20.*** Planul National de Dezvoltare Rurala 2007-2013, Ministerul Agriculturii si Dezvoltarii Rurale, Guvernul Romaniei, http://www.maap.ro
STATE OWNED ENTERPRISES AS OBJECT OF TRANSITION AND
STRUCTURAL REFORMS IN CEE: THEORETICAL BASIS OF A
NECESSARY RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS
Professor PhD. Alina BADULESCU
University of Oradea, Romania abadulescu@uoradea.ro
Lecturer PhDs. Anca PACALA
University of Oradea, Romania apacala@uoradea.ro
Abstract:
At the beginning of the 9th decade, Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries were in a dilemma of epic proportions. Although the policy option was taken, the problems of transition just appeared for policy makers, scholars, as considerable challenge about the models and the way to be applied. Thus, Central and Eastern European countries became an immense laboratory for testing the theories of transition, as well as a place of political struggle, and results were highly contradictory. After more than two decades after that period, we found a clear dominance of neoclassical models, and an obvious passing – by of relevant points of view supported by the Austrian school. While the neoclassic focused on state's involvement in reforms, establishing new economy institutions, the Austrian school said that not the pace of reform is important but the order of actions and the establishment of property rights itself. For Romania, even if the reason and option of privatization were clear, we can say that unconditioned embrace of the neoclassical model in a developing economy rather than an economy in transition may be an explanation of the inconclusive, painful and often frustrating results of privatization and reform in Romania.
Key words: companies, transition, reforms, privatization, Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)
JEL classification: P26, P31
INTRODUCTION
For most Central and Eastern European states, the beginning of the ninth decade made governments face the dilemmas of economic and social transition. Though the political option was taken, in terms of methodology and in relation to the economic policy recommendations, based on a “definite theory of transition”, things were not clear. “However, a rather vague consensus emerged, based on the neoclassical economic theory, according to which two concrete measures would be essential to introduce change: the imposition of structural changes as regards ownership through the privatization of state assets and the liberalization of prices”. From this basic scheme various “transition models” emerged, differing from one another by details of the practical solutions adopted and by the time sequence of events (Dochia, 1999)
For more than one decade, Central and Eastern European countries became an immense laboratory for testing the theories of transition, as well as a place of political struggle, and results were highly contradictory from one country to another, from one method to another and from one stage to another.
The theoretical underpinnings of the economic reform process emerged around several options that tried to answer a series of questions such as:
- First privatization and then the restructuring of companies? - What is the optimal pace of reforms: gradual or shock therapy? - Is the initial shock of price liberalization necessary?
- Are budget deficits and dramatic decreases in production inevitable?
- If the privatization of large companies is inevitable, how could this be done so as managers and employees would not inhibit but facilitate that process?
focus on macroeconomic issues in the process of transition, the Austrian School focuses on microeconomic issues. A part of the on-going debate between neoclassical economists is whether state-owned industries should be restructured before being privatized” (Calcagno, Hefner and Dan, 2006).
THE NEOCLASSICAL VIEW: BETWEEN GRADUALISM AND SHOCK THERAPY
According to the neoclassical theory, in the circumstances of a sufficient number of economic agents and established prices between buyers and sellers (depending on the interests and information they have), competitive markets can exist and fulfil the function of optimal allocation of resources. Thus, in order to achieve the prerequisites mentioned above, from the neoclassical point of view, the process of transition should include the following four stages/reforms: macroeconomic stabilization, liberalization of prices and of private initiative, removal of barriers to trade and foreign investment and the privatization of state enterprises” (Calcagno, Hefner and Dan, 2006).
Starting from this staging, the perspectives on how the privatization process should start and develop shaped into two main options, namely gradualism and shock therapy:
- a number of researchers showed that the gradual method is the key of success in the process of transition in Eastern Europe, that a rapid transition would not be successful but would generate massive unemployment, bankruptcies and social difficulties and would ultimately need the intervention of the state. From this perspective, the development of some appropriate institutional structures, such as tax law, financial intermediaries and capital markets must precede the formation of property rights (Cohen, 1993). In order to avoid the hard effects of accelerated reform, they argued in favour of a certain control of prices, a controlled depreciation of the currency and the gradual restructuring of firms, so that the inherent decrease in production would be progressive and reduce the negative effect on the development of the company and on employees (Bruno, 1994; Blanchard, 1997; Aghion and Blanchard, 1993; Carlin, Van Reenen and Wolfe, 1997).
