Romanian Village, European Village

ROMANIAN ACADEMY
THE RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR QUALITY OF LIFE
Romanian Village, European Village

Assessing the impact of the communication campaign “The Romanian Village, European Village”
A report to DC Communication
Authors:
Mălina Voicu
Principal research fellow
Bogdan Voicu
Principal research fellow
Bucharest,
June 3, 2005
This report discusses the results of the impact studies carried out in six Romanian villages in order
to assess the campaign for promoting the European values.
Mălina Voicu and Bogdan Voicu (senior research fellows, RIQL) designed the whole study,
ensured the coordination of the fieldwork activities, and elaborated this report.
Thirteen researchers performed the fieldwork research in the six villages, and produced initial
repots for each of the villages:
AŢINTIŞ (Aţântiş commune, Mureş County): Cristina Doboş and Cosmina Chiţu (both RIQL)
HĂNEŞTI (Hăneşti commune, Botoşani County): Adina Mihăilescu and Gabriela Neagu (both RIQL)
TOMŞANI (Tomşani commune, Prahova county): Mihnea Preotesi and Claudia Petrescu (both RIQL)
TRAIAN VUIA (Traian Vuia commune, Timiş county): Laurenţiu Ţâru and Carmen Ţâru (both from the West
University Timişoara)
TRIFEŞTI (Trifeşti commune, Iaşi County): Dana Niţulescu, Cristina Băjenaru, Mariana Dan (all from RIQL)
ZERIND (Zerind commune, Arad County): Melinda Dincă and Toro Timbor (both from the West University
Timişoara)
Ioan Mărginean (full professor of sociology; deputy president, RIQL) provided technical expertise
during the whole activity.
Contact:
Institutul de Cercetare a Calităţii Vieţii (The Research Institute for Quality of Life)
Casa Academiei Române, Calea 13 Septembrie 13, etaj 2, sector 5, Bucureşti, cod 050711
ph.: (4021) 411.48.00 fax: (4021) 411.48.05 e-mail: iccv@iccv.ro http://www.iccv.ro
Romanian Village, European Village. Assessing the impact of the communication campaign “The Romanian Village, European Village.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................4
Introduction....................................................................................................................................6
I. The six villages. Basic facts ........................................................................................................7

I.1. Aţintiş, MS............................................................................................................................ 7
I.2. Hăneşti, BT......................................................................................................................... 10
I.3. Traian Vuia, TM ................................................................................................................. 11
I.4. Tomşani, PH ....................................................................................................................... 13
I.5. Trifeşti, IS........................................................................................................................... 14
I.6. Zerind, AR .......................................................................................................................... 16
II. Community initiatives & community life .............................................................................19

II.1. Tomşani, PH...................................................................................................................... 19
II.2. Trifeşti, IS.......................................................................................................................... 20
II.3. Traian Vuia, AR ................................................................................................................ 21
II.4. Hăneşti, BT........................................................................................................................ 22
II.5. Aţintiş, MS ........................................................................................................................ 23
II.6. Zerind, AR......................................................................................................................... 24
III. Attitudes towards European Union and towards Romanian integration ........................25
III.1. Awareness about European Union................................................................................... 25
III.2. Interest in topic of ‘European Union’ .............................................................................. 25
III.3. Attitudes towards European Union and towards Romanian integration.......................... 27
III.4. The European village ....................................................................................................... 28
Defining the European village .......................................................................................28
My village: a European village......................................................................................29
III.5. Social representations of some of the values promoted through the campaign ............... 32
Community involvement (spirit comunitar) ...................................................................33
Solidarity........................................................................................................................33
Romania .........................................................................................................................33
Europe............................................................................................................................34
III.6. Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 34
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................35
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report aim to evaluate the attitudes of the Romanian rural population towards European Union
and to evaluate the villagers’ orientation toward two values: community spirit and solidarity. These
values are of special interest as long as the information campaign of Delegation of the European
Commission in Romania, having as target the rural population, focuses on them.
We have investigated six villages, coming from the six different clusters of the socio-cultural
typology proposed by Professor Dumitru Sandu for the Romanian rural localities. The six villages
include remote localities, and localities close to the towns, traditional and modern villages, poor and
better off communities, also including a good regional coverage, as well as village closer to the
Western border (the border with the EU), the Eastern one, or located in the middle of the country.
Table 1 and Table 2 briefly describe the six localities.
In each village we have carried out two stages of fieldwork: the first one was done in April 2005, in
order to have a baseline image of the respective village. The second visit in the village was done in
May 2005.Between 25 and 35 depth interviews were carried out in each stage in each village. The
subjects were randomly selected, but we have included in the sample key persons in transmitting
information at the community level (local representatives, school director, the priest), as well as the
main local entrepreneurs.
Summarizing, one can say that the inhabitants of the six villages display positive attitudes towards
the European Union and towards the Romanian accession, but they have strong representations
about the costs of the integration. On the other hand, the EU integration is not the main topic on the
public agenda of the villagers. Most of them have some general information and they do not
actively search for such information. Their attention is concentrated mainly on the information
related with the agricultural activities and with the EU regulation in the agricultural area.
The villagers from the six communities define the European village mainly in terms of good
infrastructure, good economic development, high incomes and high level technology use in
agriculture. Most of interviewed people do not consider their village as being a European one. The
most frequent invoked reasons are: the lack of infrastructure, the low level of economic
development and the differences in the way to practice agriculture, few respondents mentioning the
differences in terms of values and mentalities. Only the people in Zerind consider their village as
being a European one, even if they have mentioned some differences, too.
4
Table 1. The category to which correspond each of the selected villages, according to the typology proposed by Dumitru Sandu*.
Selected village (county in the brackets) Village type* Defining feature*
Tomşani (PH) Modern With higher stocks of education (better educated population)
Traian Vuia (TM) of Immigration With large percents of immigrants from other localities
Zerind (AR) with Ethnic minorities With a high percent of Hungarians
Aţintiş (MS) with Religious minorities The percent of minority religious groups is higher than average
Trifeşti (IS) Isolated Remote villages, far from any town, far from European roads
Hăneşti (BT) Traditional Low education stocks
* Dumitru Sandu used cluster analyses to propose a cultural typology of the Romanian villages. He considered the education stock, the isolation, the percent of immigrants within the
locality, the percent of religious minority groups, the percent of Hungarians ethnics (as the second largest ethnic group in Romania). Combining the five criteria through cluster
analysis, one may get the above six types of villages. Source: D.Sandu (2004), Table 5, page 188.
Table 2. Summary description of the villages according to the assessments of the research team
Coding* village
Assessed criteria
10 … 1 Zerind Aţintiş Hăneşti Tomşani Traian Vuia Trifeşti
attitude towards EU positive … negative 6 6 6 5 7 8,5
interest towards EU (the whole village) high … low 8 4 5 2 6 6,5
interest towards EU (the 4 recipients of the direct mailing) high … low 9 4 9,5 4 8 10
Expectations from the EU (accession) positive, high … negative 5 5 5,5 7 9 8

…
‘community esprit’ high … low 8 7 2 5 5 3
Frequency with which the interviewees spontaneously
mentioned ‘community esprit’ and the related concepts frequently … never 7 3 1 3 2 2
when discussing about their village
Representation about Romania same as the EU …completely different 1 3 2,5 3 3 5
media consumption high … low 6 7 4 6 9 5

cultural traditionalism/ modernity modernist … traditional 6 4 2 6 4 3
* the marks for each village was given through a Delphi-type method: the field investigators assessed the investigated village, according to the imposed criteria, the coordinators reviewed all marks for the six villages and
proposed changes, the field-investigators reviewed the marks for the other villages and the proposals and adjusted their proposal for the investigated village, the coordinators re-reviewed the marks.
5
INTRODUCTION
This report aim to evaluate the attitudes of the Romanian rural population towards European Union
and to evaluate the villagers’ orientation toward two values: community spirit and solidarity. These
values are of special interest as long as the information campaign of Delegation of the European
Commission in Romania, having as target the rural population, focuses on them.
The present report tries to evaluate the attitudes towards European Union and the spreading of the
solidarity and of the community spirit in six Romanian villages. The six villages were selected at
the suggestion of Professor Dumitru Sandu, based on his paper which attempts to classify the
Romanian rural localities according to their cultural patterns1.
Table 3. The six cultural types of villages according to Dumitru Sandu and the localities selected for the current
assessment
Selected village
Number of % of rural Average
Village type Defining feature (county in the
villages population size
brackets)
With higher stocks of
Tomşani
Modern education (better educated 2.456 18,8% 770
(PH)
population)
With large percents of
Traian Vuia
Of immigration immigrants from other 1.492 16,6% 1.117
(TM)
localities
Ethnic With a high percent of Zerind
741 7,0% 947
minorities Hungarians (AR)
The percent of minority

