Page 221 - Proceeding 2015

SZABO Septimiu FAMP
DECENTRALIZATION DEVELOPMENTS IN ROMANIA AND POLAND SINCE 1990 CCASP

1. INTRODCTION

Poland and Romania are the largest countries from the Eastern Bloc and the sixth and seventh largest
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11 TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
countries in the European Union. Both countries started their post-communist path from rather similar
conditions – almost the same GDP per capita (around 1,700 USD), a public administration still anchored
into old practices and a centralised territorial design imposed by the communist leadership. Nonetheless,
25 years later the situation could not be more different. The GDP per capita in Poland is almost 50%

higher compared to Romania (14,423 USD vs 9,997 USD in 2014). At the same time, the population in
Romania dropped with around 16.5% while in Poland it remained rather constant. Furthermore, while the
Polish public administration has been constantly appreciated for its good governance in terms of

absorbing the EU Funds, Romania has often been criticised for its lack of capacity in this area. Finally,
while Romania remains a rather centralised country with administrative divisions inherited from the

communist times, Poland has embarked on a complex process of regionalisation and decentralisation of
power. This article looks into this particular issue in order to observe the developments in terms of
30 th – 31 st October 2015 ”Strategic Management for Local Communities” Bucharest 2. DECENTRALISATION DEVELOPMENTS IN ROMANIA SINCE 1990
decentralisation in the two countries.

After the fall of communism one could observe a lag between Romania and Western Europe in terms of

local government empowerment. The distribution of powers between the different layers of government
generated many political discussions as several politicians were not particularly in favour of
decentralisation. Still the process started when the first post-communist Constitution enacted in 1991

brought forward the principles of local autonomy and administrative decentralisation. However, the GDP
share for local governments was increased only seven years later when it was almost doubled from 3.6%
to 6.5%. The 2003 revised Constitution introduced the concept of deconcentration and added a fiscal

component. It also added new administrative rights for the national minorities.

At the local level both the municipal/communal and the county level are elected by the resident population.
At the regional level there is no accountable administration. The prefect is the central government’s

representative in each county overseeing the deconcentrated public services of the central public
administration (i.e.: emergency situations and civil protection, public health, cultural and heritage affairs).

The prefect’s institution can challenge before an administrative court any act issued by the county council,
the local councils or the mayors if it is considered to breach the national legislation and until a ruling is
provided, the respective act is suspended.

219