- the other economists, who argued in favour of rapid transition, accepted the existence of the above-mentioned problems, but maintained that the key to the process is macroeconomic stability, associated with low inflation and unemployment rate, economic development and stable fiscal and monetary policies (Sachs,1997). The privatization of enterprises is essential for the success of transition, but due to a process called spontaneous privatization, by which managers alienate company assets, the large majority of the population starts to have negative feelings in relation to privatization. Thus, after the turning of enterprises into joint-stock companies, the possibility of such securities transaction should be the first step towards privatization (Sachs, 1992). Though they had an unconditional support for the fast approach, authors warned that it would not automatically lead to an immediate increase in productivity or managerial efficiency, and the next step after the possibility of trading shares should have been the depoliticizing of management (Lipton and Sachs, 1990), the change of business objectives, so as they would no longer have in view meeting politicians’ wishes, but the maximization of profits. Restructuration reduces inefficiency, improves corporate governance and eliminates political control in capital allocation. Therefore restructuring is a critical strategy to remove politicization and increase efficiency, thus opening the way to privatization.
but theorists and practitioners should be aware that Western European restructuring and privatization models applied in the traditional market economies, in which the rules of the game, institutions and the private sector of economy were already stable, that „models of reform based on the principles of the conventional neoclassical economy probably underestimate the importance of informational problems, including those resulting from the problems of corporate governance; of the social and organizational capital; and of the institutional and legal infrastructure necessary for an efficient market economy” (Stiglitz, 1999).
As a conclusion to the solutions put forward by the advocates of the neoclassical theory, we can say that the main difference between the gradual and the rapid approach in the process of transition was not the order of stages implementation, but the pace in which that process was to be implemented: the gradual approach is sequential, while the "big bang" approach attempts to address problems simultaneously. In fact, both approaches of the neoclassical paradigm required the state to engage carefully, step by step (that is somehow in contradiction with the neoclassical essence of free markets), and the focus was on macroeconomic issues, considering that the market -once organized and regulated, would find the best way to manage transition. Microeconomic issues, such as property (at either corporate or individual level) are secondary and would gradually find their solution.
THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE STEPS OF TRANSITION
In contrast to the supporters of the neoclassical theory, the economists of the Austrian school consider that transformation, irrespective of how it will manifest, can only be fast, but the term "shock therapy" is inappropriate and may generate negative feelings. In their view it was important not to shock, but find those actions that would make economy move forward very fast. Supporting a rapid transformation of former socialist countries into countries with a free-market economy, the advocates of this school (Boettke, 1994.) explained that both transformation processes and speed should be considered, that correct and effective incentives should be found in order to increase the speed of transformation, though cultural and historical features of each state that entered the path of changes should not be ignored.
The perspective of the Austrian school on the process of privatization is opposed to the neoclassical view, emphasizing the fact that the establishment of property rights over state-owned enterprises is essential, being the first step to be followed. Only when property rights have been established, their restructuring and transaction may begin. According to the Austrian school representatives, property rights create:
- a legal environment that provides credibility and confidence that investment is encouraged; - proper incentives to determine the responsibility of decision makers in relation to the holders of property rights;
- an environment of social experimentation that stimulates progress;
- means for economic calculation, allowing the acquisition and interpretation of market signals on prices, profits and losses that can reasonably guide resource allocation.... "If property rights are set correctly, entrepreneurship will lead to new industries and competition" (Boettke and Leeson, 2003). Contractors involved in the market process will be able to evaluate prices, and create a dynamic market economy, therefore the beginning of transformation with the restructuring of existing industries will only delay this transformation.
Rothbard makes several recommendations to avoid desocialization and stresses that markets can not be planned:
- first, governments should not interfere with free markets. - secondly subteranean markets should not be illegal.
According to the analysts belonging to the Austrian School, economists and policy makers who adopted the neoclassical position ignored all these recommendations in the transition process policies and it is obvious that Romanian politicians were in favour of the neoclassical position. Policy makers exploited public distrust in the privatization when it applied to an enterprise on which the fate of an individual or a family depends and gradualism and restructuring supervised by government were presented as the only way the state could minimize negative impacts and prevent failures. Thus, the neoclassical approach delays the privatization process and it is likely that it will not lead (in a reasonable time) to the settlement and redistribution of assets needed to create a functioning market.