Religious Aţintiş
religious groups is higher 2.284 29,2% 1.286
(MS)
minorities
than average
Remote villages, far from
Trifeşti
Isolated any town, far from 2492 13,7% 554
(IS)
European roads
Hăneşti
Traditional Low education stocks 2.592 14,7% 571
(BT)
1
Dumitru Sandu. 2004. Culture and migration experience in Romanian villages, Sociologie Românească, II (3, toamna
2004): 179-201.
6
Note: Dumitru Sandu used cluster analyses to propose a cultural typology of the Romanian villages. He considered the
education stock, the isolation, the percent of immigrants within the locality, the percent of religious minority groups, the
percent of Hungarians ethnics (as the second largest ethnic group in Romania). Combining the five criteria through
cluster analysis, one may get the above six types of villages2. 12057 out of the 12402 rural villages with more than 19
inhabitants (at the 2002 Census) were classified. For other 345 villages Dumitru Sandu lacked complete data on the
considered indicators, while 236 have less 19 inhabitants or less. Other 995 villages are included in urban areas and
were not considered. Source: D.Sandu (2004), Table 5, page 188.
In April 2005 we have carried out a baseline fieldwork, in order to collect basic information about
each of the investigated communities. Along with the factual data, we have focused on existing
levels of social capital and community action, and the representations about EU and the EU
integration. Between 22 and 26 of May we had a second entrance into the six communities..
Between 25 and 40 subjects were interviewed in each village, including the four presumptive direct
recipients of the printed journal. All teams tried to integrate in the community and spent the nights
during the fieldwork in the respective villages, hosted by local people. In depth interviews, peer
group discussion, and participative observation concurred to structuring a reliable image about the
proposed goals. The pretext used for us being in the respective village was a research of how well
the typology of the Romanian villages fits the existing reality and the investigation of the attitudes
towards EU accession.
We start with briefly presenting the major features of six villages. Chapters 2 and 3 focus on
describing the baseline position of the villagers towards collective action and EU integration.
Conclusions complete the report.
I. THE SIX VILLAGES. BASIC FACTS
I.1. Aţintiş, MS
Located in the nearby of Luduş, only five kilometers from the national road connecting Târgu
Mureş to Cluj-Napoca, Aţintiş is the biggest and the better developed village of the Aţântiş
commune (the names of the village and of the commune are different, but very similar!), counting
for 45% of the commune’s total population. Unlike the other four villages of the commune, with a
2
From each of the six categories of villages identified through empirical analysis by Dumitru Sandu, we have selected
the one which is closer to the cluster center.
7
mainly Hungarian population, Aţintiş is inhabited by Romanians.
Box 1. Aţintiş: Basic facts
Village: Aţintiş
Peripheral village in the commune: Aţântiş, Mureş County
Inhabitants (2002):........................................................................ 743
% Hungarians (1992): ................................................................. 3,5%
% population with post-lower secondary studies (2002): .......... 39,2%
Average age (adult population, 2002): ......................................... 49,7
Distance to the closest town: ...................................................... 5 km (Luduş)
Religious groups: Orthodox, Greek-Catholic
Development level: average-high (it ranks 2.213, from 12.475 villages considered3)
The 244 households are relatively rich4 when assessing the immediate indicators of housing quality:
size, construction materials, maintenance, the fences, the courtyards etc. The roads are paved and in
relatively good condition.
Like many Romanian rural communities, before 1990 Aţintiş was better contacted with the life of
the nearest towns, at least through the higher number of daily commuters (about 300, according to
the villagers). Nowadays, there are only a few commuters left. Agriculture is re-enhancing its role
as main source of income. The plots of land are average as compared with other Romanian rural
areas, but more productive since they are used mainly for vegetable cropping and livestock raising.
One should note that farming is not directed only to subsistence: especially in the case of milk, the
production is mainly market-oriented. This ensures a relative prosperity (displayed in the few new
houses and in the relative variety of merchandises from one of the two shops), but also some
permanent connections with the outside world.
3
Dumitru Sandu, Dezvoltare şi sărăcie în satele României [Development and poverty in Romanian villages], Sociologie
Românească, 4/1999. The data base, available at www.sociologieromaneasca.ro/baze/level98SR.zip, was updated in
January 2004 with data for 2002. The index combine the influence of the quality of the roads, the locality size, the
quality of the houses (construction material, access to running water and electricity etc.), the percent of employees, the
percent of non-farming occupations, the infant mortality, the attractiveness of the locality for migration, the structure of
the population (too old villages are penalized), the isolation (access to railway, national road, distance to closest city
etc.)
4
As compared with the average Romanian village.
8
Box 2. Aţintiş: occupations
Main occupations: land cropping, stock raising

50-70 waged workers, mainly in public administration/services, but some 20
work in the private sector
Average size of the plot of land: most households own 2-5 hectares, but a few have about 20 ha
Livestock: 200 cows, 6-700 sheep, 120 goats, 70-80 horses (most households own 1-2 cows, 5-6
sheep)
10 tractors, an electric milking machine
Milk is sold to large milk processors such as Danone and Albalact
Cereals and vegetables are sold out in the markets of Luduş, Ocna Mureş, Turda or Câmpia Turzii
Circulatory migration is not high, but somehow it played an important role in the village life. One
of the most influent persons within the locality is a former emigrant in Switzerland. Lately he came
back home, and started a small farm, also buying an electric milking machine. He is one of the most
important centers for information dissemination in the village.
Box 3. Aţintiş: Transportation, Communiting, Communications, Migrants, Shops
Commuters: 10-15
Highschool students: 16-20 (mostly in Luduş, some in Târtgu Mureş, too)
Connections: buses to Luduş (2 every day). Railway connection is available from Luduş, which is
also located on the national road, and has good bus connections to Târgu Mureş and
Cluj-Napoca.
10-15 circulatory emigrants.
Communications: almost half of the households have a fix phone; there are some 80-90 mobile
phone subscriptions. Some 100 households have cable TV. Several Radio stations have
good signal and can be received in Aţintiş.
Newspapers get an average audience.
2 shops, 2 pubs, a bricolaj store.
Despite the coexistence of two major religious groups (Orthodox and Greek-Catholic), no conflicts
were noticed. Some tensions may be related to the more important help received by other villages of
the commune (inhabited by Hungarian speaking population) from some Dutch donors, but these
strains are rather weak.
9
I.2. Hăneşti, BT
Hăneşti, the capital of the homonym commune, is a poor village, located in the middle of nowhere,
on a secondary road, 11 kilometers South-East of the small and low developed town of Săveni, and
50 kilometers far from Botoşani town.
Box 4. Hăneşti: Basic facts
Village: Hăneşti
Capital of the commune: Hăneşti, Botoşani County
Inhabitants (2002):...................................................................... 1274
Distance to the closest town: .................................................... 11 km (Săveni)
Development level: average (it ranks 5.675, from 12.475 villages considered5)
The village is defined as poor by its inhabitants and really looks bad: bad roads, completely
unpaved, dust all over the place, all 527 house are made from clay, except for the 5 for which they
used brick. In the middle of the village, strongly contrasting with the old shattered houses, there a
new church, raised up recently, and dominating the place. The church is made from brick.
The relatively low educated population finds its main occupations in agriculture. The villagers
infrequently leave the locality: their products are bough by regional collectors. The lack of relations
with the outside world is illustrated by the impressive number of shops: 13! However, the variety of
the products commercialized in these shops is low, reflecting the poverty of the village.
The few cars are rarely used by the owners. The bad roads, and the lack of resources are invoked by
the villagers, but one may add that they do not have the need to use the cars since they use to travel
only inside the village.
Box 5. Hăneşti: occupations
Main occupations: land cropping (80% corn, 20% sun flower), stock raising
91 wage earners, mostly in public administration/services
but some 20 work in the 3 micro-farms
Average size of the plot of land: most households own 2-5 hectares, but a few have about 20 ha
Livestock: 676 cows, 608 pigs, 986 sheep
Milk is sold to a small regional milk processor
5
Index proposed by D. Sandu. See note 1.
10
The only 15 highschool/vocational schools students prove the low investment in education.
Isolation also contributes to perpetuating the existing structure of qualifications, maintaining
manual workers (mainly farmers) as the numerically dominant category.
Box 6. Hăneşti: Transportation, Communiting, Communications, Migrants, Shops
Commuters: −
Highschool students (in Săveni): 15
Connections: buses to Săveni (3 every day). Săveni is not on an important route, but has some
railway and road connections to Botoşani.
About 50 cars.
10-15 circulatory emigrants.
Communications: almost half of the households have a fix phone; there is low or almost no signal
for mobile cells, no matter the provider. A cable TV provider recently started to provide
the service to the households. Only the national radio station and Radio Iaşi (also part of
the public radio network) can be received.
Newspapers are infrequently red.
13 shops & pubs (almost all the shops are also pubs and vice versa).
I.3. Traian Vuia, TM
Traian Vuia has excellent road connections on the national road that connects Timişoara to Deva,
which makes the 21 kilometers distance from Lugoj to seem smaller. There are few inhabitants
(only 141 houses), but they constitute a dynamic community.
Box 7. Traian Vuia: Basic facts
Village: Traian Vuia

