ADEPT | Gagauzia 2016 | Presidential 2016 | Elections 2015 | Bashkan 2015 | Gagauzia 2012 | Political Parties
Can de-urbanization be stopped?
|
|
The new times have brought considerable changes to the Republic of Moldova. Such changes include openness to the world, macroeconomic stabilization, property reform, rise of the market and private sector, land privatization, trade liberalization (external and internal) and democratization of public life. There are, however, spheres of life where changes have been of a destructive character. Amongst them are expansion of the poverty zone and social inequality, emigration and mass labor migration abroad, the deindustrialization of towns, the collapse of social infrastructure in rural areas and finally the stagnation of ecosystems.
The majority of these negative processes appear locally. Despite this, problems of managing local development got the least attention of all our reforms.
In part, this is an echo of recent past, since branch-like state management dominated during the soviet period and it was central government and branch ministries that disposed of all management instruments and resources. After 1991, ministries (except the Ministry of Finance) were deprived of instruments such as the right to distribute investments, funds, etc., yet local bodies (districts and towns) did not get them instead — either in the form of self-administration functions, or in the form of municipal property or sufficient incomes for local budgets. Instead of the “federalization of the country’s budget” we got quite the opposite — its even higher centralization. The lack of consideration for the local needs is one of the main causes of inefficient reforms in Moldova.
De-urbanization as a fact
The transition in Moldova was marked (among other things) by reduction of urban population. It numbered 1.91 mil persons throughout the whole territory of the country, including Transnistria, as of January 1, 2003 or 45.3 percent of the population. On the right bank of the Dnestr it numbered 1.49 mil, or 41.4 percent of the total population. The main causes are the deindustrialization of towns, stagnation of their infrastructure, and depopulation, which is deeper in towns than in rural areas.
The fastest urbanization of the country, as is well known, occurred during 1960s — 1980s when circa 300 new industrial enterprises were placed on its territory. They used both imported raw materials (in the energy sector, machinery, light and furniture industries) and domestic ones (in the food industry and in the production of construction materials). As a result, the urban population grew from 670 mil persons to 2,1 mil persons over the 60–90’s that is, threefold! The urban skeleton of the country was formed of 21 towns (a large one — Chisinau, three medium ones — Baltsi, Tiraspol and Bendery; the rest are small towns with populations of no more than fifty thousand people) and 45 urban villages.
After 1990, under the complex crisis of the economy, the urban population dropped by 154,4 thou persons, the figure equal to the number of people living in Orhei, Soroca, Ungheni and Cahul taken together and exceeding the current population of Baltsi, whose population in turn has reduced by approximately 10.0 percent.
Urban population dynamics (including Transnistria)
| 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990 | 2002 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thou pers | 670,1 | 1130,1 | 1585,5 | 2069,3 | 1914,9 |
| Percent | 23,0 | 32,2 | 40,1 | 47,4 | 45,3 |
The crisis of cities has mostly affected small towns and new urban villages, especially those based on a single enterprise: Rezina (a cement factory), Cantemir (a tinned food factory), Briceni, Alexandreni, Glodeni (sugar refineries), etc. Chisinau turned out to be relatively stable. Its population (within comparable boundaries) reduced slightly: from 661,4 thou persons according to the 1989 census to 660,7 thou persons as of the beginning of 2003. But it has been the municipality of Chisinau where the most part of business of the country has been concentrated: 68 percent of all small and medium enterprises, 75 percent of their output and 57 percent of the employed.
Among Moldovan citizens going abroad 35–38 percent in the last few years have been urban residents (according to the Department of Statistics and Sociology). In the Q2 2003, for instance, there were 88,3 thou of them, which is equal to the population of ten(!) towns like Cantemir.
Moldova is manifestly starting to look more rural. This occurs against a background of a rather urbanized structure of its neighbors — Romania and Ukraine, where urban population accounts for 55% and 68% correspondingly. The only European country where urban population is smaller than the Moldovan one is Albania.
Will the 2003 administrative-territorial reform provide for a revival of towns?