In conclusion, the Austrian perspective on privatization opposed the neoclassical vision, emphasizing upon the establishment of property rights as a fundamental, primary step. Only when property rights were established, institutions, entrepreneurship, market signals of price expectations, the size of profits, etc.., could cooperate for the success of restructuration. Finally, Austrian economists said that planned economic reforms, even if made on behalf of the market economy, remained a form of planned economy (Calcagno, Hefner and Dan, 2006).
What are the results of this analysis on the situation in Romania? According to analysts, one of the initial errors made was not to treat Romania as a developing economy, but as an emerging economy. Drastic changes in law, government structures and access to resources were characteristic of developing countries, and in such a country, resistance to economic change is rapid and, in parallel, a tendency of political power to monopolize economic resources is present. Thus, governments should have the power to implement reforms and economic change, but strong government involvement in these aspects of the economy is likely to delay economic growth (Calcagno, Hefner and Dan, 2006)
According to Boettke, the adoption, by policy makers in Romania, of the neoclassical theory (and methodology) on development explains why Romania (and other former socialist countries) were not treated as developing countries and why reform results are so inconclusive (Boettke, 1994). Seeking a symbiosis between positivism of neoclassical economics, the Keynesian revolution and the realities of a socialist economy, governments ignored the importance of institutional infrastructure, turned down governments’ objectives aimed at drawing the rules of a functional economy towards its effective functioning, and diminished the role and importance of understanding the links between capital (microeconomics) and macroeconomics.
PRIVATIZATION OF STATE OWNED ENTERPRISES: BRIEF THEORETICAL OVERVIEW
The theory and practice of privatization has evolved over the last twenty years, both as regards its definition and objectives, and especially in the applicative area, of mechanisms or main corrections resulting from the onset of the trial period.
In the narrow sense, privatization can be defined as the legal transfer of ownership from state to private operators, while broadly explained it includes all measures that contribute to the des- nationalization of economic activity. It can be argued that this definition may include a situation where in economy there still is a major state-owned sector, but which is governed by market rules and subject to competition and if the state transfers, in various forms of long lease, assets that are used in market conditions. Finally, broadly speaking, privatization includes the creation of new private enterprises that is privatization is identified with the liberalization of economic activities and encouraging private initiative.
Regarded as carefully as possible, as part of the great social and political transformations of the 90s, privatization is at the same time part of economic and social restructuration, to which a series of roles and long or medium-term objectives are attributed (Lavigne, 1999).
- ethical objectives and considerations – return of property to those who owned it in the past and who were dispossessed during the forced nationalization at the beginning of Communist regimes, and the appropriation of employees with parts of the enterprises in which they worked, or the widespread distribution of ownership certificates to the population;
- objectives of efficiency that can even turn into the primary objective and confirm the validity of the privatization decision; improving the management of remaining state owned companies, the acceptance, by all agents, of strong budgetary constraints, competitive pressure, corporate governance rules are valuable consequences, whose performance does not depend on the type of ownership;
- financial objectives, especially when privatization takes place in the capital market, the sale of state-owned packages to major companies;
- objectives of monetary stabilization, channelling cash currency held by the population in the early years of reforms, avoiding unproductive consumption growth or erosion by inflation. Depending on the country, period or method chosen, one or more objectives prevailed: thus, in the first years of the ninth decade in Hungary, objectives related to financial aspects and stabilization prevailed, deciding that the main privatization method would be the sale; Between 1993-1996, Poland gave priority to the interests of fairness, giving employees and the management of enterprises the right to choose the best way of privatization, and a certain percent of bonus shares, Czechoslovakia (until 1993 and then in different forms, its two successor states) sought to combine social and political judgments with the ethical ones (restitution and distribution of certificates); and Russia adopted political and economic objectives. As far as Romania is concerned, ethical objectives (in which the action of certificates distribution came forward during a first stage) prevailed over the ones relating to efficiency or financial aspects.