Peripheral village in the commune: Traian Vuia, Timiş County
Inhabitants (2002):........................................................................ 485
% Hungarians (1992): ................................................................. 0,4%
Distance to the closest town: .................................................... 21 km (Lugoj)
11
Development level: average (it ranks 6.882, from 12.475 villages considered6).
The lower development estimate included in the Box 7 is due mainly to the distance to the nearest
town, to the small size, and to the lower education stock, but otherwise the village has the potential
for fast grow, through its good infrastructure and being located in a region which highly attracts
investors.
Box 8. Traian Vuia: occupations
Occupations: farming, wood industry (2 saw mills are running in Traian Vuia, anther one and a
wood factory are located in the nearby Săceni, both employing people from Traian
Vuia), light industry (5 women are employed by the Ricker shoe factory in Făget)
64 wage earners.
Average plot of land: most households own about 3 hectares, but 3 households have about 20 ha
each. An Italian investor owns even larger plots
Agricultural products are sold in the Lugoj maket, but also in Făget.
There are few people which graduated more than compulsory education. However, currently the
investment in upper-secondary education is quite high. One can also note the relatively high media
consumption, stimulated by the reception of several TV channels and radio stations, by the access to
newspapers through the existing commuters which add to the subscriptions, and through the
telecenter set up here by the Centre for Rural Assisstance7.
Box 9. Traian Vuia: Transportation, Communiting, Communications, Migrants, Shops
Daily commuters: at least 15 (Făget, Săceni, Lugoj).

Highschool/vocational school students (in Făget, Lugoj, Timişoara): most of the lower-secondary
graduates.
Connections: the regular buses that connect Timişoara to Deva, Sibiu, Alba Iulia pass and take
passengers from Traian Vuia, too. The Traian Vuia railway station (on the secondary
line Lugoj-Simeria) is located far from the village (7 km on the road, 5 km if
shortcutting through the field), but the Mănăştur station is closer (4 km from the village).
Few circulatory emigrants.
Communications: almost half of the households (76) have a fix phone; younger people also use to
have mobile phones. Cable TV, many radio stations, both local and national can be
received. A Telecenter provide free Internet services to the inhabitants.
The villagers have a higher consumption of written press, most of the newspapers being brought
from the surrounding towns.
6
7
A NGO, member of the Soros Open Network. The ‘telecenter’ is a place with computers, copying machines, printers,
and Internet connection.
12
I.4. Tomşani, PH
Located on a secondary road, but near the Ploieşti-Mizil-Buzău national road which connects
Bucharest to Moldova, Tomşani is far from being a remote village. Several buses are used by the
numerous daily commuters. Farming is just a complementary activity, part of a semi-urban life
style.
Box 10. Tomşani: Basic facts
Village: Tomşani
capital of the commune: Tomşani, Prahova County
Inhabitants (2002):........................................................................ 832
% Hungarians (1992): ................................................................. 0,1%
Distance to the closest town: .................................................... 15 km (Ploieşti)
Development level: average-high (it ranks 4.170, from 12.475 villages considered8).
The houses do not impress, but they look acceptable. Brick is generally used. The roads are paved.
Generally, the locality offers a feeling of relative stability, and average wealth. Măgula, the village
which can barely be differentiated from Tomşani is quite similar (only a road sign separates the
houses from the two twin-localities). Discussing about Tomşani implies discussing about Măgula
and vice versa, since the two communities share similar issues, agenda, culture, and customs.
Box 11. Tomşani: occupations
Occupations: various. Farming is just a secondary source of income

over 300 wage earners, from which about 70% are daily commuters.
Average plot of land: most households own very small plots (0,5-2 ha). Half of the village has
greenhouses.
The vegetables are used mainly for household’s consumption. There are 10 producers who sell the
vegetables in the markets of Ploieşti, Buzău, or Braşov.
Circulatory migration affects some tens of households. New houses are the sign of the prosperity of
the successful migrants, but also of the local entrepreneurs, either merchant, millers, oil stiller (from
the nearby pipe) etc.
8
13
The past investment in education reflects today not only in modern employment, but also in the
option for continuing school after compulsory education. Most of the youngsters go to the nearby
towns for vocational education. Some opt for highschool, and even University is a considered
option for latter on.
Box 12. Tomşani: Transportation, Communiting, Communications, Migrants, Shops
Daily commuters: over 200 (Ploieşti, Mizil, Urlaţi, Valea Călugărească).

Highschool/vocational school students (in Ploieşti, Mizil, Urlaţi): most of the lower-secondary
graduates go to vocational schools, some to highschools, very few abandon learning.
Connections: Regular buses to Ploieşti. 18 trains stop daily in Tomşani (the station is on a main
railway line), connecting the village to Ploieşti and Buzău, and, farer, to Bucharest and
Moldova.
50-70 circulatory emigrants. A local transportation company has a visible announcement that they
ensure trips to Italy and Spain, the main destinations for work emigration.
Communications: 80% of the households have a fix phone; 150 mobile phones are reported, and the
townhall is currently ‘assaulted’ with requests to confirm the ownership over the houses
(many villagers lack the papers attesting the ownership of the house), in order to
guarantee access to buying mobile phone subscriptions. Cable TV is present, but also it
is easy to receive through air antennas many TV channels and radio stations, both local
and national. Some 15% of the villagers have a computer.
Relatively high use of written media, mainly bought from Ploieşti.
Several shops display a variety of products, at prices comparable with those from Bucharest.
I.5. Trifeşti, IS
Trifeşti, the capital of the homonym commune, is a quite large village9, located near the border with
the Republic of Moldova, on the bank of the Prut River. 40 kilometers of national road separate
Trifeşti from Iaşi. Some other 40 kilometers, but mostly on country roads, should be covered in
order to reach the small town of Săveni, the second nearest urban area to Trifeşti.
Box 13. Trifeşti: Basic facts
Village: Trifeşti
capital of the commune: Trifeşti, Iaşi County
9
Actually, the present-day locality resulted from merging the villages of Trifeşti and Damache.
14
Inhabitants (2002):...................................................................... 1764

Distance to the closest town: .................................................... 45 km (Iaşi, Săveni)
Development level: low (it ranks 8.430, from 12.475 villages considered10).
The national road which connects Iaşi to Botoşani ensures Trifeşti with a relative affluence of
regular buses, but the villagers seem to use them infrequently. The connections with the outside
world occur mainly inside the locality: There are no commuters, except for several school teachers,
living outside Trifeşti, but teaching in the local school. The milk, the cereals, other agricultural
outputs are sold in Trifeşti, to the merchants which come here to buy the respective goods. A
market (‘bazaar’) is periodically taking place in the village and cheap clothes, shoes or construction
materials can be bough or got in exchange for agricultural products from people coming from Iaşi,
Suceava County, or the Republic of Moldova. Unaccustomed with searching for better markets, and
lacking authorized slaughter houses in the nearby area, the villagers accept very low prices for the
meat, when selling it to intermediates which come in Trifeşti for this purpose.
Box 14. Trifeşti: occupations
Occupations: Farming is the main occupation.
Daily commuters: None.