Most likely, the answer to this question will be negative. The return to 40 territorial raions (32 on the right bank of the Dnestr, 3 in Gagauzia and 5 in Transnistria), most of which have small demographic and production potential, might “bring the authority closer to the people”, but it surely will not allow the concentration of resources — either from the state budget, or from the outside. All cities (except Chisinau and Baltsi) and districts will remain doomed for a long time to depend on transfers allotted by the Government. It is indicative how the Government (Decree #93-r of September 8, 2003) plans to hold its field sessions in Straseni (September), Ocnitsa (October), Basarabeasca (November) and Stefan-Voda (December). These sessions are intended to examine issues that are quite topical for these towns and districts: such as entrepreneurship development, provision of the population with natural gas, electric power, drinkable water and so on. Among those mentioned as being “responsible for the preparation of these sessions” were the Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry, Ministry of Ecology and Constructions and a series of departments. But no local bodies were mentioned. Besides, towns are now “built-in” into raions: all interrelations between the towns and the state budget (including transfers) are carried out through the raion financial services.
Such an attitude towards towns cannot be considered as productive. Moreover, ever since the 14th century the authorities ruling over Moldova divided the country in different ways (such as tsinuts, judets, raions), but the country’s “skeleton” has always been “cemented” by cities and roads. Now, taking account both of the current general distress and of future tasks, one should admit that it is not realistic both to raise and equalize development throughout the country’s territory concurrently. It is necessary to mark out peculiar “growth poles”.
Towns as poles of local growth
World history gives many examples of the stimulating and organizing role of cities in the development of regions and countries, for example, the city-states of ancient Greece, Hanseatic cities of medieval Germany, the towns-colonies of the Black Sea, etc. Towns played a particular role, especially during crises, in Moldovan history as well.
Taking this into account, the concept of nodal or polarized districts formed around cities as the nuclei of administrative, economic and social activities is universally recognized in regional theory and practice. The functional interconnections in such districts occur most effectively through flows of labor, resources, goods and services and transport ties. Towns as growth poles of such regions determine the development character of territories, which are drawn towards them, and concentrate such spheres as entrepreneurship, “business for business”, investments, financial operations and education.
The regional policy realized during the 1970s — 1980s in the MSSR (besides elements of voluntarism) in the scientific respect was based on distinguishing homogenous regions (zones of agricultural specialization), nodal regions (towns — industrial parks, promising settlements), as well as programmed regions (such as programs for developing Chisinau or the South of the country).
The principal long-term documents were the “Multilevel regional planning of the MSSR” and “MSSR regional settlement system”. In correspondence with these plans the country was demarcated by 4 group settlement systems (North, Center, Southeast and South) and 8 planned zones (their centers were Edintets, Baltsi, Rybnitsa, Ungheni, Chisinau, Tiraspol-Tighina, Comrat and Cahul), which — in their turn — were divided into 36 subzones and 86 microzones.
Depending on the complexity of their functions towns were divided into 4 levels: multifunctional centers of group settlement systems; interdistrict centers, whose influence extends to several low-level districts; towns — centers of low-level districts; local centers.
During the last decade, the scientific and project basis of regional policy in the Republic of Moldova was not modernized and the situation at the local level became worse everywhere and to virtually equal degree.
That is why the Government’s possible initiative (developed by the Ministry of Economy or the Ministry of Ecology, Constructions and Local Development?) for sustainability and realizing the concept “Towns as Growth Poles” could base itself (just for a start!) upon its “predecessors” — the research output of the “NII planirovania”, “KievNIIgiprograd”, “Moldgiprostroy” (now “Urbanproiect”) and “Moldgiproselstroy” (now “Ruralproiect”): the “Multilevel regional planning of the MSSR”, “MSSR regional settlement system”, and “Methods and variants to form the network of administrative-territorial districts” approved in its time by the Government and still in operation owing to the lack of new elaborations.
Based on the aforementioned there are 12 towns that might serve as possible “growth poles” — for economic, social and cultural activization of the surrounding territories: Baltsi, Edinets, Soroca in the Northern region, Chisinau, Orhei and Ungheni in the Central one, Comrat, Cahul and Taraclia in the Southern one, and Tiraspol, Rybnitsa and Dubossary in the Southeastern region of the country.
Focusing the attention of the Government on a limited circle of cities will allow saving time and resources. Such an approach will surely provoke objections both of the administrations of other towns and raions, and their lobbyists in the Parliament and the Government. In this case however, we will once more miss the opportunities that marking out priorities in economic policy could bring. We have already made the mistake at the dawn of reforms of not choosing priorities of both manufacturing industry and agro-industrial complex, and we are trying to rectify it now.
The practical implementation of the concept “Towns as Growth Poles” presupposes the formation of its legal basis, trustworthy statistics on towns and raions, and a mechanism for financial interrelations between the center and those key towns. This is not an easy work, but it is a concrete one, and so it can become quite a constructive part of the Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRSP) that the Government is formulating now as its economic policy main document for the next few years.