CONCLUSIONS
Extraordinary political changes at the end of 8th decade and beginning of the 9th decade of last century left few options, methodology and or calendar for reforms able to lead to a functional economy. Transition theory has a vague link with some principles supported by neoclassical economic theory, emphasizing the two key measures to be introduced: structural changes in terms of property – the privatization of state assets and price liberalization measures. Thus, in terms of neoclassic approach, the transition process should include the following stages of reforms: macroeconomic stabilization, price liberalization, encouraging private initiative, foreign trade and investment liberalization and privatization of state enterprises. In contrast to neoclassical theory, supporters of Austrian school believed that transformation, regardless of how it will manifest, can only be fast. In their opinion, it was important do not apply shock to economy but to find actions that would make the economy move very quickly forward and the establishment of property rights is a fundamental, primary step. Only when property rights were established, institutions, entrepreneurship, market signals are real and can ensure the success of restructuring. Privatization as part of the great social and political transformations of the ‘90s was part of the economic and social restructuring, an objective for each country on medium term. For Romania, it is clear that unconditional adoption of neoclassical models wasn’t the best inspired choice.
REFERENCES
1. Aghion, Ph. i Blanchard, O. (1993) On the Speed of Transition in Central Europe. London, EBRD, Working Paper nr. 6.
2. Blanchard, O.(1997) The Economics of Post Communist Transition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
4. Boettke, P.; Leeson, P. (2003) Is the Transition to the Market too Important to be Left to the Market?, Institute of Economic Affairs, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 33-39.
5. Boycko, M. and Shleifer. A., ‘Privatizing Russia’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (2):139-193.
6. Bruno, M. (1994) ‘Stabilization and Reform in Eastern Europe: A Preliminary Evaluation in the Transition in Eastern Europe’, Volume 1, Olivier Jean Blanchard, Kenneth A. Froot, şi Jeffrey D. Sachs (editors), University of Chicago Press: 19-50.
7. Calcagno, P.T.; Hefner, F.; Dan, M. (2006) ‘Restructuring before Privatization— Putting the Cart before the Horse: A Case Study of the Steel Industry in Romania’, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 9, (1): 27–45.
8. Carlin, Wendy, Van Reenen J., Wolfe, T. (1997) ’Enterprise restructuring in the transition: an analytical survey of the case study evidence from Central and Eastern Europe’, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Working Paper 14, London.
9. Cohen, Stephen S., ‘Privatization in Eastern Europe’, in The American Prospect 4 (13), 1993, available at: http://www.prospect.org, accessed on 15.01.2012.
10.Dochia, A. (1999) ‘Contribuția noilor firme private la schimbările structurale din economia românească’, CRPE, Paper no. 12/ October, 1999, available at: http://www.cerope.ro/workingp.aspx, accessed on 15.01.2012
11.Lavigne, Marie (1999) The Economics of Transition. From Socialist Economy to Market Economy, Second edition, Palgrave: 162-202.
12.Lipton, David and Jeffrey Sachs (1990) ‘Creating a Market Economy in Eastern Europe: The Case of Poland’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (1): 75–147.
13.Sachs, Jeffrey D. (1992) ‘Privatization in Russia: Some Lessons Learned from Eastern Europe’, in American Economic Review (82): 43–49.
14.Sachs, Jeffrey D. (1997) ‘An Overview of Stabilization Issues Facing Economies’
SOME ASPECTS CONCERNING THE ROMANIAN LABOUR
MARKET IN THE CONTEXT OF EMIGRATION
Assoc. Prof. PhD. Diana-Mihaela POCIOV LIŞTEANU
“Constantin Brâncuşi” University of Targu Jiu, West University of Timişoara, Romania
diana.pociovalisteanu@gmail.com
PhD. Lecturer Liana BADEA
Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, Romania badea.liana@gmail.com
Abstract:
Workforcemigration is a phenomenon that has grown over the past 20 years the European Union. Regarding our country, the prevalence of emigration phenomenon holds. This paper aims to realize a study concerning some aspects of the labour market in Romania. We started from the fact that a part of the workforce educated in our country emigrates in order to find a better paying job and a better life. Emigration has positive effects in economic, social and cultural area as well as negative effects for instance on the labour market in the country of origin; it may produce unbalances in the parent-child relationships and it also may create a labuor shortage in some sectors of the economy.