Some of the school teachers daily commute from other localities to Trifeşti.
The cereals (corn, soy, sun-flower) are sold on site, to people coming in Trifeşti to buy them. Often,
barter is employed: the cereals are exchanged for firewood, clothes, etc. Milk is
collected at low prices by the three milk collectors existing in the village, which
represent small processors from Iaşi and Vaslui.
A mill for corn and wheat does exist in Trifeşti.
The relative isolation of Trifeşti is also reflected in the lack of qualified personnel for running the
local school units. For this purpose, the school from Hurmuzeni (a dependant village) was closed
and two buses run four daily courses to bring the pupils in Trifeşti. This happens in the context of
the relative over-supply of teachers at national level.
Moreover, the number of houses exceeds the number of households: 550 dwellings as compared
with 533 households.
10
15
Box 15. Trifeşti: Transportation, Communiting, Communications, Migrants, Shops
Daily commuters: none.

Highschool/vocational school students (in Iaşi, and – fewer – in Vlădeni): about 40% of the lower-
secondary graduates. The local perception is that very few of them return to the village
after graduating.
Connections: Regular buses to and from Iaşi, but also to Săveni. No direct acces to railway (20
kilometers to the nearest station).
Only 27 households (out of 533) own cars.
20-30 circulatory emigrants. International migration is a rather new phenomenon.
Communications: 250 out of 533 households have a fix phone. The signal of the two main mobile
phone operators is very poor in the locality, almost inexistent inside the house. Very few
mobile phones are reported to exist. National television (TVR1 and TVR2), a TV
channel from Chişinău, one from Moscow and, in very poor conditions, Antena 1 are the
only TV channels that can be received in Trifeşti. Few villagers own satellite antennas.
Only Radio Iaşi and the national public station can be received.
Low incidence of written media.
10-15 villagers own computers.
Several shops display a variety of products, at prices comparable with those from Bucharest.
Poverty is expressed through the high number of households (a quarter of the village families!)
applying for social welfare: 141 applications, from which 130 are approved. Most of the houses are
made from clay, but they look clean, solid and are quite nice painted. However, the outbuildings are
less well maintained.
A dispensary does exist in the village, but the equipment last from the 80s.
The main problem of the village is the access to water. Almost all the villagers use wells, but the
water from the wells is infested with nitrites, nitrates and lead (two times more than the accepted
level). However, lack of resources led to using the same water (boiling can not solve the problem,
by contrary, increasing the level of nitrites).
I.6. Zerind, AR
Zerind is located on the national road parallel with the Western border which connects Arad to
Oradea, between Chişinău-Criş and Salonta. The Hungarian speaking population gets most of the
16
information from the Budapest and Bekescsaba radio stations and TV channels from, but defines
itself as rather Romanian than Hungarian.
The very old (many are over 100 years old), clay-made houses are well maintained, and surrounded
by clean courtyards, with grass and flowers. A townhall decision enforces good maintenance of the
courtyards, fences, walls etc., supposing penalties for the contraveners.
Box 16. Zerind: Basic facts
Village: Zerind
capital of the commune: Zerind, Arad County
Inhabitants (2002):........................................................................ 898
% Hungarians (1992): ............................................................... 90,5%
Distance to the closest town: ..................................................12,5 km (Iaşi, Săveni)
Development level: high (it ranks 989, from 12.475 villages considered11).
The aging process affected the village starting the 70s when many people started to migrate to
towns. Nowadays, the process is slower, but still affects the village. However, there are the
premises for development: good road connections, flourishing economic activity in the nearby
localities etc.
Box 17. Zerind: occupations
Occupations: Farming is the main occupation, but it tends to became complementary to wage
earning in other sectors.
150 wage earners, most of them in public administration/services, but also in the
nearby localities: Chişinău Criş (a shoe factory), Nădab (the Aqua Fujikura factory
producing cables for machines is the main employer in the area, attracting 40-60
employees from Zerind), Avram Iancu etc.
The agricultural products (vegetables, diary, cereals) are sold mainly in Chişinău Criş, but also in
Oradea, Arad, or even in the Zerind market (organized each Thursday and Sunday,
the Zerind market is a place where barter can happen especially for cereals
exchanged for firewood, apples, etc. with people coming from Maramureş, Cluj,
Covasna, Harghita, or even from Tulcea)
There are some very small local companies: auto-mechanics, constructions etc.
The village is open to the outside world, with witch constantly interacts. The local market attract
various visitors, but the Zerind inhabitants use to find markets for their products or for selling their
11
17
labor in the surrounding towns, both in Romania and in Hungary.
The access to various media sources increases the level of knowledge about societal
transformations, the familiarity of the villagers with the social environment and speed up the
development.
The mentioned depopulation left several houses uninhabited. The price of a house is quite low
(some 200 millions lei for a 2000 square meters residence), also due to the cheap construction
matrial (mainly clay). Zerind attracted a few families of pensioners from Oradea, Arad or Timişoara
who preferred settling down here.
Box 18. Zerind: Transportation, Communiting, Communications, Migrants, Shops
Daily commuters: about 100.

