EditFragmented Romania: the administrative trap that keeps the countryside poor
How Romania’s outdated 1968 administrative structure fuels poverty pockets, wastes European money, and feeds disillusionment with the EU
Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan has warned mayors nationwide that greater efficiency is essential. But the problem is that Romania’s administrative-territorial structure remains deeply fragmented, a legacy that hinders efficient governance, equitable development, and the effective delivery of public services.
Yet the need for reform extends far beyond mere budgetary savings or political pressure. It represents a fundamental requirement to ensure citizens receive accessible, high-quality public services and infrastructure, while addressing widening regional and intra-regional disparities.
Over the past decade, despite substantial investments through the European Union’s cohesion policy aimed at narrowing economic gaps, disparities within Romania have actually grown, even inside the same development regions. Ana-Maria Icătoiu, an expert in European funds and vice-president of the Federation for Innovation and Sustainable Competitiveness in SMEs (FICSIMM), argues that merging smaller communes and towns into larger administrative units would significantly boost the absorption of EU funds. Such consolidation would help diminish the stark development differences separating small urban areas, rural communes, and major cities, fostering more balanced growth across the country.
The persistence of this outdated system stems largely from political realities. As Septimius Pârvu, an expert in good governance and electoral processes at Expert Forum, observes, mayors serve as crucial vote-gathering levers in both presidential and parliamentary elections. Victories are often decided at the local level rather than in Parliament, creating strong incentives for politicians to preserve the status quo and resist changes that might reduce the number of local power centers.
The human cost of extreme fragmentation
Nowhere is the dysfunction more evident than in Romania’s most depopulated and isolated localities. Countless communes and small towns have experienced severe depopulation, driven by natural attrition, emigration in search of better opportunities, or both. A stark illustration is Bătrâna commune in Hunedoara County, officially the country’s least populated locality, home to just 88 residents, mostly retirees, with ten holding disability certificates. This tiny community lacks a doctor, nurse, or social worker entirely.
Camelia Barb, the commune secretary and one of only five city hall employees, describes the punishing road conditions: “I don’t think anyone will be willing to come from outside the commune. You destroy cars. I’m on the fourth or fifth car I’ve destroyed on the road.” Family doctors, compensated based on patient numbers, have little incentive to serve such sparse populations, forcing residents to travel 30 kilometers to Dobra for medical care—relying on personal vehicles or neighbors’ help, since no public bus service exists.
Barb worries that merging Bătrâna with Dobra, as occurred briefly in 1989, would impose even greater hardships, requiring residents to commute for routine administrative tasks like obtaining certificates. While acknowledging risks to vulnerable groups with limited digital skills or resources, Ovidiu Voicu, executive director of the Center for Public Information, insists such pitfalls can be avoided through thoughtful implementation. Solutions include maintaining local offices, deploying mobile city hall staff, or other decentralized service models to preserve accessibility.
Romania counts over 2,800 communes, yet roughly 300 lack a permanent family doctor, and more than a thousand see one only once or twice weekly. Pârvu notes that many communities are no longer viable independently and should merge to gain administrative strength. Icătoiu highlights how fragmentation cripples EU fund absorption: small units often lack in-house specialists for grants, procurement, or project management, forcing costly outsourcing that inflates expenses and reduces efficiency. Approximately half of local governments survive in perpetual debt, unable to fund basic services or infrastructure. In 2024, a quarter of localities still lacked drinking water networks, with the highest concentrations in Suceava and Vaslui counties – areas also plagued by absent sewage systems.
Northeastern Romania exemplifies concentrated deprivation. As one of the country’s most populous yet poorest regions, according to World Bank data, it long remained isolated until the incomplete A7 Moldovan highway offered a high-speed link to the capital. Without adequate schools, doctors, jobs, or connecting infrastructure, residents in remote communes and small cities feel abandoned, questioning the value of EU membership and fueling broader disillusionment.
Pathways to meaningful and equitable reform
The consequences extend beyond economics to social and political stability. Icătoiu connects poor service quality, some communities lack even a pharmacy, to widespread disappointment among roughly half of Romanians denied decent public amenities. This frustration contributes to skepticism about EU benefits, not due to ignorance but because the public system has failed to communicate advantages or organize inclusively. Continuing the current path risks amplifying isolationist movements across Europe, she warns. National and European institutions have inadequately targeted “pockets of underdevelopment,” leaving impoverished areas with weak infrastructure and social services untouched.
Reform must prioritize service access over pure fiscal austerity. Small localities struggle to prepare EU projects due to missing co-financing or institutional capacity, while uneven procedures and bureaucratic hurdles burden businesses, especially SMEs. Streamlined administration would reduce delays, standardize processes, and ease interactions.
Implementing change demands data-driven decisions across demographics, economy, and services. Voicu points to existing analyses from the past decade, urging policymakers to build on them rather than restart. Two approaches exist: a top-down parliamentary reorganization defining new boundaries, paired with incentives like central grants for voluntary mergers; or bottom-up initiatives, such as ongoing efforts in Satu-Mare and Hunedoara counties, which require local referendums but risk failure if turnout or approval falls short.
Timing matters crucially. Voicu advocates a 2–3-year transition cycle between election rounds, allowing reforms to stabilize before new local votes. This contrasts with earlier statements from President Nicușor Dan suggesting postponement until after 2028 to protect incumbents.
The government’s reserve fund, originally for emergencies, has devolved into a non-transparent mechanism sustaining indebted localities’ salaries and debts for over a decade, a clientelistic tool, Pârvu argues. Romania’s roughly 3,200 administrative-territorial units, largely unchanged since 1968 (with minor adjustments and the brief abolition of about 300 communes before 1989), perpetuate inefficiencies. Cohesion funds have failed to reduce regional gaps; instead, disparities have widened, with experienced localities capturing more projects while others lag further.
True reform, grounded in citizens’ needs, informed by evidence, and executed sensitively, offers Romania a chance to overcome fragmentation, strengthen local governance, enhance EU fund utilization, and rebuild trust in public institutions and European integration. Delaying it only entrenches vulnerabilities that threaten both development and social cohesion.
The analysis in Romanian by EUalive’s partner PressOne.ro can be found here.
Caption: Romanian countryside [Wonders of Europe on X]
Updated: March 20, 2026 - 13:56