Key words: labour market, migration, emigration, quality of life
JEL classification: J01, J60
INTRODUCTION
In the recent years, youth and Romanian specialists’ migration has grown, due to the imbalances in the labour market in Romania. In general, these emigrants are seeking better living conditions and some real possibilities of professional affirmation. The phenomenon of migration for work timidly started during the first half of 90s, continuously increased in the second part of the decade and exploded after 2000.
A turning point relevant to external migration is related to 2002 as the beginning of the free circulation of Romanians into the Schengen Area. This is associated with a more dispersed migration field, with streams directed towards more destinations and with a more balanced share of the different streams within the total emigration.
During the last years, migration became a very important phenomenon in the European Union as we are speaking nowadays about the right to free movement of workers and free access to salaried workplaces. This is regulated by the disposition of art. 45 of the TFEU, through:
- ensuring the exercise of free movement of labour within the EU (free movement of workers is ensured within the Community);
- abolition of discrimination based on nationality regarding employment, remuneration and other working conditions (free movement of labour involves the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality with regard to employment, remuneration and other working conditions);
- content of rights and limitations of public policy, public security or public health (free movement of labour is subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health);
- the right to respond to effectively offered employments;
- the right to move freely within the Member States for this purpose;
- the right of stay in Member States to hold a job under the laws, regulations and administrative provisions applicable to the employment of the national labour force;
- the right to remain in the conditions that will be subject to regulations laid down by the Commission, in the territory of Member State after occupying a workplace in that state;
Regulation 1612/68/CEE of the Council from October 15th 1968 on the free movement of workers within the European Union establishes that any national of a Member State, regardless of its country of residence is entitled to access paid employment in another member state according to national regulations on employment of nationals. The regulation contains provisions on: the notion of worker skills, establishment of working conditions, social and tax advantages for the workers, access to housing, access to training etc.
This regulation is supplemented by the provisions of Directive 68/360/EEC of the Council from October 15th 1968 on the removal of restrictions on travel and subsistence for workers of Member States and their families within the Union.
The literature shows that the political debate about the benefits of migration is a controversial one. The imposition of transitional measures by most of the old EU member states in 2004 and the measure taken in the case of Romania and Bulgaria testifies to this. Standard economic theory sees migration – conceived as the freedom of the factor of production „labour” to seek its highest reward anywhere without hindrance – as unambiguously good, raising the welfare of migrant workers themselves, but also aggregate welfare. Also, there is a voluminous literature that seeks to determine the factors driving – and also retarding – international labour migration (such as: Borjas 1989, 1995; Barro and Sala-i-Martin 1991; Layard et al. 1992 etc). Studies typically regress migration flows on a set of possible explanatory factors in an attempt to estimate econometrically the most important factors and to assess the relative strength of their effects. Some of the specialists consider that „almost all models [of migration potential] discussed in the empirical literature explain migration by income and employment opportunities in the respective countries and a set of institutional variables which should capture different migration restrictions, [… and] country-specific effects such as geography, language and culture”(Alvarez-Plata et al., 2003). In the same time, the specialists try to find different types of explanations regarding causes, effects, externalities and features of this phenomenon that became very important in its dimensions especially in the last century.
Our country is also one of those who deal with the phenomenon of migration, especially with that of emigration. Thus is why the analysis of indicators concerning migration is very important for Romanian decision factors, who lately are taking into account the current demographic trends, with major implications for employment and for the quality of life. Thus, we consider justified an analysis of the causes and effects of this phenomenon, but in the same time we are aware that the indicators calculated by the specialized agencies are under the limits imposed by the lack of complete records of those who emigrate.
Regarding the number of Romanians who left to work abroad (temporary migration), officials do not have complete data. In fact, nor the Ministry of Administration, the Ministry of Labour, Social Solidarity and Family, nor the National Statistics Institute have developed appropriate methodologies to track the process and cannot provide general information in this area. As a result, in the Romanian media there are spread very different data on to extent of shift of Romanians in search by jobs abroad, especially in the European Union countries (Aceleanu, 2011).
TRANSITORY MEASURES CONCERNING FREE CIRCULATION OF ROMANIAN WORKERS
In the case of Romania it was established, by the EU Accession Treaty in April 2005, the possibility of imposing transitional arrangements on free movement of workers. Transitional measures govern the right of each Member State to determine the policy of access to employment for workers of Member States of the European Union according to local labour market situation so as not to prejudice their economic and social security system.