Highschool/vocational school students: most of the lower-secondary graduates go to highschools or
vocational schools in Arad, Oradea, Salonta, Chişineu Criş or Gyula.
Connections: Almost hourly buses to and from Arad, respectively Oradea. The Zerind railway
station is located at 5 kilometers from the village.
There are about 150 cars in the commune (Zerind and the dependent village of Iermata).
International (circulatory) migration has a high incidence, especially for the roma community.
Hungary is the main destination.
Communications: half of the households have a fix phone. About two thirds have mobile phones.
Optic fiber ensures the access to the Internet of the entire village (!). No cable TV
provider, but air reception in good conitions for TVR1, TVR2, and, rarely ProTV, as
well as for the most Hungarian TV channels (MTV1,MTV2, RTLKlub etc.). Some 12
national and local radio stations, both from Romania and Hungary, are easily received.
Very high interest for the written press. Both Romania and Hungarian, local, regional and national
newspapers have daily readers in Zerind.
3 shops (low variety and rather cheap products), 3 pubs.
18
II. COMMUNITY INITIATIVES & COMMUNITY LIFE
From West to East the examples of rich community life are fewer, and willingness of the villagers
towards cooperation decreases. However, one can meet, almost everywhere, some potential for
participatory development, for collective action. In the following, for each village, we briefly
describe some specific elements. We start with reviewing the formal development projects that are
supposed to be based on and to foster social capital and community participation. Then we discuss
some of the informal activities, closer related to community life. Third, we emphasize once more
the examples of past participation. Forth, we take a look at the villagers’ declarations about
involving in future collective projects, for community sake. Finally we offer an overall assessment
of the local participatory culture.
Since the six villages are very different with respect to the analyzed topics, we preferred to treat
them separately, and not as a whole. One should note the huge variations in participative culture
from the very rich community life of Zerind, to the almost inexistent aggregation of common
interest which occurs in Hăneşti. Implementing some development projects, which suppose some
community cooperation, is only a weak indicator of the presence of positive social capital within the
community. Many times those projects are done at the initiative of county level authorities or even
of some central bodies. The community contribution in such a case may be solely financial or based
on the work of social welfare recipients. Local debate over such a project usually misses. On the
opposite, some less formal or informal, but institutionalized activities (such as electing the village
shepherd, having the habit to have public debate, supporting a football team etc.) are manifestations
of a deeper, latent propensity towards collective action. They are the roots for producing the public
good within the community, no matter which form this may take.
II.1. Tomşani, PH
Formal. No grant-financed projects have ever been implemented in Tomşani. There was an attempt
to apply for SAPARD 2.1, at the initiative of the miller (one of the most salient local entrepreneurs),
for modernizing some parts of the local roads (including the main road and the road to the bakery,
which also belongs to the miller). Despite the fact that the townhall invested some 100 millions
ROL in the feasibility study, the application was not submitted due to administrative problems (not
19
finishing it before deadline is the version of the current mayor; not wanting to continue the project
despite winning financing, is the version of the former mayor. The townhall reported that they have
initiated some projects and asked for financing from the county council.
Informal activities. It seems that there are very few moments in which the community acts as a
community. No notable local festival is to be mentioned, no evidences of common projects were
found. The annual perish fair is the only local event which gathers the community, but the activities
consist mainly in assisting to the religious service and then dinning with family.
Past participation. The past experience includes three completely different stories. The miller tried
once (1998-1999) to pave the road to the bakery. He brought the gravel and asked the direct
beneficiaries – those who were living on the respective street – for help to spread it on the road.
Nobody contributed. On the other hand, some villagers built a small bridge few years ago, for
common sake. Third, when the natural gas pipeline was installed, in 1992-1993, the initiative
belonged to the priest from a neighboring village, also part of the Tomşani commune. The priest
gathered a huge amount of money from the local people and financed half of the works. The second
half was provided by the townhall, who took lately the initiative of finishing the works. Local
people also contributed with labor.
Declarative potential participation in future projects. It seems that most of the local people think
that the community projects should be realized at the initiative of the townhall, and should consider
mainly the use of the social welfare recipients as labor force.
General participatory culture. One can easily label Tomşani as a conflictual community. Deep
conflicts are often mentioned by the villagers. The priest, the mayor, the former mayor, the school
principal, the priest from the neighboring village, and the miller are most representative leaders and,
in the same time, the most contested or beloved by the different groups of interest. There is room
for community spirit and some of the former initiatives prove this, but it is impeded to express by
the current conflicts.
II.2. Trifeşti, IS
Formal. Several projects, financed through grants by organizations that specifically imply local
20
participation and certain levels of collective action, were implemented during the last few years in
the commune. However, most of them involved the other localities of the commune, not Trifeşti.
For the rest, the initiative belonged mainly to the Townhall.
Informal activities. There is no stated opportunity for people to spent time together. Usual fêtes,
such as the annual parish fair, are marked only by the religious service. On the other hand, a
football team, not formally participating in any league, does exist at local level, being supported by
the local people.
Past participation. Some past examples of participation are to be noticed, but it seems that they
occurred mainly during communism, at the initiative of authorities.
Declarative potential participation in future projects. As elsewhere, there are opinions stating
that the existence of the labor force given by the social welfare recipients hinder the propensity to
perform voluntary activities for the common sake.
General participatory culture. Pervasive luck of trust and parochial-dependent civic culture
denies developing collective actions. However, the football team example proves that if the
incentive is well selected, the local people can aggregate their interest in producing the public good.
II.3. Traian Vuia, AR

Formal. A common project, dead before birth, is mentioned by everyone. It was about ensuring the
access to current water (the village still uses wells) and generated important local debates. Since the
majority opposed to the project implementation, it was stopped before being started.
Informal activities. A football team functions in Traian Vuia, too. Not playing in any official
league, it is supported by local contributions and volunteering. Several religious fetes are mentioned
by the villagers as good opportunities to meet, even outside the religious service and ritual.
Past participation. Some small examples pledge for the involvement of the villagers in past
collective action for producing the common good, such as cutting the woods for the school.
Declarative potential participation in future projects. The opinions are not consensual. Some
villagers are skeptical that the community spirit do exists; others think that people will contribute to
common actions, when needed.
21
General participatory culture. Several examples of local initiatives (specifically petition making)
suggest an emergent participative culture. There are several institutionalized spaces were common
problems are debated: the pub, the church (after the Sunday service), the front door benches etc.
Blocking the “running water” project is due to such a public discussion.
II.4. Hăneşti, BT
Formal. Several development programs were implemented with the support of various international
financers, but it seems that local contribution and the impact on increasing social capital were rather
very low.
Informal activities. There is no information that people use to spent time together in activities that
may lead to developing collective action, enhancing social solidarity or public debate over
community issues etc.
Past participation. According to the local priest, it seems that the new church (an example of
conspicuous consumption since it highly contrasts with the poverty of the houses) was built with the
financial and in kind (labor support of the villagers: helping in construction works, preparing food
for the workers etc.). Some people confirmed participation but it seems that the volunteering was
somehow imposed through moral coercion of the priest. Today, the new church is infrequently
used, since (according to the inhabitants) the priest has the tendency to conserve it and the service is
organized either in front of the church or only in the pronaos.
Declarative potential participation in future projects. The local people tend to confirm that they
will involve if common projects occur, but the local authorities and elites are rather skeptical.
General participatory culture. Traditional community, Hăneşti lacks participatory culture.

Previous attempts to stimulate participation (imposed by the need to access grants from various
development founds) supposed top-down approaches, with initiative and decision located almost
solely at the level of the local authorities.
22
II.5. Aţintiş, MS
Formal. Several attempts and a couple of grant-financed development projects contributed to some
local public works. However local community was very little or even not at all involved. On the
other hand, there is the experience of building a new dispensary, and a monument. Both implied
community cooperation, and financial and work contributions. The extension of the water system
was also made with the inhabitants’ active involvement (work).
Informal activities. The strongest local institution related to the collective action is the yearly
selection of the village shepherd. Some 50 households (about a quarter of the village) participate in
the election/assessing the biddings process, one of the most important issues in the community life.
The event has an immemorial tradition, and it is usual held during the second day of the Easter.
Some festivals were occasionally organized, at the initiative of the townhall (opening the
dispensary, inaugurating the monument etc.), but they were rather formal, and did not attract local
participation.
One should also note that the local community built some ‘informal’ (not legalized)
institutions, probably borrowed from the Saxon villagges’ Nachbarschaft located some hundred
kilometers down South12. Specifically, the local community owns the dishes and plates, the tables
and benches, the sets of table linen etc. necessary in case of large events such as weddings or
funerals (sometimes they loan these to the neighboring villages). On the other hand, an informal
‘mutual help fond’ (banca ţigănească) functions from 1998 as an informal insurance system, with
some 100 contributors. They have elected from the beginning a cashier and a comity. The cashier
gathers about 3 millions lei monthly. When risk occurs for one of the contributors the comity
evaluates the damages and the respective household is compensated for the loss (there are two
different products, which imply different contributions: insuring people – for the case of
death/accidents, and insuring livestock). There is no formal control over these two lately mentioned
institutions, except for the ‘community esprit’.
Past participation. Apparently low, but the roots of a rich community life do exist and manifest.
Some events, important in the village life, are marked through cooperation: electing the shepherd is
the most salient example etc. Some meetings are also irregularly taking place in a place (the lawn in
from of the main local pub), institutionalized as the public space where debates on the local issues
12
The Nachbarschaft (neighborhood) is a well-known institution, existing mainly in the (former) Saxon villages from
Sibiu County. It consists in gathering the people with similar status from a certain village, usually grouped depending of
their position in a certain neighborhood (they live on the same street/s, for instance). The Nachbarschaft has an elected
leader and plays the role of instance for solving community problems as an expression of communitarian solidarity: it
helps those which are in need when hazard occurs, it has line sets, plates and dishes, tables and benches which are used
at weddings, funerals, local festivals etc., it decides in some communities actions such as repairing or building roads
and ensure the community participation etc.
23
use to occur. The already mentioned monument and the new dispensary add.
Declarative potential participation in future projects. There is a strong representation at the level
of the local authorities and elites that local people have nothing to offer when discussing their
involvement in community projects. Poverty is the post-rationalization invoked reason; age and lack
of time add. Some villagers voluntarily participated to building the new dispensary, and they
declare that will do it again, if necessary.
General participatory culture. The basic roots of participative culture certainly do exist. People
do cooperate for the local sake, but some mistrust separates the local authorities and the regular
people.
II.6. Zerind, AR
Formal. Several grant-financed projects were implemented during previous years, many of them
implying community participation.
Informal activities. Two active associations (ProZerind, and the League of The Pensioners)
develop many activities, being quite active at local level, and involving many villagers. Many
festivals symbolically mark the community life.
Past participation. Renewing the dispensary, consolidating the dikes, paving the roads and some
other projects for the common sake were developed with the community participation. Helping the
others in extreme and every day cases is a general rule.
Declarative potential participation in future projects. The very high level of participation and
solidarity
General participatory culture. A rich community life flourishes in Zerind, based on a strong
participative culture. People contribute to the creation of public goods, help and trust each other.
Even local political parties strongly cooperate for common goals, no matter of their different views.
24
III. ATTITUDES TOWARDS EUROPEAN UNION AND TOWARDS

