抄録
In the context of Romania’s post-socialist transition, rural communities, victims of 40 years of communist mismanagement, have been witnessing complex changes, stimulated by: 1. introduction of private landownership and reform of the farming sector, resulting in the emergence of new farming systems; 2. introduction of market economy, industrial restructuring, boom in the service sector; penetration of private investment and private business initiative in all economic sectors; 3. new local governance system and increased local autonomy; new territorial planning strategies focusing on rural development, with financial support from the Romanian government and EU; 4. urban decentralization of functions (industrial, services, residential, infrastructure..) relocated to the countryside; 5. cultural shift (affluent urban middle class, new lifestyles, increased demand for suburban housing and rural recreation).The present study is based on field surveys in 4 communities of the Metropolitan Area (2 rural communes, 2 small towns). The research points out to the determinant role played by the local resources in the evolution of rural communities post 1989. Among these can be mentioned: location and accessibility to the city, local natural resources, level of infrastructure, along with economic and social potential (population structure, labor resources). Cultural factors, as local traditions, education level and mentalities of local population, can also play a role in local evolution. However, local development is increasingly dependent on the managerial skills, vision and initiative of the local administration, reflected in the Local Development Plan. In the Metropolitan Area, changes have been particularly dynamic. Here, the most spectacular rural changes during the past 15 years have been generated by the forces of urbanization and suburbanization. Urban de-concentration of population to suburbs and decentralization of activities resulted in massive transfers of urban functions (industrial, services, residential, recreational, infrastructure), mostly to communities of the inner rural-urban fringe and the northern sector. Pantelimon is such an example of a community of the inner fringe receiving an inflow of population and new activities: industry and services, residential and infrastructure development. On the other hand, Snagov is the typical example of suburban development for the new elites (exclusive recreation facilities, second homes, week-end cottages).Meanwhile, rural communities on the periphery of the rural-urban fringe and in the southern sector, failed to attract (sub)urban development. Here, rural change is driven by local forces (as revival of family farming - intensive vegetable farming in Valea Dragului in the southern sector, or the emergence of local businesses based on local traditions, like construction business in Bolintin Vale, on the outer fringe).In the perspective of EU integration there has been a slow inflow of financing by the EU and the Romanian government for rural development projects, mainly targeting the farming sector, but also the diversification of rural economy and improvement of rural infrastructure. All the above processes have resulted in:- increased diversification in the economical profile of rural communities of the Metropolitan Area; - land use changes: important conversions of farmland to built-up uses (as reflected in the expansion in built-up areas in communities of Ilfov county by 154% during the decade 1990-2000).- socio-demographic polarization and cultural diversification of rural communities: following industrial restructuring and the “rural return” there is increasing proportion of labor in the farming sector, and as a consequence, increased poverty; affluent urban middle class in search of alternative lifestyles settling in the countryside bring new attitudes, mentalities.