ROMANIAN INTEGRATION
The Baseline has investigated four dimensions related to this topic: awareness about European
Union, interest on issues related to the European Union and to Romanian integration into EU,
attitudes towards EU and towards Romanian integration and local perception with the respect to the
own village: is it or is it not an European village?
III.1. Awareness about European Union

All the interviewed people from the six villages have heard about European Union, all of them
answering spontaneous and without difficulties to the question ‘Did you hear about EU?’. Generally
speaking, this is not a foreign topic for them. There are two definitions associated with the
European Union in the public perceptions, according to the collected data: European Union is a
country, a big and prosperous one and, the second one, EU is a union of states, an ‘assembly’ of
states which Romania wants to join to. In both cases EU is associated with the idea of welfare and
prosperity, people mentioning:
‘EU is a place in which the people are better off’ (villager, Tomşani) or
‘EU is an assembly of states in which we will be better off’ (villager, Tomşani)
One should mention that the collected data did not indicate differences among the villages with the
respect to awareness about EU.
III.2. Interest in topic of ‘European Union’

Generally speaking, the interest of villages’ people in this topic is quite low, according to the
collected data. Again, the population seems to be rather homogenous with exception of Zerind
village. The inhabitants of the other five villages are not very interested in the issues related to EU
and to the Romanian integration into the European Union. The ordinary villagers have some general
information about what EU is and about the Romanian accession, but they do not actively search for
the information and they consider that their own welfare is a more important topic than the EU is.
25
They use to gather information about EU from mass-media (TV, Radio and in some cases from the
newspapers), but the searching process is not a targeted one, they collect information only if it is
available and easy to get. Moreover, people from Hăneşti mentioned that they have received
booklets about EU from the townhall, but the information was not very clear and they did not
understand the content.
On the other hand, the interest in EU information is not homogenous within the same village. Even
if the majority of population does not present a high level of interest in this topic, the local
authorities and the entrepreneurs are actively searching for the information and seem to be
interested to find out more about integration. Both categories, representatives and entrepreneurs, are
focused on the information regarding obtaining financial support for development projects. In
addition, entrepreneurs are concerned about EU regulation in their area of activity and they declared
that are forced to inform themselves, otherwise their activity will stop in 2007. In one case
(Tomşani) the local entrepreneur has proven to be a centre of diffusion for the EU information,
declaring that he has discussed with the other villagers about EU requirements and he has explained
to the others what should be done in the future in order to adapt theirs activities to the new
regulations.
Zerind is an exception, as it is mentioned before. Here not only the representatives and
entrepreneurs, but also the villagers are interested in EU enlargement and they use to search for the
information. Moreover, the topic is present in the local public debate, people using to daily talk
about EU and Romanian integration.
‘There are many discussions on this topic each day’ (man, Zerind)
‘Those people who are reading newspapers and are watching TV, are talking a lot mainly about
EU requirements in the agricultural area.’ (woman, Zerind)
The explanation of this difference between Zerind and the others villages is related probably to the
geographic position of the village and to ethnic structure of the population. Zerind is located very
close to the Hungarian border and most of the inhabitants are Hungarian ethnics. Therefore, the
villagers have closer connection with the situation of Hungary, which is already an EU member and
they know more about what the EU integration means for a country. In addition, the local
authorities have organized courses about EU, informing people about opportunities and
requirements got by the integration.
26
III.3. Attitudes towards European Union and towards Romanian integration

Generally speaking the attitudes towards EU is a positive one. People have favorable attitudes
towards EU, but they stress the differences between EU and Romania. European Union is perceived
as better of, more civilized, the respondents focusing mainly on economical aspects. However, there
are mentioned some others positive aspects of EU countries as sustained work, the lack of
corruption.
‘The differences [between Romanian and EU] are mainly the economic ones.’ (male, Aţintiş)
‘There are differences with the respect to the daily life, the salaries and the standards of living’
(female, Zerind)
‘They are more developed then we are … there is more order and the daily life is safer than it is in
Romania’ (male, Traian Vuia)
However, many interviewed people consider that Romania has many positive aspects compared to
EU countries. They say that EU countries are more developed from the economic point of view, but
Romania is more developed from the cultural point of view and the Romanians are cleverer than the
inhabitants of EU are.
‘Excepting the poverty… I am proud of the Romanian scientists and writers, people who give
prestige to a country. We are different from the economic point of view, but from the other
respects… I think that we are a little bit superior.’ (female, Hăneşti)
‘A Romanian uses to think differently, he is more inventive, he is able to manage in all the
situations’ (male, Tomşani)
Regarding the Romanian integration into the EU the attitude is a positive one, but the optimism is
rather moderate. Almost all the interviewed people underline that the integration is good for
Romania, mentioning that it is the only solution for Romania. However, people perceived the costs
of the integration. The general perception is that Romania will be better off, on the long run, but on
the short run the situation will be not so good. The main perceived risks of the integration are: the
rising of prices and implementation of EU requirements in the agricultural area.
‘In 2007 there will be a shock, it wouldn’t be so easy… there will be some costs, firstly related to
the prices…[…] However my opinion is that [the integration] is in Romania’s benefit
because we will get money from abroad’ (male, Aţintiş)
‘There will be very hard for the peasants! All the people are concerned about the standards.’
(male, Aţintiş)
27
‘In my opinion [the integration] is very good! But not for us, maybe for my granddaughter!
Meanwhile it will be pretty hard! But there is no other way!’ (female, Zerind)
Previous researches, carried out in 200313 and in 200414, focused on the attitudes of rural population
towards EU integration indicated a general optimism among the villagers especially because they
have perceived the integration as an opportunity to get subsidies from the EU funds15. Different
from these results, the present data indicates a more realistic attitude; people are favorable to EU
integration but they are aware of the costs of integration. This change is due to the information
spread by mass-media in the last year and to the inclusion of the topic on the public debate.
Even if people share this optimistic attitude, there are some euroskeptics and there are some very
optimist persons, too. The skeptics invoke the rising of prices and lack of working places.
According to these people, after the integration Romania will become a market for the EU products
and Romanians will be in a worse situation than nowadays. On the other hand, there are some very
optimistic people who see the integration only as an opportunity to get money and to be helped
from the other countries: ‘EU… we will receive subsidies, money from 2007…’ (villager, Hăneşti).
III.4. The European village
Defining the European village

We have asked the interviewees to briefly define the ‘European village’. Most of the answers
considered the economic criteria, but some also added the mentalities as defining feature. The
definitions cluster in three large categories:
1. High quality infrastructure. The European village is a village which has good infrastructure
in terms of public roads, running water, sewerage, TV cable, hospitals, schools,
supermarkets. Generally speaking these definitions stress the similarities between the
European village and the urban are, this village is very similar with the town, it has quite the
same infrastructure and it provides the same life conditions for the inhabitants.
13
Rural Eurobarometer – carried out in 2003 by Gallup Romania for Delegation of the European Commission in
Romania and for Open Society Foundation, on a representative sample for the rural population in Romania.
14
Modernizing Agricultural Knowledge and Informational System in Romania – research carried out by the Research
Institute for Quality of Life in 2004 for the World Bank. For details see M. Voicu et others: ‘Romanian Farms and
Farmers Facing the EU regulations’, Sibiu, Psihomedia Publisher, 2005 (forthcoming).
28
A ‘European village is:

‘a modern village, with good quality roads, with natural gas, with water and sewerage’(Tomsani)
‘a beautiful locality with all the life conditions’ (Tomşani)
‘…like in a small town, like in Săveni. Săveni is not European, but still… You have good roads,
shops, a cinema, public utilities’ (male, 57 years, Hăneşti)
2. Economic development and welfare. According to this definition the inhabitants of the
European village have a quite high standard of living, having good and stable incomes.
Related to the level of development some definitions associate the European village with the
availability of the working palaces and with the low level of unemployment.
A ‘European village is:

‘A developed village, with many working places’ (male, Hăneşti)
‘Those [village] are rich’ (male, 70 years old, Hăneşti)
‘A village with full employment, they are civilized’ (Tomşani)
3. Mentalities. These definitions stress values and mentalities shared by the inhabitants of the
European village. There are emphasized few values like respect of law, tolerance towards
different opinions, hard working. One should mention that the reference to the mentalities is
not so spread among the respondents as the preference for economic aspect is.
‘European village is:

‘Is the village in which everybody expresses its opinion and the others appreciate this opinion’
(female, 18 years, Hăneşti)
‘A village with high level of civilization; the people are honest and there is no quarrel’ (Ttomşani)
‘The live is more advanced. The democracy is good and we can see the results. The people are free
and they work according to their own capacities and willing’ (male, Hăneşti)
My village: a European village
We have also asked the villagers if they live in a ‘European village’. Most of the interviewees do
not consider they live in a European village. Except Zerind, all the investigated villages are
15
See M. Voicu et al: ‘Romanian Farms and Farmers Facing the EU regulations’, Sibiu: Psihomedia, 2005
(forthcoming).
29
homogenous, theirs inhabitants rejecting the idea that the locality can be labeled as European. The
most frequent invoked reasons are clustering in few categories, quite similar with the definitions of
the European village:
1. Differences related to the infrastructure. Many people point out that there village do not has the
same infrastructure as the European one has. Usually they invoke the lack of paved roads, of
running water, of sewerage system, of hospitals and schools.
‘Definitely it isn’t an European village as long as we don’t have a doctor, we don’t have teachers
in the school, there is no heating in the classrooms, there is no sewerage or running water
and the streets are not paved!’ (Tomşani)
‘We have a lot of work to do in order to become a European village, but we have done and we are
doing something in this direction!’ (male, Traian Vuia)
‘It isn’t a European village. We don’t have running water, natural gas’ (male, Traian Vuia)
2. Differences related to the standards of living and to the level of incomes. Some respondents
pointed out that their village is not a European one because the inhabitants are poorer. Moreover,
they consider that they are not able to take care of themselves and they need a substantial support
from the central authorities.
‘It isn’t very European, because there are not money… the people is poor… we need money, we
need somebody to help us to be better off.’ (male, 46 yeas, Traian Vuia)
‘[Hăneşti village] is now like the institutionalized children: dressed, feed, pampered by the central
authorities because we have a much reduced economic power. Maybe in 20 years Hăneşti
will be a European village!’ (male, Hăneşti)
3. Related to the previous category of answers, some respondents perceived the differences between
in terms of employment opportunities. Especially the young people from Eastern part of the country
share this opinion because they are more affected by the unemployment.
‘I guess we will not be a European village to soon, because we don’t have available jobs’ (female,
38 years, Hăneşti)
‘We are very far from the European village. We don’t have employment opportunities, we are
working as daily workers […]. I don’t believe that someone from the European village is
living in the same condition like we do!’ (female, 40 years, Hăneşti)
4. Differences related to agricultural activities. According to the respondents in Europe the

agricultural activity is more developed, more mechanized and less polluted; the agricultural land is
30
not so fragmented like in Romania and is more efficient to exploit big surfaces of land. The
interviewees emphasized the idea of cooperation in exploiting the agricultural land and they
complain for the lack of agricultural associations in their village (in Tomşani, by instance, there is
no agricultural association). On the other hand, many respondents stressed the idea that in the
European village the stables are outside of the localities and, as a consequence, the environment is
not so polluted and the neighborhoods are much cleaner.
‘Our village is not at all part of the big European village! […] as long as we are doing agriculture
like 60-70 years ago we cannot compare ourselves with the European developed villages! We
need progress and we have to do it! (male, Hăneşti)
‘About 5% of land is exploited by the agricultural association using modern technology, the rest of
the land is exploited using oxes and houses for ploughing and unselected seeds.’ (male,
Trifeşti)
‘The agriculturists from Germany are members of associations and help each other. Today I need
the equipment, tomorrow you will need it! […] you cannot see this in Romania. We need
broadcasts about agriculture, not about culture! (female, 37 years, Hăneşti)
5. Differences related to the access to information. Some of the respondents have underlined the
differences between them and the inhabitants of the European village with the respect to the access
to the information.
‘It is far from the European village. Why? Because the information is transmitted with difficulties
and the information that finally arrived to us is not perceived in a correct way. The
information is arriving via TV or Radio and is interpreted by those who transmit it’ (male,
Traian Vuia)
6. Differences related to mentalities and values. Even if this reasons are not so frequent invoked like
the economic ones, some paid attention to the differences with the respect to ‘non-material reasons’.
The European village differs from the own village with the regard to respect of the law, honesty,
hard working, tolerance and cooperation in solving common problems.
‘The people from the European village have the ‘sense of work’, they have a different mentality
which is lacking in Romania, because if there is poverty, there is no mentality!’(male,
Hăneşti)
‘There are differences in mentality, in infrastructure! (male, Traian Vuia)
‘We are not European, we have different mentalities!’ (male, Zerind)
One should mentioned that most of the respondents emphasize the differences related to the
31
economic development and to the lack of infrastructure, even some of them talked about lack of
information and mentalities. Zerind is a different case, many respondents invoking the differences
in terms of mentalities between their village and the European one.
Even if in 5 villages of 6 the dominant opinion is that their village is not a European village, there
are some respondents who consider that they live in a European village. It is not the dominant
opinion, but some villager from Tomşani, Traian Vuia and Aţintiş identified their village with the
European one. One should mention that in Hăneşti and Trifeşti, which are the poorer villages
included in the investigation and with the lowest level of development, no one sustain that he / she
lives in a European village. In these two villages the inhabitants have stressed only the differences,
and they did not see the similarities.
There are two reasons invoked in supporting the idea that the own village is a European one, the
good infrastructure and the access to information. In Tomşani and Traian Vuia some of the
interviewed people pointed out that their village is European because they have good roads and
good connections with the nearest town, they have cable TV and some public institutions (townhall,
police, polyclinic). In Aţintiş and Traian Vuia some people have mentioned the easy access to
information for sustaining the idea of Europeanism of their own village.
As we have pointed out before, Zerind is different form the other villages. Here, the dominant
opinion is that Zerind is a European village. People says that Zerind is European due to its
geographic position (5 km to the Hungarian border) and because they have adopted some European
models of behavior and regulations (the village is clean and the townhall has adopted regulation and
fine in order to keep it clean). On the other hand, Zerind is European because it has good
infrastructure, good connections and easy access to information. Generally speaking, people believe
that there are some differences between Zerind and a European village in terms of mentalities and
economic resources, but they consider their village to be European despite of these differences. On
the other side, Zerind is different from the other village included in the investigation with the
respect of geographical position and ethnic structure, as it is mentioned before.
III.5. Social representations of some of the European values

We tried to see how people use to associate one notion with other terms, in order to see what they
really understand when they are hearing the word. We have asked our interviewees to define six
words: cleanliness, law, community involvement (spirit comunitar), solidarity, Romania and
32
Europe. The first two words were used as a camouflage for the main focus of the research, which is
the existence of the solidarity and of the commune initiative and the attitudes towards European
Union. Therefore we analyze here only the relevant terms for the present report.
Community involvement (spirit comunitar)

Community involvement (spirit comunitar) is the most unknown concept from the list, gathering
rather ambiguous definitions from the interviewees. About half of the interviewed people declared
that they do not know what it means or used incorrect meanings for explaining the concept. Zerind
is an exception, with only one person giving a wrong definition. On the other hand, Zerind is the
village in which the community involvement is the highest compared to the other villages included
in the research. In Zerind the inhabitants know what community involvement is and they are
involved in the community life.
The valid answers cluster into two categories: Some tried to define the community esprit as in a
dictionary. Help, cooperation, working together, solidarity, harmony, mobilization, incentives,
community development or collective action are the most used key works invoked by the first group
of respondents. The second type of answers discussed merely how much community involvement,
collective action, civic participation etc. may be found in their village. The negative answers are
prevailing for this second cluster, the respondents underlying the lack of community involvement of
the village. Zerind is again the exception, only 5 persons of 20 interviewed people stressing the lack
of involvement in their rural community.
Solidarity
All the respondents have given a valid answer to this question. The interviewed people provide two
types of answers. The first one is identification with Romania (‘Romania is my country’, ‘is the
country in which we are living’, ‘we are from here’, ‘is an orthodox country’). The second category
of answers are related to the national pride are they usually refer to some positive aspects of
Romania (‘beautiful country’, ‘the most beautiful country’, ‘the country where I’ve been born in
and I love it’, ‘I’m proud to live in this country’). One should mention that even people belonging to
other ethnic groups (like Hungarians) gave similar answers and do not differ from the rest of the
investigated population.
Romania
All the respondents have given a valid answer to this question. The interviewed people provide two
33
types of answers. The first one is identification with Romania (‘Romania is my country’, ‘is the
country in which we are living’, ‘we are from here’, ‘is an orthodox country’). The second category
of answers are related to the national pride are usually refer to some positive aspects of Romania
(‘beautiful country’, ‘the most beautiful country’, ‘the country where I’m born and I love it’, ‘I’m
proud to live in this country’). One should mentioned that even people belonging to other ethnic
groups (like Hungarians) gave similar answers and do not differ from the rest of the investigated
population.
Europe
All the respondents gave a valid answer to this question. Generally speaking, the answers can be
classified in three categories. The first one refers to a geographic entity, Europe being defined as a
continent or as a country (big country, beautiful country, rich country). The second cluster of
answers is related to European Union, people defining Europe as European Union and correlating it
with some characteristics of EU. Therefore, some people define Europe as a Union, the definition
stressing positive aspects associated with the standards of living (in EU people have a good life,
people are civilized). Other definitions mention the Romanian integration in the EU or underline the
unity of the European Union (EU is a big family, a unity or a nucleus). The third group of answers
consists in identifications with Europe (‘Europe is our continent’ or ‘Europe will be our country’)
and it is spread especially among the people from Zerind.
III.6. Conclusions
Summarizing, one can say that the inhabitants of the six villages display positive attitudes towards
the European Union and towards the Romanian accession, but they have strong representations
about the costs of the integration. On the other hand, the EU integration is not the main topic on the
public agenda of the villagers. Most of them have some general information and they do not
actively search for such information. Their attention is concentrated mainly on the information
related with the agricultural activities and with the EU regulation in the agricultural area.
The villagers from the six communities define the European village mainly in terms of good
agriculture. Most of interviewed people do not consider their village as being a European one. The
most frequent invoked reasons are: the lack of infrastructure, the low level of economic
development and the differences in the way to practice agriculture, few respondents mentioning the
differences in terms of values and mentalities. Only the people in Zerind consider their village as
being a European one, even if they have mentioned some differences, too.
34
CONCLUSIONS
1. The six villages satisfactory cover the variety of the Romanian rural area. Ahead from the
analysis which founded the typology, one may notice that we have investigated villages located
both at the border and in the middle of the country, from North and South, from East and West,
traditional and modern, ranging from low to high development. This makes the conclusions
extensible to the overall population of villages, allowing some intuitive predictions.
2. Better developed villages have also a richer community life, higher levels of social solidarity
and collective action.
3. The inhabitants of the six villages have a positive attitude towards the European Union and
towards Romanian integration.
4. Unlike some years ago, the costs of the accession tend to come more often in the discussions
about the EU.
5. On the other hand, the EU integration is not the main topic on the public agenda of the villagers.
6. The better developed and Western a village is, the more the villagers know about the EU.
7. Discussing about the EU is usually associated with farming within EU and the standards and
regulations belonging to the Common Farming Policy; with the post-accession processes from
the new member states, relevant in the perspective of Romanian integration; with the Romanian
corruption; with the differences between the development level of Romania and the other
member states; with differences in cleanliness and public utilities.
8. The villagers from the six communities define the European village mainly in terms of good
agriculture.
9. Most of interviewed people do not consider their village as being a European one. Only the
people in Zerind differ, defining themselves as Europeans.
35

Romanian Village, European Village - Assesing The Impact

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Romanian Village, European Village - Assesing The Impact

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROMANIAN ACADEMY

THE RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR QUALITY OF LIFE

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................4

I. The six villages. Basic facts ........................................................................................................7

II. Community initiatives & community life .............................................................................19

Table 1 and Table 2 briefly describe the six localities.

Expectations from the EU (accession) positive, high … negative 5 5 5,5 7 9 8

Representation about Romania same as the EU …completely different 1 3 2,5 3 3 5

media consumption high … low 6 7 4 6 9 5

The percent of minority

I. THE SIX VILLAGES. BASIC FACTS

mainly Hungarian population, Aţintiş is inhabited by Romanians.

Box 1. Aţintiş: Basic facts

Box 2. Aţintiş: occupations

Main occupations: land cropping, stock raising

Box 3. Aţintiş: Transportation, Communiting, Communications, Migrants, Shops

Box 4. Hăneşti: Basic facts

Box 5. Hăneşti: occupations

Box 6. Hăneşti: Transportation, Communiting, Communications, Migrants, Shops

I.3. Traian Vuia, TM

Box 7. Traian Vuia: Basic facts

Village: Traian Vuia

Box 8. Traian Vuia: occupations

Box 9. Traian Vuia: Transportation, Communiting, Communications, Migrants, Shops

Daily commuters: at least 15 (Făget, Săceni, Lugoj).

Box 10. Tomşani: Basic facts

Box 11. Tomşani: occupations

Occupations: various. Farming is just a secondary source of income

Box 12. Tomşani: Transportation, Communiting, Communications, Migrants, Shops

Daily commuters: over 200 (Ploieşti, Mizil, Urlaţi, Valea Călugărească).

Box 13. Trifeşti: Basic facts

Inhabitants (2002):...................................................................... 1764

Box 14. Trifeşti: occupations

Occupations: Farming is the main occupation.

Daily commuters: None.

Box 15. Trifeşti: Transportation, Communiting, Communications, Migrants, Shops

Daily commuters: none.

Box 16. Zerind: Basic facts

Box 17. Zerind: occupations

labor in the surrounding towns, both in Romania and in Hungary.

Box 18. Zerind: Transportation, Communiting, Communications, Migrants, Shops

Daily commuters: about 100.

II. COMMUNITY INITIATIVES & COMMUNITY LIFE

II.3. Traian Vuia, AR

General participatory culture. Traditional community, Hăneşti lacks participatory culture.

III. ATTITUDES TOWARDS EUROPEAN UNION AND TOWARDS

III.1. Awareness about European Union

III.2. Interest in topic of ‘European Union’

III.3. Attitudes towards European Union and towards Romanian integration

III.4. The European village

Defining the European village

A ‘European village is:

A ‘European village is:

‘European village is:

My village: a European village

4. Differences related to agricultural activities. According to the respondents in Europe the

III.5. Social representations of some of the European values

Community involvement (spirit comunitar)

You might also like